Christianity in Anarchism/Communism [Archive]

LSD

3rd June 2005, 02:00

Marxism / Communism / Anarchism are fundamentally based on reason. Religion is diametrically opposed to reason, therefore they are incompatable.

The simple fact is that religion in general, and Christianity in specific, is superstitiout and irrational. Even the most dogmatic Christian will admit that there is no proof for Christianity. They tell you to believe on "faith". Well, "faith", undermines the core principles of communism and anarchism. And religion, espcially Christianity, not only demands "faith" without evidence or proof, it also imposes strict doctrinal dogmas which prevent change and evolution which are essential to any rational individual.

Moreoever, religion, by promissing a posthumous "reward" for obediance, minimizes the importance of "earthly" suffering. If I'm only going to live for 90 years, but spend an eternity in the afterlife, which am I going to work harder for, my "material" life or my "eternal" soul?

This translates to politics as well. If I truly believe in Christian theology, than the only way to avoid eternal torment is accepting Jesus Christ as my "lord and saviour". So, based on this paradigm, shouldn't my first priority be "saving" people and not "temporarily" emancipating them? That is, isn't it more important to "save their souls" than worry about their "material" existance? After all, they're only going to live for so long, but they're going to be in hell forever.

Belief in Christianity informs everything you do, including, and especially, politics. If you believe that the Bible contains the words of the "CREATOR OF THE UNVIERSE", a creator who watches, judges, and evalutates you and who severly punnishes those who violate his "commandments" in even insignificant ways ... if you really believe that, then won't you, well, follow those "commandments"?

How can you call yourself a Christian if you reject Christian teachings on homosexuality and the role of women?

But how can you call yourself a Communist if you accept Christian teachings on homosexuality and the role of women?

Christianity teaches that suffering is nescessary, Communism teaches that it is wrong. Indeed, communism is predicated on ending oppression and suffering, while Christianity tells us to tolerate our misery because God will "reward" us in "heaven". Marx wasn't being "cute" when he said that religion was an opiate. It dulls us by convincing us, not only that there's nothing we can do, but that there's nothing we should do. It tells us that our material lives don't matter, because God is just waiting for us on the other side of death.

Christianity is antiquated, oppressive, reactionary, biggoted, fallacious, cruel, murderous, and wrong.

It is not compatable with communism!

apathy maybe

3rd June 2005, 08:25

Well I think that some religion is directly compatible with anarchism. Even if it is irrational, it may 'order' a society which is basically anarchism. I also don't think that a belief in a god necessitates a belief in hierarchy here on earth.

I would point to a history of such people as the Diggers and Tolstoy who wanted a non-hierarchical society, for religious reasons. The basic reason was that god created all people equal in 'his' eyes, thus all people should be equal here on earth.

Also to the Bible, if you don't support the burning of witches, you can't be a Christian. Yet many people claim to be Christian while not wishing to burn anybody. So why can't they claim to be Christian with out believing that homosexuals are evil and that the earth wasn't really created in seven days?

LSD

3rd June 2005, 08:33

Even if it is irrational, it may 'order' a society which is basically anarchism.

Do you really want an "irrational" order?

Really?

Why not have a rational one?

Wouldn't that make more sense?

I also don't think that a belief in a god necessitates a belief in hierarchy here on earth.

Not nescessarily, no.

But it does nescessitate a belief in the supernatural and, accordingly, a willingness to suspend rational thought in the name of "faith".

Once you do that, you become willing to accept anything. If you no longer need actual reasons to think and act, you will do whatever you believe that this "God" tells you to do.

If we've learnt one thing from religion's bloody history, it's that.

Also to the Bible, if you don't support the burning of witches, you can't be a Christian. Yet many people claim to be Christian while not wishing to burn anybody. So why can't they claim to be Christian with out believing that homosexuals are evil and that the earth wasn't really created in seven days?

Clearly you can "claim" it, as you pointed out many people do so all the time.

My point is that they're being dishonest with themselves.

Look, I think Christianity is reactionary, not the word "Christian". If there were 1,000,000 "Christians" who didn't believe in the supernaturalistic, superstitious, reactionary, biggotted stuff, but just liked the name ... I wouldn't really care.

The problem is that as long as "Christians" exist, Christianity exists, and it is a very dangerous force.

Besides, as I pointed out, any irrational ideology should be fought against. Whether it's religious or not. "Faith" undermines logical reasoning which is at the core of any just society. Not to mention it discourages revolutionary struggle and prevents coherent decision making.

Well I think that some religion is directly compatible with anarchism.

Which one?

CrazyModerate

5th June 2005, 04:09

ÑóẊîöŉ

5th June 2005, 04:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 03:09 AM
In my honest opinion, Jesus was a socialist, or a he was partly a socialist. He believed in fighting the established empire, accepting all of his peers, and assissting the poor. Canada's strongest socialist movement, led by J.S. Woosworth and Tommy Douglas was christian. Tommy Douglas was a baptist, and a preacher. And the greatest Canadian. According to the CBC atleast.

In my honest opinion, Jesus was a socialist, or a he was partly a socialist. He believed in fighting the established empire,

Wrong, Jesus said "give to ceasar what is ceasar's, and to god's what is god's" I can't remember chapter or verse, but it is definately there. Can you tell me the implications of that?

and assissting the poor.

No he didn't. He would rather have his feet anointed in expensive oil than sell it off and use the money to help the poor.

guerillablack

5th June 2005, 05:24

Exactly Marxism is against religion. However, Marxism isn't the end all for a socialistic or communist type of society. Not everything he said was true, so why do we take this as valid?The ideas and concepts existed before Marx and those allowed for religion and revolution to blend. A communist society does not have to be void of religion. It is difficult for most people with western thought such as LSD to not put religion/spirituality and revolutionary action into one cohesive movement. When you believe that religion is Christianity, Judaism and other Westernized religions, and that's that you are not being a true Marxist. You are not anaylzing the world, you are just anaylzing the western world and that is being ethnocentric. Knowing that there are thousands upon thousands of religions and the only religions you can name are judaism, christianity,etc for you argument against religions is pathetic. Especially when you even do not fully understand any of these religions but get your information from anti-religious sites.

LSD's arguments are extremly flawed and i hope noone seriously entertains these thoughts as valid.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

5th June 2005, 05:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:42 PM
I dont think that it would work for someone to mix/ incorporate their religious and ideological ideals together.

