marxist religious theory

[kylie]

As marxists I assume you agree with the view of religion being used to passify the working class, and as a tool of conservatisim.
But this has a number of problems with it.

Firstly it ignores how religion is not always conservatve, and in fact in some places has caused social progression. For example liberation theology in south america; christianity when it was originally being formed, opposed the repression of the romans; how christianity encouraged the development of capitalism; and how Sikhism has for a long time now been supporting gender equality where society has not. These highlight how religion is not inheritaly conservative or in favour of social stagnation.
And in fact it also doesn't take into account an entire catagory of religious belief - individualist religions. Those that do not have either organisations from which belief is guided, or a common core of values imposed upon believers. Such as buddhism, new-western religions, and other Eastern based religions. In these it isn't possible for the religion to be a force of social conservatism, simply because no structure exists from which such views could be put to believers. In fact this kind of religion supports equality, it not making any distinctions between gender or race, and obviously class is not relevant to them. Yet they are certainly religions, and so the marxist view includes them.

Secondly as mentioned in the last point, it can encourage equality. Whether a structured belief or not. Some parts of the bible even, are in favour of it. While those that follow christianity might hold the value that class equality for example is not something to aspire to, in the bible itself, the main religious text, these values are present. Also there's the examples i've already mentioned.

And finally it could be that religion is neccessary, and needed in any society. Hence throughout history it has been present. Even in Marxist ideology based countries such as the soviet union religion was present, how Lenin and Stalin were idolised and treated as sacred, the communal worship demonstrated in parades etc, and the hammer+sickle treated like a religious symbol. So even in a country meant to be aware that religion is a conservative force(according to marxism not me), it still is present.
What all religions give is a suggestion at some kind of afterlife or spiritual world, above science. This being something that a lot of people look for, and with no other avenue of finding it, religion is needed.
So, thats why I think Marxist theory on religion is incorrect, and too simple a look at religion.

[redstar2000]

Firstly it ignores how religion is not always conservative, and in fact in some places has caused social progression.

The exceptions are rare, brief, and sporadic.

"Liberation theology" (there are Christian, Jewish, and Muslim versions) may indeed articulate a wish for "social justice"...but they do not and cannot challenge the fundamental class structure of existing societies.

Why? Because they cannot really recognize class differences at all; those who believe in the "true faith" (whatever it is) are "saved in the eyes of God" regardless of class.

Thus, "liberation theology" can only appeal to the benevolence of the wealthy believer to share more with the poor believer. They can't ever say to the poor believer: "expropriate the rich believer and if he resists, kill him".

They can't ever be revolutionary.

Also, one must take note of the fact that the "liberation" theologians and their followers constitute a very small proportion of the total number of believers in the major religions.

It's "too radical". :lol:


And in fact it also doesn't take into account an entire category of religious belief - individualist religions. Those that do not have either organisations from which belief is guided, or a common core of values imposed upon believers.

Probably because "individualist religions" had little social significance in Marx's time or, for that matter, our own.

A "private faith" is, by definition, private. It's only when you begin to write stuff down, start communicating your beliefs to others, etc. that you've taken the first steps towards founding a new religion in a social sense.

You may, for all I know, pray daily to the "Great Pumpkin"...but that doesn't mean anything until you start telling other people that unless they also pray to the Great Pumpkin, they will be reincarnated as nettles and thistles.


While those that follow Christianity might hold the value that class equality for example is not something to aspire to, in the Bible itself, the main religious text, these values are present.

There are a great many "values" expressed in the "Bible"...what counts is the weight given to each.

In the Marxist view, "holy books" are written and reinterpreted to support the existing class structure of any given society.

Thus the predominate weight in "holy books" is always deeply reactionary. Indeed, the biggest challenge religion always faces is bringing its teachings "up to date" with the more recent version of class society.

But, since they've had a lot of practice at this, they're pretty good at it.


And finally it could be that religion is necessary, and needed in any society.

Why? What social purpose does it serve?

You know the answer. It is to "justify" injustice as "the Will of God". That's its only real purpose...and religious hierarchies are very conscious of that.

They know who's really paying them and what they're being paid to do.


Even in Marxist ideology based countries such as the Soviet Union, religion was present; how Lenin and Stalin were idolised and treated as sacred, the communal worship demonstrated in parades, etc., and the hammer+sickle treated like a religious symbol. So even in a country meant to be aware that religion is a conservative force (according to marxism not me), it still is present.

