Would you work with Christians/Jews/Muslims in a revolution? [Archive]

View Full Version : Would you work with Christians/Jews/Muslims in a revolution?

Communist Mutant From Outer Space

29th January 2016, 23:20

This might seem odd at first, but seeing as Marxism and anarchism are usually diametrically opposed to religion it would seem fair to say they would favour the forces of reaction (as they did in Russian and Spanish Civil Wars). If a Christian was fighting on our side but for religious reasons, for example, would you work with him/her? How would we deal with theists in a revolution who wanted to maintain churches/mosques/synagogues/whatevers as part of society? Obviously both Marxists and anarchists believe religion will become superfluous once the communist stage is reached, but what if these religions were privy to that and decided to attempt to prolong their existence and their influence by force?

I'm an open anti-theist so I have no real problem asking this the way it sounds, but I should note that I personally would work with a theist in a revolution with no holds barred - in the post-revolutionary stage I however would likely distance myself from them entirely, as I fear their influence may try to sustain itself through violent means.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

30th January 2016, 00:02

There's nothing preventing a religious person from being a communist as well, so, yes.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

30th January 2016, 00:03

1. I think it's inaccurate to describe them as "diametrically opposed". I think it's more of a historical "quirk" than anything.

2. I'm skeptical that religion will be uniquely superfluous in a just society. Or, like, certainly some religious practice and organization should disappear - but there have always been instances of radically egalitarian (usually heretical) religion.

3. Working with religious people ought to be a given. Avowed atheists are an extremely small section of most societies. And many atheists are condescending racist bourgeois pricks.

Zoop

30th January 2016, 00:10

Completely depends on the individual.

Aslan

30th January 2016, 00:22

I would work with anyone who is against the government and capitalism, there are a few exceptions but that is mostly the case for me.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

30th January 2016, 00:24

This is a poorly framed question. Religious individuals are not some sort of enemy; religious institutions are.

To be honest i'm not sure i'd want to take part in a revolution led by people who exclude others for believing in God.

Communist Mutant From Outer Space

30th January 2016, 00:26

If those religious individuals represent and support religious institutions, then what? Presumably they would if they want to continue their worship/congregation, correct? It follows from this they would likely be against dismantling the institutions that propagate their religion. This is not a general rule of course, but a potential dilemma to ponder.

Le LibÃ©rer

30th January 2016, 00:45

People who believe in god can be as vehemently opposed to Capitalism as those who don't. The July 26 Movement had religious members including several priests and they successfully brought the Cuban revolution.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

30th January 2016, 01:57

We should absolutely fight alongside people with whatever metaphysical or mythological viewpoints they hold up until the point where they use those beliefs to justify reactionary positions. It must be made clear that reactionary religious viewpoints must be left at the door. Sure, we should work with Muslims and Christians, but it must be clear that the revolution also stands for the LGBT community that many Muslims and Christians mistrust (if not despise). Same goes for things like abortion rights, women's rights and so on.

Also, there are many reactionary atheists. So many people reject a belief in one metaphysical "Other" like God, yet retain a belief in another "Other" - perhaps the market, the state, the nation, the ethnicity, the race and so on. If many respects, God can be far less harmful of an "Other" than something like race or the nation.

Perhaps a more interesting and problematic question would be what role religious people might have in leadership. It was common among Socialist and Communist parties to ban open religious believers.

Antiochus

30th January 2016, 02:07

A lot of naive, naive people here. No, we should not work with anyone espousing political religion (i.e political Islam or Christian "socialism" etc...), which is what the question suggests. If you are asking, should we work with people who are "Jews but don't believe in it", it is something else entirely.

cyu

30th January 2016, 02:36

If a cop wants to help the revolution, let them help. If a cop wants to fight the revolution, then obviously we can't let them help. Same applies to anybody I suppose.

odysseus

30th January 2016, 03:49

Religion is just a set of symbols and metaphors to communicate an understanding of faith between people. Let Catholics be catholic, but if a future Pope tries to exploit the situation and exert political influence inside a new commie government, then that's the kind of stuff we shouldn't allow. That's just common sense, and the US Constitution already bans that kind of corruption.

Otherwise, it doesn't matter one iota what's important in people's personal lives.

BIXX

30th January 2016, 07:10

If a cop wants to help the revolution, let them help.

They can never be trusted.

odysseus

30th January 2016, 08:04

Can socialism and religion get along?
Socialism, communism and religion have often gotten along very well indeed (even as under other circumstances they have been bitter enemies). That alone suggests that the larger social context shapes how they interact. See for example, the article on the Irish bishops' recent critique of capitalism. Liberation theology was the effort to combine Roman Catholicism and Marxism that attracted and persuaded millions before the Vatican opposed it. It is still widely influential especially in Latin America. I try to deal with this topic also elsewhere on this website. One of my best students over the years, who combined his Jesuit priesthood with Marxism, believed that the two could be and often were compatible partners. I suspect that just as Marxists who take religion seriously will find themselves a particular kind of Marxist, so too will believers who take Marxism seriously thereby become particular sorts of believers. Indeed, religion and mass commitments to Marxism have coexisted especially well in Italy for a long time. And the same applies to non-Marxist variants of socialism.

Also, what about this cop? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2tG1iMrG09s

Philosophos

30th January 2016, 12:18

Depends on the situation and individual. If you have to deal with a mindless fanatic that believes that a theocracy or anything close to it is the best solution then of course I won't want to have anything to do with him/her. At the same time there is this "trend" (I don't know how to call it) that exists for many years, that people take the words of Christ for example and say something completely irelevant like "believe and don't question" which is something that he never said. Once again if I have to deal with a person who doesn't question anything and so on (because of his religion), I wouldn't want to work with him, especially if the goal is a revolution which is something really let's say fragile and needs constant care.

Antiochus

30th January 2016, 21:32

Working with "religious" people. You mean the Iranian revolution? Fuck off lmao. Anyone who fantasizes with this is a traitor.

Rafiq

30th January 2016, 21:43

It is naive to think that a revolution alone, would be anything but atheist.

The fight against the onslaught against bourgeois democracy, is a genuine fight - one that I am sure could include people of a wide range of diverse superstitions. But when push comes to shove, a proletarian revolution is by nature an atheist act.

I simply doubt that one could be religious and engage in a proletariat revolution in the first place. If they could - in practical terms who cares? But at the same time, if a liberal wanted to help in some practical way, why should we care? That's not the point. The point is - what does it mean to be a religious person, or a liberal? It is irreconcilable with being a Communist.

Kilij

31st January 2016, 01:23

I think it simply is a question of where their loyalties lie. If someone believes "In a higher power" but rejects organized religion, its leaders, and castes stemming from it, then as long as they truly follow left ideology then I see no problem. Of course this means more than supporting the fight against fascism and capitalism, but also holding left societal values such as LGBTQ, women's, and abortion rights ABOVE any religious prohibition of such.

Naturally this eliminates a great many of the deeply religious including of course fundamentalists(and in some religions this may mean the revision or rejection of parts of "holy" scripture), those who loyally follow a "divine" or "divinely appointed" leader such as a Pope, Theocrat, or a lineage, and those are unwilling to be productive in a socialist society or at the least are completely self-sufficient(monastics must grow their own food). Of course this mostly just leaves the uncommitted religious and heterodox, and the new age too I suppose.

But I suppose it is also important to note that even orthodox followers of religion are among the oppressed, though I would not suggest the people I described above any place in our organizations or parties, when we liberate the masses, we should show them the same respects and not deny them their churches, temples, and mosques as long they do not express themselves or act against the revolution and the people or values it stands for.

Blake's Baby

31st January 2016, 11:19

It is not communists who make the revolution, it is the working class. Workers believe all sorts of shit - gods, nations, bourgeois ideologies. Are we going to 'not work with the working class' because it has the wrong beliefs? Will we refuse to take part in the working class's revolution because it's not as ideologically pure as we are and hasn't reached our 'advanced' conclusions?