Personally i keep my religion as a spiritual aspect of my life and ideology as the physical aspect. Religion does not deal with economics as ideology does and most of the morals religion teaches i look at with liberality and criticism but with respect.
For every thing in life we seek explanations. The drops of rain, pounding of a heart, love, anger, oppression, society, the galaxy etc. etc. How we seek those explanations, is what seperates religionists from materialists. The religionist claims to know all the explanations for everything in life, with one simple answer: God(s). The materialist does not claim such a thing, but researches, observes, notes and then concludes. This attitude whetever religious or materialist is omnipresent. It reflects itself on all aspects of our daily matters. How we think and consequenty how we take decisions. Par example:

- Is he rich, because God made him so, or because he exploits? Should he be fought or the "wil of God" respected?

- Is he/she gay, because of genetics or because of the devil? Should be left alone or chased down the street?

- Is this all meant to be? Or should it be fought?

- Should I pray for answers or go out and research?

No, the religious works in general haven't been deep economical works. But your entire attitude towards religion reflects itself on all aspects of life, including economics. Because of this you can't hold both religious and materialist views at the same time. Anyone, in between is lying to himself.

most of the morals religion teaches i look at with liberality and criticism but with respect.

What does this mean in practice? You criticize it, but in the end you say they are right anyway?

------------------- -------------------

Crazymoderate

Except that Jesus has never been proofen and there are numerous quotes of him supporting rich establishment people, you have no ground. On the other hand there are Jesus quotes against rich people. Simply because the bible is incoherent crap, it doesn't make sense. The writers were even too lazy to check out for contradictions. I mean without the tons of contradictions, it would have been way more convincing.

I am sure that you will ignore it, but for the fun of it and my good hopes of you guys coming to senses: The bible in support of rich people:

Slavery:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Sexslavery:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

New testament ("improved" version). This one shows exactly what Christianity is about:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Jesus approves the beating of innoncent slaves. Jesus declares:

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

And if you still doubt it:

Riches a blessing
Prov 10:15/ Job 22:23,24/ Job 42:12

Amen! Plus I declare LSD my favorite of the hour :D

El_Revolucionario

5th June 2005, 06:45

Of course a belief in ANY religion is compatible with Communist and Anarchist theories. Jesus may not have been the 'revolutionary' type, but he could have been one who cared about the poor and the downtrodden in the society at the time.

Although I'm personally saying that would be how it is if I believed Jesus existed, but I think the evidence for his existence is next to nothing.

This arrogant attitude of "ban religion" and "religious communists are not real communists" is a pretty shitty argument if you ask me. By saying "let's suppress those who believe in something" you would be becoming on the same level as the neo-cons and the christian fundamentalists.

LSD

5th June 2005, 12:00

It is difficult for most people with western thought such as LSD to not put religion/spirituality and revolutionary action into one cohesive movement. When you believe that religion is Christianity, Judaism and other Westernized religions, and that's that you are not being a true Marxist. You are not anaylzing the world, you are just anaylzing the western world and that is being ethnocentric. Knowing that there are thousands upon thousands of religions and the only religions you can name are judaism, christianity,etc for you argument against religions is pathetic.

You keep making this "point", but refuse to ever back it up with anything approaching evidence.

You claim that there's a difference between "western" religion and "African" religion, but refuse to actually illustrate what that difference is!

I laid out specific reasons why any "faith" is dangerous to rational understanding of the world. I truly don't care if that "faith" is European, African, American, or Asian.

LSD's arguments are extremly flawed and i hope noone seriously entertains these thoughts as valid.

Speaking of questions you refuse to answer, here's an oldy but a goody.

Guerrillablack, you have refused to answer me on whether or not you condemn homosexuals. Based on earlier threads, an honest observer would conclude that you do. But I'm going to ask you, for the, I think, 8th time:

Do you consider homosexuality to be abomination?

YES or NO

apathy maybe

6th June 2005, 03:12

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide+Jun 3 2005, 07:33 PM--> (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide @ Jun 3 2005, 07:33 PM)
Even if it is irrational, it may 'order' a society which is basically anarchism.

Do you really want an "irrational" order?

Really?

Why not have a rational one?

Wouldn't that make more sense? [/b]
No I don't really want an "irrational" order, but I think it is possible.

Yes it would be better to have a rational order. But it doesn't make it impossible to have an irrational one.

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide+--> (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide)

I also don't think that a belief in a god necessitates a belief in hierarchy here on earth.

Not necessarily, no.

But it does nescessitate a belief in the supernatural and, accordingly, a willingness to suspend rational thought in the name of "faith".

Once you do that, you become willing to accept anything. If you no longer need actual reasons to think and act, you will do whatever you believe that this "God" tells you to do.

If we've learnt one thing from religion's bloody history, it's that.
[/b]
Again, quite correct. However, I just answered the question. I didn't say it was desirable.
Yes if a person is irrational about some things, they might well be irrational about other things (such as race or sexuality), but it does not follow that they will be.

Lysergic Acid [email protected]

Also to the Bible, if you don't support the burning of witches, you can't be a Christian. Yet many people claim to be Christian while not wishing to burn anybody. So why can't they claim to be Christian with out believing that homosexuals are evil and that the earth wasn't really created in seven days?

Clearly you can "claim" it, as you pointed out many people do so all the time.

My point is that they're being dishonest with themselves.

Look, I think Christianity is reactionary, not the word "Christian". If there were 1,000,000 "Christians" who didn't believe in the supernaturalistic, superstitious, reactionary, biggotted stuff, but just liked the name ... I wouldn't really care.

The problem is that as long as "Christians" exist, Christianity exists, and it is a very dangerous force.

Besides, as I pointed out, any irrational ideology should be fought against. Whether it's religious or not. "Faith" undermines logical reasoning which is at the core of any just society. Not to mention it discourages revolutionary struggle and prevents coherent decision making.

I personally don't care if these people are being dishonest or not. If they reject the hierarchical parts of their religion, I don't care what they call themselves. I think that it is possible (though not necessarily desirable) for an anarchy to be established on the bases of that religion.

Though again, as you point out it is irrational. And irrationality should be fought against, fascism, being just one example.

Lysergic Acid Diethylamide

Well I think that some religion is directly compatible with anarchism.

Which one?
Anyone that rejects social hierarchy and demands that people treat others as equal (etc etc).
I am currently working on my religious texts at the moment (i.e. I am creating a religion on which an anarchy could be based).

I only said it was possible.

guerillablack

6th June 2005, 04:48

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 5 2005, 11:00 AM

It is difficult for most people with western thought such as LSD to not put religion/spirituality and revolutionary action into one cohesive movement. When you believe that religion is Christianity, Judaism and other Westernized religions, and that's that you are not being a true Marxist. You are not anaylzing the world, you are just anaylzing the western world and that is being ethnocentric. Knowing that there are thousands upon thousands of religions and the only religions you can name are judaism, christianity,etc for you argument against religions is pathetic.

You keep making this "point", but refuse to ever back it up with anything approaching evidence.

