Religion under Socialism ?

[leftwinger2007]

Hello my question is I know in the Soviet Union the Government promoted Atheism but allowed Freedom of Religion in their Constitution under Marxism Communism Socialism therefor my question under Socialism Im not asking if Christians could get on TV promoting the idea that the Bible is true due to Prophecy or Science of they believe they can prove there is a God or Debate my question is if a Church Library could they have Books or literature claiming the Bible is true due to whatever Proof they claim to have thank you for your time ?
　
　
　
Some Christians claim that fulfilled prophecies prove that the Bible is inerrant or even literally true. conclude it is accurate even on scientific subjects.

[Excogitatus]

Hello my question is I know in the Soviet Union the Government promoted Atheism but allowed Freedom of Religion in their Constitution under Marxism Communism Socialism therefor my question under Socialism Im not asking if Christians could get on TV promoting the idea that the Bible is true due to Prophecy or Science of they believe they can prove there is a God or Debate my question is if a Church Library could they have Books or literature claiming the Bible is true due to whatever Proof they claim to have thank you for your time ?

Some Christians claim that fulfilled prophecies prove that the Bible is inerrant or even literally true. conclude it is accurate even on scientific subjects.
Could you clarify what you're asking a bit? Do you want to know whether a church library in a socialist society could have books on the topic of "proving" God's existence?

[BIXX]

Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

[Jimmie Higgins]

BIXX, fucking hell. You have the entire rest of the world where you can join in with everyone else in mocking others in a pitiful quest to feel superior and less insignificant in a crappy and alienating society.

As an appeal: please don’t mock people for asking a question or bad typing (especially if you know nothing about the poster’s age, native language, education etc). Save the snark for debates and political views you don’t agree with. Leave your middle school baggage at the door please.

[Antiochus]

Bixx is an imbecile that has never had anything to contribute. His nihilism was tiring after a single day.

To answer the OP. No. Religion would never be allowed to be 'promoted' in the public domain. Religion can be a private affair, in a transitional period I think it wouldn't be appropriate to let anyone that isn't an atheist have any position of authority. Certainly if the position can lend itself to ideological counter-revolution.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Maybe I don’t understand what you mean by promoted in the public domain, but in terms of simply people promoting some kind of spirituality, I don’t really see an issue with that. In some regions where a religion holds some political power, people would need to take those religious institutions down. In other places, religion is not in the position of the Catholic Church prior to the French Revolution or Russian church before 1917 - religion is not formally connected to the actual functioning of the state and ruling order. So in the abstract, people can believe and promote what they want as long as it isn’t an attack on others etc.

I think there’d probably be lots of affinity groupings and some might revolve around hobbies and shared activities, others might be around certain spiritual practices. I mean: are some people handing out beads or praying really a threat in the abstract?

The other thing is that if there were organic and non-alienated communities, neighborhoods and workplaces, social support for raising kids and health and housing - the informal power of mega churches and mosques would be knocked out from below. Catholic Churches or mosques in working class or poor areas have popular sway because they are sometimes the only real social safety net and the only community not obviously based on making profits. People are drawn to them in an attempt to find a more authentic community and meaningful life. What happens when community is authentic and mutually supportive and life has meaning?

Also what would US mega-churches be if they couldn’t make gobs of money? They probably just wouldn’t exist.

To me, the bigger question is pre-revolution, how radical workers should respond to churches that would actively be bases for reaction against an imminent revolution or social struggle. That’s trickier and would probably vary based on the circumstances.

[ckaihatsu]

I think there’d probably be lots of affinity groupings and some might revolve around hobbies and shared activities, others might be around certain spiritual practices. I mean: are some people handing out beads or praying really a threat in the abstract?


I think what's often missing from revolutionary treatments of this 'religion' issue is the distinction / dichotomy between *productive* and *non-productive* activities -- depending on the actual prevailing larger circumstances even innocuous 'hobbies' could conceivably be validly disallowed during the socialist-type transition away from bourgeois dictatorship and towards workers power.

The thing with religious / 'spiritual' practices is that they take up people's time and are basically *consumptive*, at least, if not outright *political* in aims (in the sense of gaining group 'turf' or territory).





Also what would US mega-churches be if they couldn’t make gobs of money? They probably just wouldn’t exist.