Good luck with 'comrades'.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

31st January 2016, 14:23

a proletarian revolution is by nature an atheist act.
A proletarian revolution is a revolution by proletarians, some of whom may be religious, and some of whom may be atheists.

Rafiq

31st January 2016, 20:16

It is not communists who make the revolution, it is the working class. Workers believe all sorts of shit - gods, nations, bourgeois ideologies. Are we going to 'not work with the working class' because it has the wrong beliefs?

Yet if racism, superstition and darkness is passively and uncritically accepted as an inevitability of their existence, there isn't going to be a revolution in the first place - let alone the possibility of Communism.

Workers do believe all sorts of shit - you're right. The difference is that workers don't have to. They don't have to reproduce the existing order. The point of a proletarian revolution is the abolition of themselves as proletarians - Marx said, the proletariat is the class which is not even a real class. The proletariat are not the revolutionary force becasue of some positive condition of their existence - no, quite on the contrary, they are the revolutionary force because they are the only class which has nothing to lose (as a non-class, i.e. they don't have a stake in the existing order).

Marx recognizes this, which is why he also recognizes that without organization, politically, the 'proletariat' is literally just a conglomeration of different individual subjects in capitalism. Without their political organization, the 'proletariat' is simply a word which stands for the peripheral citizen in capitalism, stripped of all positive extra-civic privilege. Nothing about this class makes them revolutionary. It is only that which is not about this class that makes them revolutionary.

It is negative - the proletariat are a revolutionary force because they lack certain characteristics (property), not because they possess any that are special.

The proletariat represents the possibility of the socially conscious man - the man of the future, who can mold himself and the social conditions he finds himself in consciously. But this is not an inevitability. It requires will.

A proletarian revolution is a revolution by proletarians, some of whom may be religious, and some of whom may be atheists.

Yet you assume that a proletarian revolution, by proletarians, is possible if revolutionaries retain their superstition. This is what is being rejected. Proletarians also happen to be racists, reactionaries, and some are even predisposed to Fascism.

The religious dimension is not one that is absolved from the social. On the contrary it only exists in relation to the social. It is not as though someone is religious in the same way as they have red hair. This 'private space' must be subject to critique, for it is the space that Communism will occupy.

AdrianO

31st January 2016, 21:56

Blake's Baby

31st January 2016, 23:46

Yet if racism, superstition and darkness is passively and uncritically accepted as an inevitability of their existence, there isn't going to be a revolution in the first place - let alone the possibility of Communism...

...The proletariat represents the possibility of the socially conscious man - the man of the future, who can mold himself and the social conditions he finds himself in consciously. But this is not an inevitability. It requires will...

Yes, I agree.

But what then is the relationship between what we understand as the class-conscious vanguard and the rest of the working class? If the working class as a a whole is criticising its own conditions of existence to the point of setting up workers' councils, taking the running of society into its own hands, the ideological dross will be cast away. But it will be cast away as the proletariat builds the revolution, not as a precondition of it. The revolution will 'start' with all sorts of workers having all sorts of confusions. I'm pretty certain that a lot of people claiming to be communists will have a lot of confusions and illusions, never mind the rest of the working class.

The marchers who followed Father Gapon in 1905 believed that the Czar would help them; the Paris Commune of 1871 was formed because the government didn't defeat the Prussians; these movements went beyond where they started, because the working class in revolt finds that it cappable of discarding the bourgeois muck. I think it will be the same 'next time'. The working class will go into the revolution believing all sorts of things. It would not be necessary for communist minorities to be the 'clearest about the line of march', if the rest of the working class wasn't more-or-less unclear.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

1st February 2016, 02:21

Yet you assume that a proletarian revolution, by proletarians, is possible if revolutionaries retain their superstition.
No, I assume that a revolution will be made by actually-existing people, with all the contradictions that entails. If religion withers away in the great masses of people, it will be post-revolution, as the new material conditions create a new consciousness.

wehbolno

1st February 2016, 02:49

TheMaroon

1st February 2016, 06:07

In sociology and psychology there are several methods of gathering information, one of the most popular methods, and the method with the most results would be the Survey method. For the survey to work you must get samples from a large, diverse population of people. The same could be said about revolutions. Too many times revolutions are led by groups who want superiority for one class, one race, or one religion; for it to work, for it to succeed, for a permanent revolution you must have a majority of the whole of the population, not just sects of it.

So yes. I would work with those of Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, and even Satanic backgrounds just to make it work. To destroy the establishment in all forms. Because if they are part of the same revolution as I then they want an absolute reconstruction of how things work, and chances are they accept that those conditions may also include the establishments governing their religion. Besides, religious people fighting for a cause have an extra sense of valor. Their religion keeps fear of death away for some of them.

XD put 'em on the front lines. :laugh:

Heretek

1st February 2016, 13:34

This is like asking if we'd work with the workers in the first place. Marx himself said "religion is the opiate of the masses," so it makes sense that the mass of people, I.e. workers, is influenced by *gasp* religion. There is of course a difference in working with the religious and working with religious institutions. For example, we would still work with a worker who has been at some point touched by fascism, but we certainly would not work with actual fascists and their sympathizers.

Whether or not revolution can be begun by 'professional revolutionaries' is still contested among the left, but it is not contested that the workers must be an integral part of the revolution. Any who say otherwise are obviously not talking about a workers revolution

RedQuarks

2nd February 2016, 02:17

Though a late response on my part, I feel I have a few things to add. First, while many communists do tend to be atheist or agnostic, there are certainly many (even on this forum) that do hold religious beliefs. Now, I myself feel that religion is inherently unscientific and only a tool of exploitation, most often. That being said, when religion is simply left on its own and is not combined with politics or used to deny science, there is really no harm done. Though I am an atheist, I have studied some religions a little, and have found that there is beauty in some religious music, architecture, prayers, traditions, etc. The issue is that religion almost always brings with it at least some extreme adherence to tradition, and thus fundamentalism and conservatism.

Now, we must understand that many hard working and intelligent humans do hold religious beliefs, and that they cannot be discounted from revolution or action. Communism is inherently not incompatible with religion itself, but with most religious institutions of today. If people wish to believe in god(s) x,(y), and (z) so be it. Oppressive acts and beliefs such as Christian gay hate, anti-abortion movements, anti-nuclear movements, and Islamic fundamentalism, to name a few, are not compatible with communism as they enforce the idea of hierarchy. For one group to hate another, they assume superiority of dominance, which already is anti-communist, but also enforces hierarchy, not to mention the usage of priests and whatnot to carry out religious ceremonies. Thus, I would argue that decentralized religious practice such as prayer, reading of religious texts, gatherings to discuss religion could be incorporated into a communist society with no issue. Still remains the issue that hierarchical structures such as the usage of Priests, Imams, and Lamas simply cannot be compatible by their very definition. The only real problem is that these structures are intrinsic parts of some denominations, thus while religions such as Christianity may still exist, I would argue that Catholicism, for example would have a much harder time surviving in a Communist society than a more decentralized Lutheran church. Furthermore, religious institutions and their leaders tend to breed hate in worshippers for their own benefit or simply out of religious zeal, thus creating further conflict. Beliefs of judgement days, opposition to abortion, denial of evolution and climate change also cannot be tolerated if a functional communist society is to exist.

I should further note that access to information in the past century and increasing human knowledge and control over our own conditions has not only allowed atheism and agnosticism to be accepted, but has allowed it to grow, quite rapidly. I think that even in a capitalist society, if trends continue, each successive generation will be less religious. I personally hope that this does happen -- I appreciate the cultures of people, but I still view religion as often dogmatic and quite hierarchical. Still, some religious communities and monasteries have functioned in a communal manner, religion itself is not an evil, but its institutions are corrupt and are incompatible with communism. Just my two cents.

Rafiq

2nd February 2016, 03:05

No, I assume that a revolution will be made by actually-existing people, with all the contradictions that entails. If religion withers away in the great masses of people, it will be post-revolution, as the new material conditions create a new consciousness.