You claim that there's a difference between "western" religion and "African" religion, but refuse to actually illustrate what that difference is!

I laid out specific reasons why any "faith" is dangerous to rational understanding of the world. I truly don't care if that "faith" is European, African, American, or Asian.

LSD's arguments are extremly flawed and i hope noone seriously entertains these thoughts as valid.

Speaking of questions you refuse to answer, here's an oldy but a goody.

Guerrillablack, you have refused to answer me on whether or not you condemn homosexuals. Based on earlier threads, an honest observer would conclude that you do. But I'm going to ask you, for the, I think, 8th time:

Do you consider homosexuality to be abomination?

YES or NO
Because your too ignorant and arrogant to accept or even acknowledge the fact that your definitions of religion and faith are not universal but westernized. Second, you do not have any workable knowledge on Afrikan or indigenous people religions so how can you talk negatively about it?How can you be objective and do so, you can't. Of course you don't care whether the religion is Afrikan or Asian, because your too ethnocentric to analyze anything else. How can you attempt to change the world without anyalyzing it first?

LSD

6th June 2005, 04:59

Because your too ignorant and arrogant to accept or even acknowledge the fact that your definitions of religion and faith are not universal but westernized.

*sigh*

You're never going to actually back up this ludicrous claim are you? <_<

How can you attempt to change the world without anyalyzing it first?

Good question! :)

I'd say that you cannot change the world without analyzing it first.

There, I answered your question. Now would you be so kind as to answer mine?

Originally posted by for the ninth time
Do you consider homosexuality to be abomination?

YES or NO

guerillablack

6th June 2005, 05:33

It's ludicrous because of your arrogance. But i never expected you to even research or have any validacy in your claims, because certain things about you are hindering this from happening.

ÑóẊîöŉ

6th June 2005, 07:21

Answer his question dammit!

Joseph

7th June 2005, 15:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:57 PM
Is it possible for one who has the belief system of Christianity to follow the political path of Anarchism/Communism or any of the ism's? Discuss your points of view here.

(I would like to clarify that I myself am not a Christian nor do I follow any specific religious mind-set, but this is a subject that i would like to hear other peoples points of view on)
The answer is simply no... a christian would not believe a state of anarchy-communism to be possible because they would believe that it is impossible to attain the societal condition of near moral perfection required to sustain such a society, through man's own reasoning.

enigma2517

8th June 2005, 02:42

Yeah answer the question ;)

codyvo

8th June 2005, 19:13

I don't see why someone that is religious can't also believe in the same ideals of anarchists and communists, whether they have conflicting beliefs or not, we all have parts of beliefs that we disagree, so do religious leftists, their disagreements are just based on religion.

Son of the Revolution

8th June 2005, 20:02

Most religions are incompatible with communism/anarchism, religious beliefs in general have to be included in every aspect of your life, you can't be a neocon in church and a commie outside it. Christianity isn't compatible with anything. I've heard people say that Taoism offers a religious basis for anarchism. Anyone know if thats true?

Answer the Question geurillablack (LSD's not mine)

The Grapes of Wrath

14th June 2005, 00:53

I think that religion and politics do not have to go hand in hand. Why would they have to? I said this once before and got shot at for it on here, but Christianity's doctrines could be seen as the betterment of mankind through the "golden rule" and love and fellowship. I don't personally believe in including religion in politics, but if one were so inclined to, they could do it ... and in communism too.

religious beliefs in general have to be included in every aspect of your life

They do? ... what is this? Inquisition Spain? Bullshit!

Religion is between a person and their God ... not to be debated by doctrine, politics or government. The only reason it is in politics right now is that it is thrown in as a way to gain votes because there is nothing concrete to get people along without this.

Is religion the problem or are politicians who manipulate faith for personal gain the problem??

... a christian would not believe a state of anarchy-communism to be possible because they would believe that it is impossible to attain the societal condition of near moral perfection required to sustain such a society, through man's own reasoning.

Near moral perfection? Man is a sinner and is not perfect and never will be. The whole idea is to strive to be moral but if you mess up, ask for forgiveness, and you will be forgiven. How would communism object to the morality of "thou shall not kill" or "thou shall not covet your neighbor's possessions"?

Besides that, not all Christians are Bible-thumping creeps from the South who love their guns and are hypocrits by sleeping with their cousins. Many are bright, intelligent people who want a little faith in their lives in case something happens. They realize that politics and religion are different. You gotta take one person at a time and not make wild assumptions

The same is true of Islam, Buddhism, and whatever else you can think of. The world is not black and white, not matter how much you or redstar2000 want it to be.

Do you have any idea of the details of the religions? You appear to be doing what the people of Opposing Ideologies do, they make assumptions and grab ahold of them as truths without exploring the concept fully.

TGOW

romanm

14th June 2005, 00:58

no. you cannot be a christian and a real communist. period.

The Grapes of Wrath

14th June 2005, 05:12

no. you cannot be a christian and a real communist. period.

Hahahaha! Alright, man, have it your way. But I warn you, if you go around and tell everyone that they have to give up their religion along with everything else familiar to them in your "crash-course communism" people will laugh in your face.

You never even attempted to look at my side or realize where I was coming from ... that makes your argument even more compelling. Look at the arguments people made and while you're at it, learn to compromise a little.

Maybe some people want faith and yet still wish to fight for social justice ... I guess you would send them packing, meanwhile I'm going to bring them in. I'll compromise and see past their religion, just like their color, and see how they can help.

I'm done arguing this point. Go live in your fantasy land of dogma and absolutes, I'm gonna stay in the real world.

TGOW

redstar2000

14th June 2005, 17:46

Originally posted by apathy maybe+--> (apathy maybe)Yes if a person is irrational about some things, they might well be irrational about other things (such as race or sexuality), but it does not follow that they will be.[/b]

It seems to me that if one is irrational about the universe as a whole, then the probability that they will be irrational about any given part must increase very sharply.

That is, if one believes that "black cats are unlucky", but that's the only irrational belief they have...well, how many black cats does one run into on a daily basis? It shouldn't have much effect on the behavior of the believer.

But if one believes in powerful supernatural entities that interfere in physical reality, that would arouse suspicion of everything they thought...because you'd have no way of telling when and when not their supernatural beliefs were influencing their other statements nor even to what extent that influence was making itself felt.

For example, a believer could say that he "supports communism" -- but his reasoning has nothing to do with communism at all. In fact, he thinks communism will take people's minds off of money (true) and allow them to concentrate their attentions on "God" (false).

If they reject the hierarchical parts of their religion, I don't care what they call themselves.

But is that possible? If you believe in all-powerful supernatural entities that, at least, must be worshiped and obeyed, then isn't the basis for hierarchy already present?