The old Soviet Union was a culturally backward country and it's thought that the leaders deliberately copied religious symbolism so that the people would be more "comfortable" with the new order.

As a Marxist, I don't think that was "a good thing" to do...but they didn't ask my advice.


What all religions give is a suggestion at some kind of afterlife or spiritual world, above science. This being something that a lot of people look for, and with no other avenue of finding it, religion is needed.

But why do "a lot of people look for" that? What are the social reasons?

What is it about the world as it is that causes people to seek for something "beyond"?

"It is the cry of the oppressed; the heart of a heartless world. It is the opiate of the masses".

And "to criticize [religious] illusions is to criticize a world that requires illusions."

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Granite]

Religon is based on delusions ofmythical gods devils boogymen. Religion is a mental illness that has no business in rational society :hammer:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:33 AM
Firstly it ignores how religion is not always conservatve, and in fact in some places has caused social progression. For example liberation theology in south america; christianity when it was originally being formed, opposed the repression of the romans; how christianity encouraged the development of capitalism; and how Sikhism has for a long time now been supporting gender equality where society has not. These highlight how religion is not inheritaly conservative or in favour of social stagnation.
It has no relevance as God does not exist nor are the laws in which the people of these so called "progressive" religions assign themselves to based in any logic. I find it pretty pointless to argue that one religion is more progressive than another because they are all equally false.


And in fact it also doesn't take into account an entire catagory of religious belief - individualist religions. Those that do not have either organisations from which belief is guided, or a common core of values imposed upon believers.

regardless, it isnt real and can not be encouraged as such. God does not exist, what ever his name, nor is their a heaven or an after life and it is important to move away from these concepts which ever the religion if actual, purposeful and alsting liberation is ever going to be attained.


Such as buddhism, new-western religions, and other Eastern based religions.

I think you will be hard pressed to find a Buddhist or a Confucian who calls their faiths religious. Of course there are different strands of both, but in general neither of these religions worhship a god, rather they use the teachings of a person, who could or could nopt have existed to live their lives.


Yet they are certainly religions, and so the marxist view includes them.

Any teaching that forces you to submit your life to something which is not real and follow repressive laws based on thousand old myths and fiction is antithetical to workers liberation. People become blinded by their faith for something which is not real, in the hope that they will be given everlasting peace when they die. Being told by preachers that although this world is shit, just bare it, work hard, obey your leaders and your church and you will be rewarded when you die. This should not be tolerated at all, under any guise or name.


Secondly as mentioned in the last point, it can encourage equality. Whether a structured belief or not. Some parts of the bible even, are in favour of it. While those that follow christianity might hold the value that class equality for example is not something to aspire to, in the bible itself, the main religious text, these values are present. Also there's the examples i've already mentioned.

I refer to my original point. religion isnt real. So no matter what they say, or what they advocate, allowing faith in something which is a lie is dangerous.


And finally it could be that religion is neccessary, and needed in any society.

Subservience, false hope, lies! How can this ever be necessary?


Hence throughout history it has been present. Even in Marxist ideology based countries such as the soviet union religion was present, how Lenin and Stalin were idolised and treated as sacred, the communal worship demonstrated in parades etc, and the hammer+sickle treated like a religious symbol. So even in a country meant to be aware that religion is a conservative force(according to marxism not me), it still is present.

Just because it happened in the USSR does not make it right. And I think any kind of idolizing and subservient worship of living dead or made up figures is fundamentally wrong.


What all religions give is a suggestion at some kind of afterlife or spiritual world,

Which isnt real.....


This being something that a lot of people look for, and with no other avenue of finding it, religion is needed.

And why do you think that is. Look at the situation for 85% of the people who put their faith in religion. They live in abject poverty, poverty or are borderline. Of course they put faith in this. What else do they have to reasure them that hopefully, one day, their lives will be better.

Religions is not needed. Hope, empowerment and a belief in this world is what is needed. Give these people the ability to make choices, think and act and create and exist and the need for God will disappear. "If God didnt exist, it would be necessary to invent him."


So, thats why I think Marxist theory on religion is incorrect, and too simple a look at religion.

I suggest you read this Marxism and Religion - Alan Woods (http://www.marxist.com/Theory/marxism_and_religion.html)

[CheViveToday]

Conservatives may not have invented religion, but like anything else they can get their fat greasy hands on, they have corrupted it and used it to their shameless advantage.