Religion will not 'wither away' - that is ridiculous. Nothing as it pertains to human consciousness will simply 'wither away' - the point of Communism is that it represents for the first time man's consciousness of his social being. It represents that, for the first time, man's will alone becomes a real material force.

Again, this pertains to a wider controversy. A revolution cannot happen without a fundamental shift already occurring in the broad masses of people - wrought from both the unity of organization and culminative struggle. Honestly this alone is really where the controversy is - the original Marxist understanding of the necessity of disseminating scientific consciousness among the broad masses, and organized struggle as a pre-requisite for any revolution. The 'culture' of atheism, Communism, etc. must precede a revolution first and foremost. The point is not that they will create 'new material conditions' that will change them, the point is that before then - all that inspires their struggle is faith in themselves. A revolution represents precisely the actualization of faith. Material conditions in Communism will amount to nothing more than human will unified with social consciousness.

It is precisely the point that a revolution will be made by 'actual existing people', that makes it an atheist at. A revolution - as an act - is not simply atheist insofar as this is measured in the religious identity of its constituent - it is literally a godless act, an act which is atheist in practice, destroying the practical basis of god. The same reason that people have superstitions and believe in gods, relates to the same lack of faith in oneself that is necessary for a revolution. A revolution is an act wherein a sacred dimension is destroyed - with no guarantee that it will be superseded, replaced with something more favorable without your active will.

It is comparable to desecrating a pagan statue, and having faith you will not incur divine retribution. If you cannot see this, then for you a revolution is little more than an abstraction.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

2nd February 2016, 03:46

If you cannot see this, then for you a revolution is little more than an abstraction.
I'm not the one who would exclude the majority of actually existing workers during a sudden revolutionary situation over something that doesn't hinder their ability to struggle against capitalism.

Rafiq

2nd February 2016, 04:14

But there will be no sudden revolutionary situation - it will happen only after a level of social consciousness from organization, struggle exists. That is where the disagreement lies.

Thirsty Crow

2nd February 2016, 11:33

There's nothing about any sort of belief in the supernatural that outright makes one way of acting - what we call revolution - impossible. Such beliefs are themselves pliable and can even be molded so as to support such acting. The evidence for the latter is to be found in contemporary religious socialist currents.

Another question is how would the religious sub-communities themselves be affected and transformed by this process:
If those religious individuals represent and support religious institutions, then what? Presumably they would if they want to continue their worship/congregation, correct? It follows from this they would likely be against dismantling the institutions that propagate their religion. This is not a general rule of course, but a potential dilemma to ponder.

Obviously, for a good number of religious people who participate in an institution of sorts it would matter a great deal how said institution relates to their activity as revolutionary worker; it's fair to assume that relation to and attitudes about such institutions could shift significantly because of this. In other words, yes religious folk would most probably want to maintain the religious community, but it just might not be the same religious community as the one which they belonged to in the past. They might change it just as we might collectively change the way we produce and live.

And I don't think that decreed dismantling of any kind of a religious institution whatsoever and enforcing atheism is something that should be advocated by communists, for the simple reason that these aren't synonymous with reactionary views and destructive social practices. The latter is what is fair game for the revolutionary process, and yes many of these will be motivated by religious belief of one kind or another. However, it doesn't follow that there is a necessity of active repression and ostracism when it comes to all kinds of religious belief. It's irrelevant what a group of people does on a Sunday morning; it's also irrelevant whether they're talking about their beliefs. You might find it odd and funny, but the important thing here are other aspects of their life activity (one of those as well is imposition of said belief and discriminatory and destructive practices towards people deemed outside that group). In this sense, of course I'd "work with" religious people, but that doesn't mean anything goes and all is dandy and fine.

Aurorus Ruber

2nd February 2016, 14:09

Oppressive acts and beliefs such as Christian gay hate, anti-abortion movements, anti-nuclear movements, and Islamic fundamentalism, to name a few, are not compatible with communism as they enforce the idea of hierarchy.

I thought the whole anti-nuclear thing was mainly an environmental rather than religious issue. I have never heard of Christian fundamentalists protesting nuclear power or condemning nuclear physics as ungodly. Although I have often wondered what they would make of the practice of synthesizing entirely new elements past uranium.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

2nd February 2016, 18:58

Rafiq

2nd February 2016, 20:09

The evidence for the latter is to be found in contemporary religious socialist currents.

That is quite some 'evidence'. In fact there has been, is, and always will be a great deal of difference between such currents and ours - beyond abstract metaphysical beliefs. There is no such thing as a religious-socialist current, these are distinguishable on social lines. If we take liberation theology, for example, it is not difficult to decipher its petty bourgeois nature, for example in Latin America. There is absolutely no exception. Every single socialist who professes some kind of superstition, this always has the same exact implications for a plethora of other positions, and I have yet to find a single exception to this. These kind of superstitions always entail a set of reactionary sensitivities - whether it pertains to nature, the family, destruction of private property. Always. The implications of 'religious' socialism always extend beyond some abstract beliefs, because these beliefs are not in fact abstract - they relate to real concrete phenomena.

Superstition owes its existence to nothing arbitrary.

We speak of scientific socialism. We never spoke of "socialists who may or may not scientifically understand the world". This understanding and what we call socialism are synonymous - atheism in practice, and Communism, effectively, are synonymous.

The way an individual or subgroup articulates a particular event ideologically does not necessarily change the material course of the event.

This is effectively simply confused - one cannot abstract the articulation of 'the material' from the actual material itself, because the ideological articulation of what you abstract as the 'material' is irrevocably a part of its reproduction. Ideology in capitalism is a part of capitalism - it cannot be abstracted from it.

It is not as though there is a material event that occurs independent of men and women, and that men and women simply articulate it differently for arbitrary reasons. Events - socialist revolutions in particular - are not only, only carried out by men and women, but by socially conscious men and women. What that means is effectively - not only is how it is articulated important, how ones social being is articulated by revolutionaries alone will make a revolution possible, becasue this articulation will be congruent with their revolutionary action.

A socialist revolution - is a socially-conscious act. Almost everyone in this thread falls victim to anti-democratic discourse in conceiving how the masses will 'respond' to the revolution. My dear friends, what revolution are you making a pretension to? Carried out by whom? You think that a revolution in the context of a modern state can simply happen without the mobilization of the masses themselves? Without fundamentally being either congruent with, or the culmination conclusion of a profound ideological, cultural change among them?

Again, this 'revolution' is an abstract. Communism is boundless. There is no private space that it deems sacred. Even people like Zizek fall victim to not understanding Communism, when he sais that "I simply want alienation - things to go on, so I can write my books and watch movies" .

As log as the logic of the revolution affirms the material agency of the working class independently of a mythological order on a social level, the content of individual beliefs is irrelevant

In fact would it surprise you, if I told you that the content of their individual beliefs... Relates directly to the controversies of the social dimension? I will repeat it again:

The same reason why people believe in superstitions, big others, gods - is the same reason why they lack the faith necessary to act as socially self-conscious individuals.

A proletarian revolution is absolutely totally distinct from any other kind of revolution. It is not like a bourgeois revolution. It is not like the Arab spring. It is not like a color revolution. A proletarian revolution is an atheist act, plain and simple. The capacity of religious people to participate in bourgeois revolutions no one doubts. The point is - they will never be a part of a socially self-conscious revolution. The sensitivity of the religious is weakness, it is servility - moreover, it is compromise. Communists do not spiritually compromise.

After all, religion itself is as Marx argues the "heart of a heartless world" and it may well continue to give meaning to some.

Marx, who argued that religion was the "heart of a heartless world" - oh, that romantic Marx, who we might interpret to be saying that the heartlessness of our world, is an inevitability of human existence, that all worlds must be heartless and that religion is a timeless means that which this heartlessness dealt with. Except upon rudimentary assessment of the context that which Marx was saying this, he was not saying that. He was saying that OUR WORLD in PARTICULAR was heartless, the point is that the world of Communism - would in fact - not be heartless (without alienation, and so on). If one doesn't believe this is possible, one is not a Communist.