Protestants reject the hierarchy of the Catholic Church...and some of them even have a very democratic structure (the preacher is a servant -- employee -- of the congregation who may vote to dismiss him at any time for any reason).

And yet those same "religious ultra-democrats" are politically fascist -- they are the ones who are most vehemently opposed to the "godless secular culture" in the United States, the ones who would put people in prison for having an abortion, committing adultery, or having sex with someone of the same gender.

Originally posted by [email protected]
I don't see why someone that is religious can't also believe in the same ideals of anarchists and communists...

They can believe...but they cannot reason.

And that is what is really crucial.

For example, the Hutterian Brethren believe in economic communism and even practice it...but in all other regards, they are medieval. They practice strict monogamy and female subservience -- birth control is forbidden.

The Grapes of Wrath
I think that religion and politics do not have to go hand in hand. Why would they have to?

Because religion is (or claims to be) a "theory of everything".

"Everything" obviously includes politics.

I said this once before and got shot at for it on here, but Christianity's doctrines could be seen as the betterment of mankind through the "golden rule" and love and fellowship.

Lots of things "could be seen" as lots of other things.

But we have a couple of thousand years of Christian practice to examine and evaluate...and the real meaning its doctrines is pretty obvious.

The accurate translation of the "golden rule", for example, is he that has the gold makes the rules.

Is religion the problem or are politicians who manipulate faith for personal gain the problem?

If religion did not exist, then politicians could not manipulate it to advance their careers...no one would know what they were talking about.

In addition to which, why are you so certain that they are "manipulating religion"? I'm inclined to think that they are just telling more of the truth about their beliefs than politicians usually do. I think Bush was completely sincere when he said that "God" wanted him to be president.

How would communism object to the morality of "thou shall not kill" or "thou shall not covet your neighbor's possessions"?

Easy one.

Thou shalt kill in defense of the revolution.

And thou shalt covet the wealth of the old ruling class...and shalt taketh it from them and utterly despoil thy class enemy.

Besides that, not all Christians are Bible-thumping creeps from the South who love their guns and are hypocrites by sleeping with their cousins. Many are bright, intelligent people who want a little faith in their lives in case something happens.

You mean like...an insurance policy. :lol:

Serious Christians "thump their Bibles" whether or not they own guns or have sex with their cousins.

I think that, on average, they are significantly less intelligent than atheists...but I've never seen any data on the subject.

The world is not black and white, no matter how much you or redstar2000 want it to be.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not.

In the case of superstition, yeah, it's pretty straightforward.

It's always reactionary.

But I warn you, if you go around and tell everyone that they have to give up their religion along with everything else familiar to them in your "crash-course communism" people will laugh in your face.

More likely, they will punch "in your face".

Nevertheless, that's the truth of the matter. You cannot drive a car if you are blind. You cannot think like a communist if you are religious.

Sorry.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Son of the Revolution

14th June 2005, 20:33

religious beliefs in general have to be included in every aspect of your life

They do?...What is this? Inquisition spain?Bullshit!

Not bullshit at all actually. Religions tell you how to live your life and how you see the world. You can't act like a christian in church and not act like one outside. Well, you can, but then you're not a proper christian. Like redstar said, religion is a theory of everything.

The Grapes of Wrath

15th June 2005, 00:54

Alright, you got me, one more post on this, but then again, who knows.

Again, I am simply advocating the freedom for anyone to believe in their religion if they feel so inclined, or, to not believe in any religion if they are so inclined.

I dont' see a problem with a communist having a little faith ... that is between them and their God(s). It is none of my business.
I think that someone can work towards what is strived for in communism while maintaining their faith. I am not a particularly religious person ... not by a long shot. However, people have the right to have religion, and communists are people too, and also have that right to religion. If they choose not to, zippidee do. If they choose to have it, zippidee do. If they fight for the same things as all of you are, who cares?

Not only that, but if they are communist and Christian, and, according to you both, they are "bad" Christians, then so be it. They can still have their faith, be a communist, and be a "good" or "bad" Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever. They are not "good" believers, but are they good communists? So let them pretend.

You are so intent on making regulations to what it means to be such a communist/Anarchist or whatever, that you haven't stopped to see if you should. Regulations are not necessarily bad, but at there is a line that can be crossed, and I don't think that someone's religious feelings should have anything to do with communism.

... a believer could say that he "supports communism" -- but his reasoning has nothing to do with communism at all. In fact, he thinks communism will take people's minds off of money (true) and allow them to concentrate their attentions on "God" (false).

Or he could be saying "look, I'm helping my neighbors and doing good things, God is proud of what I am doing for humanity. I have faith in God and I am showing it through my actions and sacrifices for someone else, and all for a good cause."

... same "religious ultra-democrats" are politically fascist -- they are the ones who are most vehemently opposed to the "godless secular culture" in the United States, the ones who would put people in prison for having an abortion, committing adultery, or having sex with someone of the same gender.

My parents are religious, but not ultra-religious. I'm about 95% certain they don't want to see people put in prison for abortion, adultery or homosexual acts. I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people out there like my parents, but all a bit different I'm sure. Like I keep saying again and again and again ... you cannot speak in absolutes.

Broad generalizations about a people are nothing more than stereotypes. Saying "all Christians are politically fascists" is in the same vein as saying "all black people are drug dealers on welfare." It is also in the same vein as saying "all communists are in love with Stalin and want to rule the world by exchanging one oppressor with themselves." People are people, not groups. Savvy?

Serious Christians "thump their Bibles" whether or not they own guns or have sex with their cousins.

If people act rationally as you contend, would not Christians also be able to realize the need, through logic and reason, that they need to realize the importance of secularism? Or are religious people thinking with cloudy heads?

Can the same be said of dogmatic communists who cannot tolerate the fact that something that exists today is going to be hard to destroy and should instead tolerate such actions and ideas in order to further their goals???

But, of course, this implies that people in general contain any sort of reason whatsoever.

More likely, they will punch "in your face".

Nevertheless, that's the truth of the matter. You cannot drive a car if you are blind. You cannot think like a communist if you are religious.

Nevertheless, if you are serious about any sort of movement, you have to be able to tolerate people within your own ranks that differ than you on trivial details.

If you want religious people to "grow up" and change their "childish" ways, then you gotta do the same, man.

TGOW

redstar2000

15th June 2005, 04:53

Originally posted by The Grapes of Wrath
Again, I am simply advocating the freedom for anyone to believe in their religion if they feel so inclined, or, to not believe in any religion if they are so inclined.

No, you're not "simply" advocating that.

No one here disagrees with that.

What you are advocating goes much further than simple "freedom to believe".