To me, the bigger question is pre-revolution, how radical workers should respond to churches that would actively be bases for reaction against an imminent revolution or social struggle. That’s trickier and would probably vary based on the circumstances.


These two statements, unfortunately, are *contradictory* in estimations -- if religious organizations currently exist socially for profit-making purposes (like any business), and their social base of existence lost out to mass *political* consciousness and collective self-empowerment, then they would no longer enjoy popular support, as you've stated.

Any religious organizations that proactively served the *counterrevolution* would *not* be 'tricky' cases -- they would be counterrevolutionary due to their politics and their resulting political activities for reaction, and could clearly be excluded from open public discourse and functioning by revolutionary forces, as with any fascists.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It’s tricky in the sense that not every church or congregation is the same in social make-up or ideological possibilities. It would be hard to know in advance or make blanket prescriptions about how to deal with religious people beforehand since any near-revolutionary situation would shake all this up.

Religious conviction may not have any place in Marxism and can be counter-productive for any revolutionary praxis. However, and mass working class revolution will likely involve (in a US example) black church-goers, rank and file Catholics, Muslims etc.

Certain kinds of religious ideas would need to be overcome for religious people to attain class-consciousness (like ideas around family or if it’s futile for people to change society because it’s god’s will) but religious people pick and choose relevant religious ideas constantly, so it’s not hard to imagine that some people will help to overthrow the capitalists while also holding some level of religious belief.

In the end, I don’t think attempting to police meditation or daily prayers to Mecca would be in the interests of revolutionary workers. In fact allowing individual religious practice that is not oppressive to others would help workers expose the reactionary churches more easily by taking away their inevitable claim that their attempts to organize reaction are religion-based rather than a political effort in church-dressing.

There are strange class splits and divisions within large religions, this is what I think would make it tricky for a revolutionary movement prior to the revolution.

After the revolution or during a transition, I don’t see the place for restricting “non-productive” activities. Part of the point of revolution, as I see it is to free ourselves from living solely to produce. Not that there would be no effort required - especially early-on, but after living in a system of abundance that uses inequality and class rule to enforce maximum productive effort, I think most people would want to just work to ensure that we can have abundance while using most of our time for whatever we want.

[ckaihatsu]

It’s tricky in the sense that not every church or congregation is the same in social make-up or ideological possibilities. It would be hard to know in advance or make blanket prescriptions about how to deal with religious people beforehand since any near-revolutionary situation would shake all this up.

Religious conviction may not have any place in Marxism and can be counter-productive for any revolutionary praxis. However, and mass working class revolution will likely involve (in a US example) black church-goers, rank and file Catholics, Muslims etc.

Certain kinds of religious ideas would need to be overcome for religious people to attain class-consciousness (like ideas around family or if it’s futile for people to change society because it’s god’s will) but religious people pick and choose relevant religious ideas constantly, so it’s not hard to imagine that some people will help to overthrow the capitalists while also holding some level of religious belief.


Empirically-agreed, but I'd imagine that the very *fact* of a revolutionary movement in-progress would mean that *everything* / all institutions would be actively undergoing revolutionary *politicization*, and so the social significance of political upheaval would rise to the fore, to clearly indicate to all where various social groups, including religious ones, would stand in the broad social context of proletarian revolution. I maintain that there would be nothing 'tricky' about making decisive political assessments of various social groups and institutions, possibly for the curtailment of any counterrevolutionary activities, depending on the prevailing conditions of upheaval and overall proletarian needs for expediency, etc.

I think the allowable trade-off would be that *individuals* could do whatever they like for hobbies, etc. -- again subject to revolutionary political objectives -- but the *public sphere* all over the world would have to be revolutionized as rapidly as possible, or else it's not really a revolution.





In the end, I don’t think attempting to police meditation or daily prayers to Mecca would be in the interests of revolutionary workers. In fact allowing individual religious practice that is not oppressive to others would help workers expose the reactionary churches more easily by taking away their inevitable claim that their attempts to organize reaction are religion-based rather than a political effort in church-dressing.


Yes, good point, but with the proviso just stated about the objective political need to revolutionize / politicize the public sphere.





There are strange class splits and divisions within large religions, this is what I think would make it tricky for a revolutionary movement prior to the revolution.