Marx's point was simply that in previous societies, the 'heart' of the world was inscribed into the social edifice, and that religion was not abstracted from it - so that the spiritual basis of society, was implicit in the social relations that constitute society. For Marx capitalism is different - religion is effectively destroyed in capitalism, or to put it more clearly - in secular capitalist society (which is always secular - even in Iran, for example, where religion is an ideological aesthetic, not the Islam of the Safavids), the spiritual basis of society is divorced from official, civic society. Religion, absolved of the official legitimacy it had in previous epochs, was relegated to an opium - at the same time, one that is necessary to reproduce the conditions of capitalism.

The reason it takes on the status of an opium is quite simple - in previous societies, religion formed the basis of that society's epistemological capacity. There was no dissonance between the practical functioning of society, and religious superstition. But in capitalism, there is an outwardly dissonance - for example, between bourgeois science and religious institutions. The reason it is an opium is because it is conceived or preferred to be a private manner - private in the sense that it is not subject to universal reason in the same way bourgeois science is. So in effect, all religions are the same - they serve the same purpose. All that separates new age mysticism from Islam spiritually is solely 'cultural' and political. The spiritual substance is the same.

Heretek

2nd February 2016, 20:48

The way an individual or subgroup articulates a particular event ideologically does not necessarily change the material course of the event. If a few workers think the creation of a secular Communist society by the voluntary action of the "working class" is the creation of the Biblical or Koranic Kingdom of Heaven, why care? If there are some Buddhists who think the revolution creates conditions whereby we can overcome our attachment to property, will they really undermine its course?

Perhaps they will learn to abandon their religious beliefs after the revolution, perhaps not. As log as the logic of the revolution affirms the material agency of the working class independently of a mythological order on a social level, the content of individual beliefs is irrelevant. After all, religion itself is as Marx argues the "heart of a heartless world" and it may well continue to give meaning to some. Why exclude these people from the process?

Also, how would you tell? Are we going to interrogate people on their beliefs, or are we going to just take people on their word? In that case, is the problem merely being publicly religious? Someone could in theory act and speak as an atheist while having their private faith, much as the Spanish conversos and moriscos went around reading their Tannakh and their Quran in private while going to Cathedral on Sundays. Perhaps we need our future NKVD to go around and have an atheist inquisition?

Unfortunately for Catholicism, we stand against oppression, and that includes dominating the masses with the word of an old man in Rome. He once had the power to launch the western world into war, and while this hasn't happened recently, this is something we'd rather avoid. As has been said, the very act of revolution will change the relations of the world. The 'terror,' as it is called, is basically unavoidable, as society in revolt goes through its stages of ridding itself of the old way. It happens in every revolution, socially changing or not. The government is vandalised and lycnhed, suspected traitors face harsh justice, and counterrevolutionaries are hunted in all their many forms. It is not too far fetched this will influence religion, seeing as the hierarchal relations are mirrors of the old way, and could indeed be shown as counterrevolutionary. This may, unfortunately, affect the innocent, as has been done in previous terrors. Your point about an inquisition may not be too far off.

LuÃs Henrique

2nd February 2016, 20:49

A proletarian revolution is a revolution by proletarians, some of whom may be religious, and some of whom may be atheists.

Do you think that, say, Lutherans, never committ "atheist acts"?

Luís Henrique

Rafiq

2nd February 2016, 21:27

Do you think that, say, Lutherans, never committ "atheist acts"?

Luís Henrique

Not insofar as they are Lutherans they don't. They may do so - for example - at the expense of this identity as proletarians, let's say as people joining up with the momentum of a revolution who were won over at the heat of the moment, or just more loosely associated with an actually existing movement beforehand.

But in doing this, they would have already discarded their Lutheranism - it would not be compatible with such an action insofar as it occupies a place in their consciousness with their participation in a revolutionary situation or the period after one.

The degree that which they would remain committed Lutherans during such a moment, of course, would depend on the side they take. But that is because somewhere, there is a real existing movement of mobilized, self-conscious, militant proletarians carrying out the revolution so that people on the outside, who beforehand lacked the necessary faith, can join in. If there is nothing to join into in the first place, there is not much to say about it.

Thirsty Crow

2nd February 2016, 23:51

That is quite some 'evidence'.In fact, it's uncontroversial evidence.

Though, one thing to keep in mind is what is it evidence for - and that would be:

There's nothing about any sort of belief in the supernatural that outright makes one way of acting - what we call revolution - impossible. Such beliefs are themselves pliable and can even be molded so as to support such acting. The evidence for the latter is to be found in contemporary religious socialist currents.

If it needs to be made clearer still, I think it is completely and utterly beyond question that at least one Russian worker in late 1917 did in fact believe in a god. That's pretty much what it takes for me to successfully defend what I set out to defend in the first place (of course, high theorists wouldn't be limited by such petty things as what someone wants to show).

We speak of scientific socialism. We never spoke of "socialists who may or may not scientifically understand the world". This understanding and what we call socialism are synonymous - atheism in practice, and Communism, effectively, are synonymous. Oh jolly good, but you know I'm not speaking about socialists. I'm speaking about people who do certain things and in certain ways, no matter what labels are attached to either them personally or to their actions.

Rafiq

3rd February 2016, 00:33

Well certainly as you can see from my response to Luis I agree (in a conditional way) - but you said contemporary religious socialist currents are evidence for this, not existence of at least one worker who held religious views who participated in the October revolution.

Such a worker, would be comparable to the Lutheran in our example above.

Thirsty Crow

3rd February 2016, 00:44

Such a worker, would be comparable to the Lutheran in our example above.
You mean, the example which toys with the complete nonsense of an idea of "atheist acts"?
There's no atheist acts even though there are acts no atheist would do.

The point I'm making is really simple. Religious faith on its own - belief in any kind of an intelligent creator - doesn't by itself prescribe any kinds of actions. To go further, even belief in an antropomorphic deity, based in one way on a selectively appropriated tradition of Abrahamic creeds, doesn't prescribe actions, much less those which would hinder social revolution.

The reason for this is that such kind of ideas is much more pliable than ideas based on assessment of matters of fact. And it makes no sense whatsoever, and cannot be supported by any kind of evidence, to assume that socialists believing in silly things

always has the same exact implications for a plethora of other positions, and I have yet to find a single exception to this. These kind of superstitions always entail a set of reactionary sensitivities - whether it pertains to nature, the family, destruction of private property. Always.

Because what you did or didn't find is your own problem and not anything that counts for demonstrating a de facto logical impossibility.

BIXX

3rd February 2016, 01:25

I think the central issue surrounding organizing with religious people isn't their belief in gods but their belief in morality and how that intersects with action one might take and the world they wish to form

Rafiq

3rd February 2016, 02:32

There's no atheist acts even though there are acts no atheist would do

If there are certain things an atheist cannot do, there are also certain things a superstitious person cannot do. How can it be otherwise? Think about what you are saying. If there are certain things you cannot do, by merit of being an atheist, then there are also certain things you cannot do by merit of being religious - becasue the dimension of religiosity and a lack of which, is a practical one, one that relates to peoples lives in a practical way. If you cannot accept this, then you must accept that the same acts which atheists in particular cannot do, others also cannot do. For example, to pray to a god. You don't have to be an atheist to not be able to pray to a god - you can have some other kind of superstition, some erratic belief which forbids one from praying. If the practical dimension of being an atheist simply means "You cannot do anything that is necessitated by the outwardly belief in a god", then those same acts which atheists in particular cannot do, or 'would' do, are exactly acts that some superstitious people also would not do.