You want communist and anarchist revolutionaries to "accept" religious believers as "comrades" in the struggle.

And that we will not do (or should not do).

Regardless of what any superstitious person might claim to support, superstition in and of itself is always reactionary.

And thus, someone under its influence will, sooner or later, either abandon superstition in favor of communism or exhibit reactionary behavior.

There's just no getting around that; the superstitious cannot be trusted to consistently behave in a rational, revolutionary way.

A few of them (very few!) may support our efforts now and then...but it's for their own reasons, not ours.

And most believers, of course, hate communism and communists (anarchists too)...because they know that communism means the final end of the god racket.

A risk they will not take.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

CrazyModerate

15th June 2005, 06:25

A religous person may believe a couple of things that would make communism very workable into their religion

Part A) We are all created equally by god, under god

Part B) God has no representative on earth, therefore every human being on earth is equal

Part C) This belief in God only pertains to what happens when I am in private, when I am with fellow believers, and when I die, I shall therefore not use this belief as an excuse to make myself superior to another person.

In conclusion, this line of thinking would lead one to socialism/communism.

redstar2000

15th June 2005, 13:55

Originally posted by CrazyModerate
God has no representative on earth, therefore every human being on earth is equal

I think that's the "worm" in your "apple".

If "god" has "no representative on earth", then it follows that no one could possibly say what "god" wants...or, in fact, make any definitive statement on the subject at all.

The sequence normally runs like this...

1. God speaks directly to Holy Man;

2. Holy Man writes book about what God says;

3. Disciples of Holy Man spread book among the ignorant.

The disciples evolve into a clergy; the appointed representatives of God on Earth.

You would need a "religion" without a holy book, without clergy, and without details.

All its followers could say is "I believe in God", period.

I don't think that's possible.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

STI

15th June 2005, 18:26

In my honest opinion, Jesus was a socialist, or a he was partly a socialist. He believed in fighting the established empire, accepting all of his peers, and assissting the poor. Canada's strongest socialist movement, led by J.S. Woosworth and Tommy Douglas was christian. Tommy Douglas was a baptist, and a preacher. And the greatest Canadian. According to the CBC atleast.

1)The NDP is hardly a "socialist" movement. It's a social democratic party (and a crappy one at that)

2)Woodsworth and Douglas weren't socialists. They were social democrats. The word "socialist" was applied to them, but incorrectly.

3)The NDP was never a "Christian movement".

4)Jesus said that a disobedient servant should be beaten by his master (Luke 12:47). Does that sound like any socialists you know?

The Grapes of Wrath

15th June 2005, 19:35

I see where you are coming from restar2000, that I do. You are against any religious person coming in to a communist movemet because their true loyalty is in question ... no matter their chosen religion.

However, I believe that is all fine for rhetoric but I think for the real world, things need to be examined a bit further. Our movement isn't the most popular one, at least in the United States, for the rest of the world, I can't really speak with certainty.

I just feel that, to be are truly serious about socialism/communism/anarchism or what have you, you have to realize that people are going to need to participate in order for this all to work ... that means normal people, regardless of their superstitions or quirks.

You are not an advocate for Leninism, this I know from your other posts, and nor are you an advocate for enlightened despotism. I'm pretty sure about these ... but that leaves only some form of "average-people-way." And average people are not perfect, never will be ... and may or may not be rational.

There's just no getting around that; the superstitious cannot be trusted to consistently behave in a rational, revolutionary way.

This of course, constitutes the idea that people are rational, or that logic exists. Popular politics (ie. democracy in all its forms) is in great danger all the time of devolving away from rationality and diving into emotion and personal "issues" regardless of what religion, or lack there of, is present.

On major reason (among a host of others of course) of why Western Liberalism will not work is simply the over-reliance on reason and logic ... and human kind failed it.

And thus, someone under its influence will, sooner or later, either abandon superstition in favor of communism or exhibit reactionary behavior.

"The revolutionary instantly becomes a die-hard conservative after the revolution has taken place" ... or something to that effect, and I forget who said it. Maybe I made it up or something, but I don't think so.

A few of them (very few!) may support our efforts now and then...but it's for their own reasons, not ours.

Very few people, in the whole scheme of things, supports our efforts now ... at least from what I gathered or where I am coming from.

And most believers, of course, hate communism and communists (anarchists too)...because they know that communism means the final end of the god racket.

A risk they will not take.

Most people, at least in the United States, hate communism and communists because they believe that communism will put an end to all they know and recognize, as well as stability and their livelihoods.

This is a risk that most will not take ... and they are just normal people, working hard to provide for their families and enjoy life.

Throws a kink in the "average-people-way" I think.

Give them a few consessions, something they recognize. So cut them some slack and tolerate a little bit. Who cares if the man next to you on the barricade is a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jew ... "for he sheds his blood with me will be my brother" ... he just can't be a communist?

TGOW

redstar2000

16th June 2005, 00:58

Originally posted by The Grapes of Wrath
Our movement isn't the most popular one, at least in the United States, for the rest of the world, I can't really speak with certainty.

Quite so...the general population of the U.S. is, at present, the most reactionary in the advanced capitalist world.

In my opinion, there are two principle causes of that. The first is that we live in a successful and still prosperous Empire -- and people identify with a "winner".

Until that changes, nothing will change.

But the second cause is very nearly as significant: the "losers" in our empire are strongly attracted to religion as a consolation for their losses. It's generally the poorest parts of the United States where religion is extraordinarily popular. The southern states, the mid-west farm belt, the mountain states both pray a lot more and vote Republican a lot more than the states that have prospered from the rise of the Empire. You might say Texas is an exception to this...and, at the moment, it is. But watch: I predict that over the next couple of decades Texans will become less religious, more secular, and will elect more Democrats (or more "moderate" Republicans).

Note that African-American and Hispanic people ("losers") are more religious than white or Asian people ("winners"). Note that working class people ("losers") are more religious than the wealthier classes ("winners").

This is an almost "textbook" illustration of religion serving its appropriate social role -- misleading the people who should be most outraged and rebellious into pious submission to an execrable social order.

Now, what is to be done? (To coin a phrase. :lol:)

I just feel that, to be truly serious about socialism/communism/anarchism or what have you, you have to realize that people are going to need to participate in order for this all to work ... that means normal people, regardless of their superstitions or quirks.

I don't think this would work. If we surrender to popular superstition (don't forget that doesn't just include religion but also embraces patriotism and some degree of racism, homophobia, and sexism), what remains of what we really want?

How would we have really changed anything even if we were successful in such a venture?

More importantly, what makes you think that we could possibly get away with such an imposture? In order to win the support of present-day grass-roots reactionaries, we'd have to pretend at least nominal sympathy with such views.