After the revolution or during a transition, I don’t see the place for restricting “non-productive” activities. Part of the point of revolution, as I see it is to free ourselves from living solely to produce. Not that there would be no effort required - especially early-on, but after living in a system of abundance that uses inequality and class rule to enforce maximum productive effort, I think most people would want to just work to ensure that we can have abundance while using most of our time for whatever we want.


Of course, agreed, but if the open class warfare against the bourgeois dictatorship is protracted and prolonged, there could very well be a legitimate basis for an authoritative call for mass participation -- even coerced -- to get past the class division teetering on a knife's edge as quickly as possible. Those less-inclined to be overtly political may simply *have* to be, at the expense of their personal time and interests, because the revolution may not be able to 'afford' such at a given time.

[Homo Songun]

Lamentably, there is no absolute solution, as was attempted in Albania, where they straight-up "abolished" organized religion. Although it would sure be satisfying in the short term.


Also what would US mega-churches be if they couldn’t make gobs of money? They probably just wouldn’t exist.
Unquestionably, they should be forced to pay taxes to the state, pre- or post-revolution. That would shut down the mega-churches pretty quick IMO.

[Homo Songun]

It’s tricky in the sense that not every church or congregation is the same in social make-up or ideological possibilities. It would be hard to know in advance or make blanket prescriptions about how to deal with religious people beforehand since any near-revolutionary situation would shake all this up.

Religious conviction may not have any place in Marxism and can be counter-productive for any revolutionary praxis. However, and mass working class revolution will likely involve (in a US example) black church-goers, rank and file Catholics, Muslims etc.

Certain kinds of religious ideas would need to be overcome for religious people to attain class-consciousness (like ideas around family or if it’s futile for people to change society because it’s god’s will) but religious people pick and choose relevant religious ideas constantly, so it’s not hard to imagine that some people will help to overthrow the capitalists while also holding some level of religious belief.

In the end, I don’t think attempting to police meditation or daily prayers to Mecca would be in the interests of revolutionary workers. In fact allowing individual religious practice that is not oppressive to others would help workers expose the reactionary churches more easily by taking away their inevitable claim that their attempts to organize reaction are religion-based rather than a political effort in church-dressing.

There are strange class splits and divisions within large religions, this is what I think would make it tricky for a revolutionary movement prior to the revolution.

This is very wise approach in my opinion. In the United States, the workers' revolution is inexorably tied up in the resolution of the national question (see Freedom Road's documents (http://frso.org/about/nq/nq.htm) for example). And the struggle for Black national liberation in a real sense *is* the Black church. US communists have to grapple with that, in forging a winning revolutionary strategy. And the Catholic church has always been uneasy with the untrammeled reign of Capital, and there are strong left-wing currents within it, such as Liberation theology, the Catholic Worker Movement, etc. That said, the Catholic radio station in my area broadcasts anti-communist propaganda 24/7. Frankly, it is a little weird, due to the absence of any Communist activity in the USA worth speaking of. Perhaps it is an "Aesopian" struggle happening within the church? Anybody know more about this?

None of which is to say that the "long game" should not consist of merciless struggle against religion and all other standard-bearers of mystification, idealism, obscurantism, parasitism, etc. ;)

[Trotskite]

Christians who fall into this category are termed "fundamentalists". These persons tend to lean more conservative/neo-con and are more likely to buy into capitalist propaganda based on their interpretation of the adage, "Treat all work as if it were to God". Now you have these fundamentalists in every faith tradition, even outside of Christianity. A fundamentalist is rarely reasonable or willing to debate issues they consider fundamental to their belief. They can be turned around and made open, but only in the presence of a realization on their part. As for the place of religion in a socialist society, it depends on the church depicted. A fundamentalist church would and should never be allowed to promote itself, and "charismatics" also shouldn't elevate their status due to their over-emphasis on the ecstasy of experience. The orthodox(being proper faith) group would be allowed to participate in society with side effects of promotion, but intended promotion within public government should never be allowed to any organization that would claim any statement as absolute truth due to the unrestricted diversity present within a socialist society. I hope this helps answer your question and that your search for knowledge may produce greater wisdom.

[makkkenzie]

I believe that all religious and non-religious people (individuals) deserve the right to propagate a specific religious belief. I myself am a Christian, and not fond of what the USSR did, but nor am I a fan of states enforcing Christianity and any other religion.

Any state-enforcement of religious beliefs seems Authoritarian and borderline Fascistic.