You simply can't identify the practical difference between being an atheist and not an atheist, because by your qualifications, there is no practical difference - atheism and the lack of which relate to abstractions. That is because you have no notion of atheism or superstitious belief. You will tell me that ones atheism can be sustained by the "lack of empirical evidence for a god". Yet the reason why people believe in a god, how it relates to them, has nothing to do with a pretension to something they deem empirically knowable - but precisely the opposite, an insistence on something as unknowable. They do not believe in a god, in otherwords, because by their qualifications - those 'idiots' - it has been proven to them empirically. So when someone sais they are an atheist because "I don't have any proof", they are an idiot, because it's not as though people are too stupid to know it is not empirically proven - the point is that they don't care. Moreover they are more honest than the pseudo-atheists who simply keep their superstitions private, even from themselves. Always, there is always some island of superstition - without exception - by non-Communist atheists. The atheist Jew who still secretly, implicitly, thinks that Israel was given to them by god, the atheist Muslim who still won't touch pork - this is how belief works, it's through one's actions, not simply their self-identified beliefs.

The dimension of religious belief, exists outside of the empirical, does not care for it, exists independently from it. Even if you somehow proved a god existed - it would not change the nature of religious belief. EVEN IF they were correct, and the god was real empirically, it would not make their belief any less pathological.

Yet the qualifications for how an 'atheist act' is defined has been made quite clear - in claiming that "there's no atheist acts", you effectively demonstrate your ignorance toward this end. How an atheist is qualified, on the terms I am using, are quite unconventional - I recognize that, which is why I regularly clarify this. There are effectively atheist acts in the same way Engels recognized that the English workers had already become atheists in practice. To believe in a god is practical - it has a practical purpose in relation to your life. To act in a godless way, is to be free from the practical necessity of superstition. It is quite that simple - it entails doing things, that which are halted by merit of a religious belief.

I mean nothing I am saying is so crazy - or even particularly complex. Any child can understand that the dimension of superstitious belief, in a god (or nature, etc.) that is, occupies a space in human consciousness that relates to actual human life. It does not owe its existence to anything arbitrary. It has a real function, basis of existence. People believe in a god, because they have a reason to. If they didn't have a reason for believing in a god, they wouldn't believe in one (or any other kind of superstition). So the controversy can't be about stupid word games - the controversy is about whether this reason relates to particularities of their social being. Some would have it that this reason, relates to an 'inevitable human impulse' to 'know the unknowable', because - you see - there is a great mystery about this world: Who created it? Where did it come from? Questions which are already abstractions that presuppose a god.

You can contest me: "No, Rafiq, a revolution is not an atheist act. There is something outside of the conscious imperatives of men and women that will incur it". You can, truly. You can wait for your revolution. And it will never come.

The whole logic is nonsense, how people think. "Oh, nothing matters, as long as people are O.K. with the abstraction called a 'revolution' with specific demands that exist in a vacuum, they can be religious, they can be anything" - You don't need any dialectical wizardry to recognize how this simply lacks consideration for the wider implications of a revolution, what it means in relation to people's beliefs - which do not exist in a vacuum. The very notion of a revolution is probably controversy toward our ends - what is necessary for one, and so on. Nevermind a proletarian revolution - my contention is and has been that a revolutionary movement alone will be atheist in character, and in practical terms atheist. Nevermind the overthrow of the state - an iota of the necessity faith required for people to simply fight for a program today, necessitates an atheism, or at least a leadership that is atheist.

The point I'm making is really simple. Religious faith on its own - belief in any kind of an intelligent creator - doesn't by itself prescribe any kinds of actions.

A 'belief in a kind of intelligent creator' is not something that can be abstracted from what it means for someone to think there is an 'intelligent creator' (which is far too specific for what constitutes the essential basis of this kind of superstition) - it means something in relation to the subject, that has implications regarding their social condition. That is to say, the qualifications for what constitutes a "belief in an intelligent creator" proper, extend far beyond a person saying "I believe in a kind of intelligent creator". The depth of their 'belief' extends far beyond the simple, innocent identification, and this is what you fail to understand when I say this. Superstitions mean and entail things. The fact of the matter is that you have no notion of the complexity or depth of such beliefs, you have no notion of their practical function in relation to the subject - so it's quite easy to say that "belief in an anthropomorphic deity doesn't prescribe actions", because "belief in an anthropomorphic deity" is an abstraction, it does not relate to the essential basis of this belief as it relates to the subject's consciousness. Now by positivist qualifications, of course, all of this is quite unknowable. Yet it should be clear by now that the very consistent and thoroughly defended epistemological standards Rafiq abides by disregard these standards.

I mean - of course belief in any kind of intelligent creator doesn't "by itself" prescribe any kinds of actions. That is because belief in any kind of "intelligent creator" ('intelligent creator', as though there is a kind of empirical respect for such superstition, as though the superstition makes pretense to the empirical) cannot exist "by itself" - this has implications beyond the confines of such a worthless abstraction. The question therefore is not simply "can a person who holds an abstract belief engage in a revolution", the question is, what does it mean for the person in question to have such self-proclaimed beliefs, in relation to 'revolutionary action'? You would have us think that such beliefs are totally arbitrary and insignificant as they pertain to the social dimension. This is what is being contested, and that much should be obvious at this point.

To go further, even belief in an antropomorphic deity, based in one way on a selectively appropriated tradition of Abrahamic

In fact I am not even being so modest as to claim that "belief in an anthropomorphic deity" based on any official religious tradition is particularly incompatible with the necessary confidence through a revolution. I am saying that any and all kinds of superstition, including the popular kinds of ecology fetishism that today substitute official religious beliefs, entail a state of consciousness in relation to the social, that is incompatible with proletarian consciousness, which is nothing more than social and historical consciousness - which is necessary for any proletarian revolution as a precondition.

I am not even being so modest so as to be specific here - it does not matter if one conceives this as the abrahamic god, cosmic balance, nature - or even evolution as a kind of meaningful force - all of these are necessarily the same exact god, which is the god of capital. The differences only extend insofar as they are 'cultural' and often times political (or both). For example, the implications of someone believing in a 'cosmic balance' instead of the abrahamic god, probably relate to the opposition to the rigidity of the Christian religion on a cultural level. Insofar as it pertains to their spiritual substance, they are all identical - that is simply why former Evangelicals, and even former Muslims (myself included) often times go through a period (which they retain, most of the time) where they adopt a new superstition in place of the old. But this is only on the face value (again, for cultural or political reasons) - as far as the function of belief goes, this god - no matter what it's name is - effectively is the same god. It is the name for the superstition that sustains the existing order, the external guarantee (external from men and women) that the existing order (mode of production) is either inevitable, necessary, and so on.

Human life for you - is an unknowable dimension. You have no reason to know it - after all, what goes on in the heads of men and women - that's purely arbitrary, right? And where it is knowable, it emanates no consideration for its depth and complexity ("Why not, bro? Why can't and still have revolution?") . Yet I contest this arrogance - because you're still a part of it - it is pure ignorance and nothing more.

The reason for this is that such kind of ideas is much more pliable than ideas based on assessment of matters of fact. And it makes no sense whatsoever, and cannot be supported by any kind of evidence, to assume that socialists believing in silly things

That investigating the dimension of the social, and of human consciousness does not fit the positivist qualifications for acquiring knowledge, is literally just ironic - considering that never before has mysticism, metaphysics, etc. been so rampant in supplementing - if not outright accompanying - the sciences today, or at least how they practically relate to people. That is to say - designating this specific dimension, no matter your "There's no evidence, we simply don't know" [I]is simply an inevitability - positivist standards will simply have you keep it private. Even where you tell yourself you are a nice agnostic, it doesn't matter - because the minute a certain sensitivity is touched, whether it is nature or something else, without exception you become a believer in practice. But again, what is irrelevant is the simple fact: This dimension is one that is constituted by none other than men and women. To speak of "proof" and "evidence" is nonsense, because there is no extra-empirical proof necessary in conceiving, scientifically, the social order and its implications in our very shared space of reason that we already are a part of and relate to.

Those that have a practical inclination to conceive this dimension (Communists), can conceive it scientifically. As for the rest - in the spirit of Zinoviev speaking about the red terror - we have nothing to say to them.