My stomach is weak -- I can't do that.

How's yours?

I don't think there's any other road but the hard one...confronting and defeating reactionary views among the most oppressed and exploited.

If it takes a century to do that...then that's what it takes. :(

This of course, constitutes the idea that people are rational, or that logic exists.

Yes, we absolutely rely on the proposition that ultimately people are indeed rational and logic does indeed exist.

What else is there?

If people are fundamentally irrational and logic is but a delusion ("bring us another pitcher of post-modernism, please"), then not only will the human species never be free but it doesn't deserve to be.

Since the Earth still has 200-300 million years of habitability remaining, it would be best for us to go extinct and make way for a more intelligent species to arise.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Latin America

16th June 2005, 01:10

Well guys all I have to say is that if you want to give your apinion about God in spanish here it is:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36673

(Espanol forum)

I open a thread in spanish for whoever want to express their sentiment about religion or god in general.

Urban Rubble

16th June 2005, 01:32

I admit I haven't read this whole thread (I will, I promise), so forgive me if I'm interrupting or if this has no relevance here. I just wanted to pose a question to those who claim that Christian groups absolutely cannot affect positive social change.

I remember RedStar2000 once saying that Christians (or religious people) cannot possibly be a progressive force because Christianity is inherently reactionary (in the "Jesus Radicals" thread I believe). I disagree, I believe that it's quite rare (obviously) but religious groups can be progressive and can be an ally in our fight for social progress (the key word being can).

With that said, I'm going to transcribe this little passage from Chomsky's "Understanding Power" and I would like to ask RedStar (and anyone else who believes Christians are inherently reactionary and can never be a progressive force) what he thinks about it:

In this passage someone had asked Chomsky to illustrate why he believes our society has become more politically conscious since the 60's. Essentially they asked him, "If all (or most) of the liberal intellectuals are really just serving the ruling class, where is the progression, where are the real leftist intellectuals?". This part of the answer is discussing the role of Christians in the Cental American solidarity movement of the 80's. This is what he had to say:

Also, I'm not even sure "left" is the right word for them: a lot of them were probably Christian conservatives, but they were very radical people in my view, and intellectuals who understood, and who did a lot. They created a popular movement which not only protested U.S. atrocities, but actually engaged themselves in the lives of the victims-they took a much more corageous stand than was ever done in the 60's. I mean, the popular resistance that took places in the 60's was very important-but there was nobody back then that ever dreamt of going to a Vietnamese village and living there, because maybe a white face would limit the capacity of the marauders to kill and destroy. That wasn't even an idea in your head. In fact, nobody even went to try and report the war from the side of the victims-that was unheard of. But in the 1980's it was common: plenty of people did it-in fact, people who were coming out of religious groups like Witness for Peace were doing that by the tens of thousands. And the people who were doing that are serious left intellectuals, in my opinion.

So what do you guys think of that? Again, I apologize if this isn't relevant.

Obviously Christian activists are going to be the vast minority, and obviously organized religion as a whole is reactionary. But does it really make sense to oppose all Christian groups (to label them all reactionary?), regardless of the action they are taking, simply because they hold superstitious beliefs?

redstar2000

16th June 2005, 05:12

Originally posted by Noam Chomsky
Also, I'm not even sure "left" is the right word for them: a lot of them were probably Christian conservatives, but they were very radical people in my view, and intellectuals who understood, and who did a lot. They created a popular movement which not only protested U.S. atrocities, but actually engaged themselves in the lives of the victims-they took a much more courageous stand than was ever done in the 60's. I mean, the popular resistance that took places in the 60's was very important-but there was nobody back then that ever dreamt of going to a Vietnamese village and living there, because maybe a white face would limit the capacity of the marauders to kill and destroy. That wasn't even an idea in your head. In fact, nobody even went to try and report the war from the side of the victims-that was unheard of. But in the 1980's it was common: plenty of people did it-in fact, people who were coming out of religious groups like Witness for Peace were doing that by the tens of thousands. And the people who were doing that are serious left intellectuals, in my opinion.

Well, let's try and deconstruct this mess.

1. No one in the 60s ever considered going to Vietnam and "engaging with the victims" because...

a. no one in the U.S. left spoke Vietnamese;

b. a trip to South Vietnam was very expensive;

c. no one would have thought (correctly) that going to Vietnam would have made any possible difference whatsoever.

2. The "sanctuary movement" in the 1980s was a "Catholic to Catholic" movement.

3. The language was Spanish (already known by many and easily learned by others); the travel distances relatively short and easily affordable.

4. Chomsky conflates "physical courage" with "leftism"...as if the degree of physical risk that you are willing to run is a "valid measure" of your leftism.

5. But the "sanctuary movement" was not about "leftism" at all. It was purely humanitarian -- no movement for real change in the United States ever came from the "sanctuary" people nor did they publicly support the revolutionary guerrilla movements in Central America in any way.

They did expose the brutalities of the American-supported dictatorships in that region...and that probably helped a little. And they tried to get American immigration authorities to soften their stand against a-political refugees from those brutalities...and that probably helped a little more.

But that's it.

If those folks fit Chomsky's definition of "leftism"...then why not Jimmy Carter? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Urban Rubble

16th June 2005, 06:00

O.K., well, I'm not going to address the parts about going to Vietnam or Central America, that wasn't my point. My point was that these religious people were doing very radical, very progressive things.

2. The "sanctuary movement" in the 1980s was a "Catholic to Catholic" movement.

That may be true for a lot of it, but that was by no means universal.

4. Chomsky conflates "physical courage" with "leftism"...as if the degree of physical risk that you are willing to run is a "valid measure" of your leftism.

I don't think he was saying that "All those protestors in the 60's were pussies because they didn't go rent a hut in Ky La". I think he was simply illustrating that these people were "valid" leftists.

5. But the "sanctuary movement" was not about "leftism" at all. It was purely humanitarian -- no movement for real change in the United States ever came from the "sanctuary" people nor did they publicly support the revolutionary guerrilla movements in Central America in any way.

Silly me, I thought humanitarianism was the foundation of leftism.

As far as them publicly supporting guerilla movements, I know that some did, but for the most part you're right, they didn't. But what does that prove? Are their efforts to help those people and to expose U.S. aggression invalid because of that? I don't think so.

They did expose the brutalities of the American-supported dictatorships in that region...and that probably helped a little. And they tried to get American immigration authorities to soften their stand against a-political refugees from those brutalities...and that probably helped a little more.

Which is a hell of a lot more than the Trotskyists standing out on the corner selling papers have ever done, yet we'd still probably call them leftists, right? I'd say a bunch of Christians moving down to Central America in order to protest U.S. aggression and help the people there is pretty progressive, am I wrong?