Because what you did or didn't find is your own problem and not anything that counts for demonstrating a de facto logical impossibility

No, you're simply playing with abstractions. I never said it was an impossibility for someone to have religious views as an individual to somehow, participate in a socialist revolution. I simply said that this is conditional, insofar as one would not be acting as a religious person if they are doing this, because religion has a very real explainable basis of existence - despite what pop-science trash would have us believe. Exceptions may be exceptions, but they are still rationally explicable. There would be a specific reason as to why one would identify in such a way. Perhaps they are simply pressured to go with the flow (and not in their hearts engaged with the events). Perhaps they do not believe the revolution will last, and that somehow they have something to gain from it temporarily. There are multiple different reasons - the point is, they would be exceptional ones.

You fail to understand that I am not making a pretense to anything empirically controversial. Which is why, it is most likely that despite the fact that this does not fit your positivist qualifications for proof - you know damned well I'm right - that is - you know exactly that for someone to believe in a god, this has implications beyond the abstraction called "Person believing in an intelligent creator" - it has very concrete, social implications that relate to the exact practical nature of this belief in a god.

Only if this 'belief' is abstracted into the phrase, effectively devoid of any substance: "Belief in an anthropomorphic intelligent creator" can you say what you say. "There's nothing necessarily incompatible with believing in a higher deity and engaging in revolution".

How do I respond? You have no notion of what properly constitutes superstitious belief and how it functions. It's that simple.

Thirsty Crow

3rd February 2016, 03:14

It's time comrades it's time for sentences in fucking bold.

Yet the qualifications for how an 'atheist act' is defined has been made quite clear - in claiming that "there's no atheist acts", you effectively demonstrate your ignorance toward this end. How an atheist is qualified, on the terms I am using, are quite unconventional - I recognize that, which is why I regularly clarify this. There are effectively atheist acts in the same way Engels recognized that the English workers had already become atheists in practice. To believe in a god is practical - it has a practical purpose in relation to your life. To act in a godless way, is to be free from the practical necessity of superstition. It is quite that simple - it entails doing things, that which are halted by merit of a religious belief. It's that fucking bold but alas it's a mere tautology.

Practical necessity of superstion could only mean there's practical benefit to superstition - like conforming to the common practices of a community that is predominantly superstitious. Since this will grant you in-group status, the benefits of being a recognized member of a quite specific a community.

Other than this, there's no sense here to be found since the idea of practical necessity - meaning specific social-economic role working as so heavy a burden as to make beliefs in equality in high heaven nigh irresistible - doesn't and cannot account for actual people actually believing all sorts of fanciful stuff, and yet acting as part of what distinguished theorists would call a mass of workers in revolutionary action.

I mean nothing I am saying is so crazy - or even particularly complex.
No one claimed it is either. It is neither crazy nor complex - it is merely nonsense. Since any meaningful description of human actions as either religious or atheist necessarily refers to the aspect of relating to a divinity, be it (as BIXX rightly points out) either through morals and moral/immoral acts, be it through acts of ritual which are the sole domain of superstition.

The only problem being moral actions are also pliable, and moreover bent to conform to one's own religious views as well.

Any child can understand that the dimension of superstitious belief, in a god (or nature, etc.) that is, occupies a space in human consciousness that relates to actual human life.Really?

I mean, you must have extensive experience in studying the cognition of children, toddlers even.
Or it might be this is a cheap rhetorical move of suggesting, without explicitly saying so, that the person you're talking to is no better than kids in understanding fundamental stuff.

Take your pick, and I'll be looking forward to supporting evidence for the former in particular.

It does not owe its existence to anything arbitrary. It has a real function, basis of existence. People believe in a god, because they have a reason to. If they didn't have a reason for believing in a god, they wouldn't believe in one (or any other kind of superstition). So the controversy can't be about stupid word games - the controversy is about whether this reason relates to particularities of their social being.
Perfectly correct, though it isn't clear at all that exploitation and class domination are the sole determinants of having religious belief - and we've moved on from silly ideas that these are bound to lead to, by some cosmic law, effects that are socially reactionary. It's also far from clear just how these beliefs are supposed to be eradicated during the whole process of build up to social revolution, and it remains a mere empty assumption they will be eradicated.

The whole purpose of this neat little exercise being, no I don't expect everyone will be atheist if and when shit goes down; yes, of course I'd "work" with them even though they describe their motives for such actions in a language of religion (barring the possibility of continued prejudice and drives to persuade other people to adopt such an outlook; in that case hell fucking no you won't, but not by means of outlawing your creed and any looking like it by decree backed by force, but by concerted, collective ostracism and critical attack first, and if it doesn't we're screwed anyway so fuck it all).

In fact, I'd settle for personal anecdotes involving toddlers and/or older children. If that's too strict than fuck it, second hand anecdotes are welcome as well.

And for concluding remarks since this stream-of-thought is as heavy as poisonous as lead:

Human life for you - is an unknowable dimension.
...this is true but only partially; you see, the way cretins function and what the flying fuck they're on about is really something that is almost an "unknowable dimension" to me. Guilty as charged, and yes it is quite simple I'd say.

Rafiq

3rd February 2016, 04:27

Practical necessity of superstion could only mean there's practical benefit to superstition - like conforming to the common practices of a community that is predominantly superstitious. Since this will grant you in-group status, the benefits of being a recognized member of a quite specific a community.

Yet in fact what is not being subject to critical evaluation is why these superstitions are practiced and predominant in a given community - you literally do not even come close to addressing my point, it doesn't matter as to whether such superstitions are facilitated through community rituals, or through an individual with their 'erratic beliefs' because the same practical dimension of superstition remains. You simply don't understand the basis of this superstition, which is why you mention communities in the first place - I specifically addressed, in fact, the 'cultural' and 'political' dimension of superstition, and how variance in self-proclaimed religious beliefs often times is simply owed to these factors. Yet the underlying basis of the superstition itself, whose practical basis for persons is irreducible to sheer and direct cultural pressure insofar as one 'conforms' to a specific community (i.e. a Muslim or Jewish community).

And even so, for the vast majority of - for example - American youths, the practical basis of superstition does not fit this qualification. What is the practical basis in being 'spiritual', in being a new ager, in believing in 'cosmic balance', nature and so on? You avoid the question.

Other than this, there's no sense here to be found since the idea of practical necessity - meaning specific social-economic role working as so heavy a burden as to make beliefs in equality in high heaven nigh irresistible - doesn't and cannot account for actual people actually believing all sorts of fanciful stuff, and yet acting as part of what distinguished theorists would call a mass of workers in revolutionary action

In your mind, does this constitute addressing the argument I made? I sure hope not, because you haven't, you haven't even touched upon the argument, moreover you haven't properly addressed how the 'practical' basis of religion was argued on my part - not that you have to agree with it, but you haven't even recognized the distinct argument as I put it forth. This again relates to the futility of our interaction on part of the fact of your positivist philistinism. I mean of course there is no meaning or sense to be found here - these are things which you have no practical inclination to know. God forbid, you don't have to know them - you don't, really, you can be content with your ignorance and the world will keep spinning, and you won't go through any existential crisis. You'll be fine. Yet such a discussion is reserved for those of us who have a practical inclination to know, practically, processes we seek to confront and a dimension we seek to transform.

But you utterly and ultimately fail completely here - I am not simply speaking of 'social economic roles', to which this can be abstracted from peoples lives - I am speaking of living in general, which - god forbid - finds its only medium through particular forms of the reproduction of your existence as a living person, both your subsistence and your direct mode of life. You see, you are speaking of 'social economic roles' as relating to peoples lives - and yet this is a pretension to the notion that there is a dimension of existence that is 'non-social and non-economic'. Therefore how you qualify a "social economic role" is quite different from how Rafiq is qualifying it. You are abstracting a particular dimension of human life, which might relate to one's job, for example, one's accruing of money. But when Marxists, you see, speak of the social, they are referring to a key, essential basis of the mode of human life itself - not simply the abstraction called the 'economic', but human life as it is expressed and reproduced in the here and now.

You see, you get ahead of yourself. No one is talking about "certain jobs making people believe in gods irresistable". You see, the direct stupidity of this statement is the implicit assumption that one simply 'has a job' and then is confronted with the temptation to believe or not. Yet that is not what I am saying - I am saying direct participation in our social order, insofar as one is not critiquing it (by Marx's qualification of criticism), either through direct action or even theory, makes superstition an inevitability, because the only thing which reproduces our existing order is superstition. To that end, the bourgeoisie are not socially conscious. No one is socially conscious. Capitalism is made up of nothing more than men and women, and it is the particular superstition of these men and women in confronting the totality of their inter-relations which reproduces capitalism. So this is simply what you fail to understand - I am speaking about the degree that which capitalism is reproduced. I'm not even talking about some particular job making a religious belief tempting.

I'm saying that in your consciousness, your very willingness and capacity to participate, REPRODUCE ultimately the social order, to work, to accept your shitty wages, to not fight, to accept and conceive the existing order as either inevitable, necessary or something else, relates ultimately to a superstition, whether consciously articulated in the form of a direct belief, or through one's action. The real basis of religion - supersittion that is - is subconsicous. It is ideological. A 'god' is the conscious assertion of this subconscious designation. My god, before you start whining - just let me explain. One doesn't have to know their real conditions and basis of life, to engage in it. Marx's definition of ideology is that one is doing something, but one doesn't know it. So beliefs - effectively - can be expressed through ones actions, not simply rituals, but your superstitions about the world can be mediated through your actions, without you directly knowing it. A god simply represents the fact that one is conscious of this ideological designation, not conscious of what it is designating, but conscious of the act of designating it (and they don't have to know "it") - the social dimension they constitute a part of.

I'm not explaining this the right way, I know. Let me try: A god merely is the expression of one's superstition toward how they relate to the social dimension they constitute a part of. This relation, takes the form of a superstition. What is superstition? Superstition is to insist upon the unknown, to insist upon something without having to know it. What if I told you that ones immersion in the social order, as a subject ideologically, is an insistence upon something without having to know it. The superstition that this social dimension is unknowable, is inevitable, is just "there, I don't know man" and so on. This ignorance of the social, is often times articulated by philistines as ignorance of the natural (da universe).

it is merely nonsense.

Which is exactly how everything which is too theoretically complex, sophisticated to conceive in 'common sense' by the philistines is qualified. My point is: You have no excuse to not understand what I'm saying.

I recognize you conceive this as 'nonsense'. That is because it pertains to a dimension of existence, the actual very real conditions of life (including consciousness), you insist is not knowable. This is a domain of 'truth', which demands epistemological standards that are incompatible with positivist ones - because all truth is practical. If you don't have a practical reason to know this, and this reason is nothing more than the inclination to change it, we have nothing to say to you.

Since any meaningful description of human actions as either religious or atheist necessarily refers to the aspect of relating to a divinity, be it either through morals and moral/immoral acts, be it through acts of ritual which are the sole domain of superstition.

But this is not how Rafiq qualifies atheism - you see, I like Marx fervently oppose this qualification as a worthless abstraction that effectively makes no practical difference. Marx's criticism was exactly the same, regarding the atheists of his time - they were still believers in practice, their atheism was an abstraction.

Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction.

And it was quite clear what he was trying to say. Abstract professions of whether one believes or does not believe in a god, does not absolve them from the superstitious basis of the belief in a god. The belief in a god, is not simply - in some vacuum, but owes itself to a deeper superstition. Atheism here is being qualified as the ability to be without a big other - without any other external sense of guarantee, external from the actions of men and women.

Without faith in the propensity for men and women, and men and women alone to be able to transform and constitute the basis of human life as they see fit, without a big other, there will never be a proletarian revolution. That means there is also no hope that 'material conditions' will fill the place of actual, conscious human will. I claim that every human society before Communism had its basis in a superstitious understanding of the social. I claim that effectively, capitalism itself is sustained by a superstition, which finds expression in all sorts of gods and beliefs - whose variance is not essential, but cultural and political. Historical materialism is not some "tool we use to understand stuff" - the understanding is practical in nature. HOW WE UNDERSTAND the social, is a part of our partisan position within it. So:

Scientific socialism = atheism = historical materialism = Communism ETC. ETC. They are all congruent with each other.

God? God is an empty idea. It is an aesthetic. The only god is the god of capital, the same god that is worshiped in the churches, temples, in mecca, in ones meditation, in ones doubts in themselves. Capitalism has destroyed the christian god. What they call the christian god is an aesthetic - an idol among various other kinds which represent the same god.

Take your pick, and I'll be looking forward to supporting evidence for the former in particular.

Actually thirsty, I was merely respecting the fact that you are totally alien from theory. I am merely saying - you can use your philistine common sense to understand what I'm saying. I'm not trying to drag you down a hole of 'meaningless nonsense, gibberish' you clearly have no practical inclination in going down. So that was my point. It does not take much to understand this.

Perfectly correct, though it isn't clear at all that exploitation and class domination are the sole determinants of having religious belief

Religious belief here is an abstraction though - there are many different expression of religious belief in history, while exploitation is particular to capitalism (in the most meaningful sense of the word).

All I am saying is that religious belief owes its existence to real conditions of human life. Real conditions of human life, which are defined by the mode of producing and reproducing the conditions of human life. These conditions, are none other than human life insofar as a conscious understanding of the basis of human life is not present - including how the causal basis of particular forms of, say, production and social organization are understood as owing their existence to (cosmic harmony in ancient societies, and whatever you like).

Bourgeois science exists because the practical basis of manipulating natural processes - effectively was a part of the negation of the old feudal order. Where natural processes were otherwise made unknowable, bourgeois science made them knowable, because the practical inclination was there by emerging bourgeois society - or at least possible within it (many have actually written about how the structure of bourgeois science was practically necessiated, not simply compatible, by capitalist production - that's another argument though).

and we've moved on from silly ideas that these are bound to lead to, by some cosmic law, effects that are socially reactionary

That is because belief as you are approaching it is an abstraction. There is no cosmic law that makes it inevitable - it is literally something inherent only by the nature of the religious beliefs in question, the basis of their existence, their practical function, ETC.

It's also far from clear just how these beliefs are supposed to be eradicated during the whole process of build up to social revolution, and it remains a mere empty assumption they will be eradicated.

They will not be permanently eradicated until after the destruction of the social antagonism, but that's not really the point. The basis of the beliefs will be accentuated, stressed, attacked during this process - what makes or breaks whether they are entirely eliminated, or are allowed to be reproduced, is whether or not the seizure of power and the social transformation is successful. The same generation of militant Communist atheists, can regress back into superstition upon the failure of a revolution. So this tension will exist long before the revolution - that worm of doubt, in Communism in general. As one extends the reach of influence by the revolutionary movement farther and farther out, more to more blurred elements who might be sympathetic but not committed, it even goes more.

So it's very complex how this works - no one denies this. Insofar as the revolution exists, for that split second in history at least - everyone who is for the revolution will be totally an atheist, in practice - all the direct conscious responsibility of the social order they allotted to their gods will be on their shoulders. What comes after depends on its success or not.

The whole purpose of this neat little exercise being, no I don't expect everyone will be atheist if and when shit goes down; yes, of course I'd "work" with them even though they describe their motives

Well the disagreement relates to the nature of this "shit going down" in the first place. If people simply were practically able to be revolutionaries while being religious, who cares, right? I agree. But if people were simply able to, practically, call themselves liberals, followers of Ayn Rand, that doesn't make a difference either. IF someone holds anti-Semitic views but doesn't act upon those views, neither does that make a difference. I merely am saying that IT MEANS something to call yourself a follower of Ayn Rand, to be an anti-semite, and so on. And the same goes for any kind of superstition - this means something beyond the abstract identification. It has practical implications - without exception. If it doesn't, the 'beliefs' are probably empty and the moment where they can stop and think about their beliefs hasn't come up.

LuÃs Henrique

3rd February 2016, 12:14

Not insofar as they are Lutherans they don't. They may do so - for example - at the expense of this identity as proletarians, let's say as people joining up with the momentum of a revolution who were won over at the heat of the moment, or just more loosely associated with an actually existing movement beforehand.