I mean, since when does what you've actually accomplished have anything to do with whether or not you're a leftist? How many people on this very board have never accomplished anything past holding a sign at a protest? Are they not leftists? Must one bring down international Capitalism in order to be allowed the label of "leftist"?

I think these people could have single handedly kicked the CIA out of Nicaragua and laid down palm leaves for Ortega and the Sandinistas and you'd still say they weren't leftists because they are religious.

redstar2000

16th June 2005, 15:06

Originally posted by Urban Rubble
Silly me, I thought humanitarianism was the foundation of leftism.

Yes, and perhaps that's Chomsky's difficulty as well.

In fact, it's a wide-spread error -- that the reason to become a leftist stems from a desire to "help people".

Or that "leftism = helping people".

And that's just wrong.

It's a conflation of leftism and charity.

The crucial characteristic of charity is that it must not disturb the social order. Consequently, its effects are always trivial.

The purpose of leftism is non-trivial -- to drastically change or, in the case of revolutionaries, actually destroy the existing social order.

I've no doubt that many people are first attracted to the left from a desire to "help people"...but that's actually an extremely poor motivation. It leads directly to reformism and then on to mere charity.

The reason you should be a leftist is because you hate the existing social order and everything it stands for.

Because you despise wage-slavery and the capitalist slavemasters as a class.

Noam Chomsky doesn't hate the capitalist class...he probably even dines with them on occasion. And hatred is forbidden to the pious Catholic...Christian love is mandatory (at least until you make it to bishop or get accepted into Opus Dei).

There's nothing "left" about that at all.

Are their efforts to help those people and to expose U.S. aggression invalid because of that? I don't think so.

I didn't say "invalid"...I said they "helped a little". Chomsky's scholarly treatments of the details of American imperialist practice also "help a little".

But the "sanctuary movement's" failure to publicly support the revolutionary movements in Central America meant that they could never become a real domestic opposition to American imperialism. They could "nibble at the edges" -- some of them went on to wage a campaign against the army's torture school in Georgia...but they were never able to even "name the enemy" (U.S. imperialism), much less genuinely confront it as a system.

And I don't have to remind you of where Chomsky ended up...inspite of his remarkable erudition, he found himself urging people to vote for a imperialist billionaire presidential candidate.

So much for "helping people".

Which is a hell of a lot more than the Trotskyists standing out on the corner selling papers have ever done, yet we'd still probably call them leftists, right?

Yes we would...because however inept or even comical their efforts might appear, they are trying to muster opposition to the whole system.

It's easy enough to mock the effectiveness of all the tiny Leninist sects in the U.S. today -- we live in a very reactionary period in which Christian fascism is, to say the least, a distinct possibility. Nobody in what passes for a left here is "accomplishing very much".

Would you conclude from our rather grim situation that we should "therefore" abandon our revolutionary hopes and settle for being charity workers?

Would you rather "light one little candle" than "curse the darkness"? :lol:

Must one bring down international Capitalism in order to be allowed the label of "leftist"?

No, but you must be trying to do that.

I think these people could have single handedly kicked the CIA out of Nicaragua and laid down palm leaves for Ortega and the Sandinistas and you'd still say they weren't leftists because they are religious.

Yes I would say that...because it's true.

You have to understand that Catholic "leftism" is not really left by our standards at all. It's an appeal to the "Christian conscience" of the ruling class to behave in a "Christian way"...to exploit "less" and oppress "less". It's also an appeal to the exploited and oppressed -- please don't abandon the Church and hook up with "godless Marxism".

Because if you do that, what will become of the Church? :o

*smiles in anticipation*

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Urban Rubble

17th June 2005, 02:49

In fact, it's a wide-spread error -- that the reason to become a leftist stems from a desire to "help people".

I didn't say that though. I think humanitarianism (at least in the sense I meant it) is a bit different from simply "helping people". It's about having concern for human welfare. And yeah, I think that is the root of leftist ideals.

It has nothing to do with charity. I do not intend to to give people anything. I intend to change the system in order to better the lot of humans. Is that charity?

The reason you should be a leftist is because you hate the existing social order and everything it stands for.

Because you despise wage-slavery and the capitalist slavemasters as a class.

And why do you hate the system? Why do you oppose Capitalism and slavery? Because it is oppressive to the human race, correct? So doesn't it stand to reason that you are actually fighting to better the cause of humanity?

Saying that you're fighting because you hate Capitalists and leaving it at that totally ignores the whole quesiton of why you hate them, which strikes me as a pretty major ommission.

I didn't say "invalid"...I said they "helped a little". Chomsky's scholarly treatments of the details of American imperialist practice also "help a little".

Yes, and "helping a little" is all we can really do, I think what some of those people did was pretty major. You speak about it as if it was irrelevant. You know good and well you aren't judging the average acvtivist's leftism by how much he has accomplished.

But the "sanctuary movement's" failure to publicly support the revolutionary movements in Central America meant that they could never become a real domestic opposition to American imperialism. They could "nibble at the edges" -- some of them went on to wage a campaign against the army's torture school in Georgia...but they were never able to even "name the enemy" (U.S. imperialism), much less genuinely confront it as a system.

O.K., so here you're saying they aren't progressive because they never wished to confront the real enemy: Capitalism. Fair enough. But in the "Jesus Radicals" thread you said that the reason they weren't progressive is because they're Christians, never mind that they oppose Capitalism.

This is where the problem comes in. You will never give a religious person credit, no matter what they do or stand for aside from religion. If they mobilize in large numbers in order to defend people from U.S. aggression you say they weren't willing to confront the system as a whole, which may be true. But then, if they're willing to confront the system as a whole you won't give any slack because, well, they're still religious and we find that irrational.

I seems to me that a better solution would be to, on some level, get over it and stop alienating people. I oppose the very same things you do, but I see no use in hating good people, and more importantly, refusing to recongnize them as particpants in the struggle (on some level at least) because part of what they believe is irrational to me. It does no good.

And I don't have to remind you of where Chomsky ended up...inspite of his remarkable erudition, he found himself urging people to vote for a imperialist billionaire presidential candidate.

Which is no reason to ignore everything he ever said or wrote.

Would you conclude from our rather grim situation that we should "therefore" abandon our revolutionary hopes and settle for being charity workers?

Obviously not. I have no idea where you get that.

I wasn't saying that small, largely ineffective Trot sects shouldn't be considered leftists. I was saying that the amount of social change you've affected does not determine whether or not you're a leftist as you implied it did when you belittle the efforts of these people.

No, but you must be trying to do that.

Again, there are religious people who oppose Capitalism and who are actively fighting it. Obviously they are few in number, but they exist and I think we should embrace them while still being critical of their other beliefs.