But in doing this, they would have already discarded their Lutheranism - it would not be compatible with such an action insofar as it occupies a place in their consciousness with their participation in a revolutionary situation or the period after one.

The degree that which they would remain committed Lutherans during such a moment, of course, would depend on the side they take. But that is because somewhere, there is a real existing movement of mobilized, self-conscious, militant proletarians carrying out the revolution so that people on the outside, who beforehand lacked the necessary faith, can join in. If there is nothing to join into in the first place, there is not much to say about it.

I agree with most of that, but I was thinking that Lutherans (and other religious people, as long as they remain sane) do committ "atheist acts" on a daily basis. For instance, they seem to buy their bread, and work in shitty jobs in order to afford it, instead of "consider [I]the lilies in the field, how they grow; [that] they toil not, [nor] do they spin", as the Bible quite clearly commands them to do.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

3rd February 2016, 12:25

Bold words, words in bold, and bold criticism of bold words and words in bold

To the point, you both: working with religious people, and whether religious people are consistent with their professed religion, and whether their inconsistencies are demanded by effective participation in a capitalist society.

We aren't curious or interested in discussing your respective intelligences and posting styles.

Luís Henrique

Rafiq

3rd February 2016, 18:20

LuÃs Henrique

3rd February 2016, 20:13

These are acts, which are not atheist ones - they are acts that are in contradiction with one's religious customs, traditions (i.e. a Muslim drinking beer is not so uncommon either), but they are not godless ones. The god of capital remains.

Indeed. But then all "religious" people nowadays cultuate Mammon, and only delude themselves about their purported god(esse)s.

This is different from the Muslim drinking beer or the Catholic woman having an abortion, though: these are sinful acts, that these people do "knowing" they are sins. Much of their common, daily, acts, however, are sins according to their holy texts, but they are no longer able to recognise their sinful nature.

My point isn't so much that religious people cannot partake in a revolution becasue of their religious scripture, but because the least common denominator of all religion, personal (held by 'new atheists' too) or institutional, is this superstition toward the social.

That's interesting; could you expand a little more on the "superstition toward the social"?

The issue is not that important anyway - however - because I envision that before a revolution is even possible, this wouldn't be so much of an issue. One should remember the elasticity of the degree of religiosity even, in urban life. The eagerness of the postmodern man - to join new age cults, to become born again, go on retreats to temples in the east, is evidence of the contingent nature of his religiosity.

Indeed, and quite often the final result of these "searches for God" is a general disillusion with religion in general. However, this disillusion is frequently expressed in religious forms of pseudo-atheism.

The loyalty working people have toward such superstitions would be negligible not simply through revolution, but through common struggle beforehand. They would be atheists in practice, as Engels said of the English workers.

Yes, this is the path to a real superceeding of religious superstition. It is denied in practice, before it is denied in words.

Luís Henrique

Sinister Cultural Marxist

3rd February 2016, 22:05

It is not as though there is a material event that occurs independent of men and women, and that men and women simply articulate it differently for arbitrary reasons. Events - socialist revolutions in particular - are not only, only carried out by men and women, but by socially conscious men and women. What that means is effectively - not only is how it is articulated important, how ones social being is articulated by revolutionaries alone will make a revolution possible, becasue this articulation will be congruent with their revolutionary action. It will occur through the unified action of socially conscious men and women sure, and there will be common goals with are fundamentally not religious in nature. This is a voluntary act that occurs due to the will of the workers. However, this will nonetheless not be understood by all in society in a uniform fashion. It will be practically and socially monolithic, but it may not be ideologically so. Collective acts will bring together many people of a number of different persuasions. There may well be multiple competing interpretations of the revolutionary act, and I see no prima facie reason to rule out that in the case of some revolutionaries it may be religious. A Catholic Worker going on general strike is no less on strike than his atheist colleagues, whether or not he sees it as morally in line with his scripture. It won't change the material or social consequences of the act, since on a larger level it will still be a secular movement.

Alan OldStudent

3rd February 2016, 22:14

I'd work with the devil himself on a common issue. I happen to be an atheist, and I think another person's religion is none of my business unless that person's religion leads them to interfere with my rights.

As others have pointed out, many religious people will support and participate in the revolution. We need to leave religion as a matter of personal conscience and choice. And yes, many atheists happen to be cap-libs and arrogant elitists. Atheists can be found in all political tendencies, both left, center, and right.

***AOS***

Rafiq

3rd February 2016, 23:06

That's interesting; could you expand a little more on the "superstition toward the social"?

Communism is nothing more than historical self-consciousness. Historical materialism and Communism are synonymous here - for the understanding of the social is part of its aufhebeng. Hegel broguht forth the very embryo of historical self-consciousness through his conception of historical change. This was the controversy of Hegelianism before Marx's break with Hegel himself: What consciousness of history means for the controversies of the 19th century, what being conscious of geist means for its future.

Class consciousnesses is not simply the proletariat assuming its interests as the bourgeoisie does - but becoming conscious of the totality that which they constitute a part of, and their place in it - which only is possible from the standpoint of an opposition to the ruling order. Capitalist society, and all societies before it entailed the ideological designation of the social as a precondition for its reproduction.

The superstition toward the social, therefore, merely refers to the superstition of thinking that the social order has its basis in something outside of the social order - outside of the men and women (and in their consciousness) that constitute it. People might articulate this superstition by making a pretense to a god - or 'evolution' (i.e. "biology sais so, guys") or they might not articulate it consciously at all (but solely through their actions - their life being).

Ultimately the superstition is this: That an external guarantee sustains the social dimension. To be a true atheist is to recognize that god died on the cross, and that all that remains is the community of believers who have the freedom to constitute society as they will it.

Variance in the ideological medium of this superstition is almost purely aesthetic - cultural and political. The spiritual substance of a Muslim's belief in allah, a Jew to jehovah, a new atheist in nature and a new ager is identical, the dimension of this belief is identical (unlike religious belief in the middle ages - where it really did insinuate genuine social/ideological difference). The god of capital has conquered all gods.

So Islamism for example is purely, from its cultural context political - like Fascism it re-narrativizes capitalism in mythological, mystifying ways.

tresha

8th February 2016, 03:43

Ultimately the superstition is this: That an external guarantee sustains the social dimension. To be a true atheist is to recognize that god died on the cross, and that all that remains is the community of believers who have the freedom to constitute society as they will it.

Agree! Because atheist doesn't mean a disbelief or denial of God but simply lack of belief in God. Therefore belief is present but insufficient to prove.

Minty Fresh

25th February 2016, 01:58

Absolutely, so long as they agreed with me & weren't looking to install any sort of theocratic regime, of course. I'm an atheist personally, but I believe everyone has the right to practice whatever religion they wish, as long as they don't try to force that shit on everyone else. Co-operation among racial & sectarian lines is crucial for worker's revolution.

blake 3:17

25th February 2016, 03:12

I work with all three on a daily basis.

The Intransigent Faction

25th February 2016, 05:52

I have been more militantly atheist in the past, but I've mellowed out on that front since.
Having been raised into the United Church, which is notoriously boundary-pushing:

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/02/21/meet-the-united-church-minister-who-came-out-as-an-atheist.html

...I see more potential in working with religious people than in pushing them away. Certainly, an understanding of the historical role of religion as a roadblock to class consciousness through idealism and fetishism is important. Yet, as long as churches are one of the more powerful community spaces remaining in a sea of alienated people, they could provide an opportunity as a vestige of community.

If nothing else, working with them in efforts to alleviate the impact of poverty and homelessness, or even of disregard for environmental damage in capitalist society, is perfectly fine.

If religion is the opiate of the masses...simply removing the opiate should not be the first priority, even if it could be removed rather than simply left to fade out.

GLF

25th February 2016, 07:37

I am not an atheist but I'm not a religious person either. I am not sure how I would feel working with religious people. I would have to know more about their motive. If they want us to succeed because they think it will hasten the coming of their messiah or something like that then I would probably not want to involve myself with them.