You have to understand that Catholic "leftism" is not really left by our standards at all. It's an appeal to the "Christian conscience" of the ruling class to behave in a "Christian way"...to exploit "less" and oppress "less". It's also an appeal to the exploited and oppressed -- please don't abandon the Church and hook up with "godless Marxism".

I never said that Catholic philanthropists are leftists. I said that religious people who are actively fighting U.S. imperialism and aggression are leftists.

Now, if they simply wish to make the U.S. play a little nicer then obviously one wouldn't consider that leftist (though I can still see the positivity of those actions). But that isn't universally true.

*smiles in anticipation*

I think you mean:

*smirks in self importance*

redstar2000

17th June 2005, 04:08

Originally posted by Urban Rubble
I intend to change the system in order to better the lot of humans. Is that charity?

Obviously not.

But the "sanctuary movement" was charity...I don't see how you could possibly dispute that.

If you go on, like Chomsky, to say that what they did was "leftist", then you are effectively saying leftism = charity.

And I repeat: that's just plain wrong!

You speak about [the sanctuary movement] as if it was irrelevant.

From my standpoint -- total opposition to the system -- it was.

In principle, communists are supposed to support any resistance to capitalism, regardless of its source.

But any resistance that comes from a religious source is obviously problematical; whatever progressive element it contains is thoroughly mixed up with all kinds of reactionary bullshit. How we can support "the good stuff" without getting drawn into the quagmire of bullshit is a really tough proposition.

It's often a very close call...and Marxists can legitimately disagree on a particular case.

I am "openly prejudiced" on this question -- I think it's inevitable that "religious leftists" [sic] will end up in the camp of reaction, sooner or later. I think that outcome is "built in" (or "hard-wired") into their whole outlook.

O.K., so here you're saying they aren't progressive because they never wished to confront the real enemy: Capitalism. Fair enough. But in the "Jesus Radicals" thread you said that the reason they weren't progressive is because they're Christians, never mind that they oppose Capitalism.

You're referring to discussions on two different, if somewhat related, levels.

But look at it this way...

1. "Christian leftists" can't really oppose capitalism (except from the right) no matter what they say...because their principle views are irrational and their core values are reactionary.

2. And, sure enough, in the case of the "sanctuary movement", they did not oppose capitalism -- that was not on their agenda and there was no way it could ever be on their agenda.

This example is a specific illustration of the general principle.

You will never give a religious person credit, no matter what they do or stand for aside from religion.

Correct. If they do anything "progressive" (a rare occurrence), it's an unintended consequence of doing something with reactionary intentions.

I seems to me that a better solution would be to, on some level, get over it and stop alienating people.

No.

If you want to suck up to some godsuckers, that's your decision. I will not "go along with it" under any circumstances.

I will not be silent.

And I will be heard! :angry:

*smirks in self importance*

Flame not lest ye be flamed. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu42.gif

Urban Rubble

21st June 2005, 04:09

If you go on, like Chomsky, to say that what they did was "leftist", then you are effectively saying leftism = charity.

Though I hate to do it, I've got to concede this one. You're right. Going down to Central America in order to help people avoid American aggression isn't necessarily leftist. I was wrong to imply that anyone who opposes the American government and helps it's victims is leftist. Though I still think they were good people wo don't deserve our (your) scorn, but that is a different topic.

However, there were quite a lot of these people who were left. Many of them (obviously not the majority) went down there with the direct intent of opposing the American government and all that it stood for. And that is really what I intended with my comments, to raise the question of "If someone fights against American Capitalism in favor of Socialism (or Anarchism) yet still believes in God, can they still be considered leftist?". I think they can be.

But any resistance that comes from a religious source is obviously problematical; whatever progressive element it contains is thoroughly mixed up with all kinds of reactionary bullshit. How we can support "the good stuff" without getting drawn into the quagmire of bullshit is a really tough proposition.

Well, obviously (like you said) it's tough question, one that does not have any universal answers. In fact, that is the reason I don't support the bulk of the Iraqi resistance, not only do I see them as reactionary, I don't see ANY "good stuff" aside from hating America.

I am "openly prejudiced" on this question -- I think it's inevitable that "religious leftists" [sic] will end up in the camp of reaction, sooner or later. I think that outcome is "built in" (or "hard-wired") into their whole outlook.

Well, I won't argue with that in general terms, but I think inevitable is just far too strong a word. I have seen more than one Christian "leave the flock" in favor of leftism, and they're still with US today.

1. "Christian leftists" can't really oppose capitalism (except from the right) no matter what they say...because their principle views are irrational and their core values are reactionary.

2. And, sure enough, in the case of the "sanctuary movement", they did not oppose capitalism -- that was not on their agenda and there was no way it could ever be on their agenda.

Well, forget the second question, it wasn't really my intent. My intent was the first question, the question of "Can a religious person legititmately be a leftist?".

Correct. If they do anything "progressive" (a rare occurrence), it's an unintended consequence of doing something with reactionary intentions.

I don't agree. For example, "Jesus Radicals" are focused on fighting Capitalism for the exact same reasons we fight. They also wish to reform the Church, but reform it in an anti-Capitalist fashion. Their intent is not on converting leftists, it is on fighting Capitalism and influencing Christians to do the same. I don't think those are reactionary intentions.

If you want to suck up to some godsuckers, that's your decision. I will not "go along with it" under any circumstances.

I fail to see how my refusal to hate all religious people is considered "sucking up". Do you really believe that is my intention?

Flame not lest ye be flamed.

Haha, all in good fun, comrade. :D

redstar2000

22nd June 2005, 04:57

And that is really what I intended with my comments, to raise the question of "If someone fights against American Capitalism in favor of Socialism (or Anarchism) yet still believes in God, can they still be considered leftist?". I think they can be.

I think they should be considered, at best, confused. They're trying to do two things that contradict one another at the deepest level.

Of course, they are not necessarily aware of that contradiction...many "believers" in the "west" are theologically illiterate. They believe in "God" and "Jesus" because it makes them "feel good" or because they "never really thought about it much"...it's just something "they grew up with".

That's probably harmless enough...if they never run into any seriously religious people, then they'll just drift away from religion altogether because earthly events and ideas are more interesting.

But they will run into serious believers -- unfortunately, there are a lot of them around -- and that's the real problem...for them and for us.

Serious believers do not think like we do...their mind-sets are fundamentally medieval. (Or, in the case of newer religions like the Mormons, Christian Scientists, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc., they mentally live in the 1820s, 30s, 40s, etc.)

If their spiritual leader tells them that the "Devil" lives in an apartment building on the corner of Jones & Ellis Streets in San Francisco, they believe it. They'll drive out of their way to avoid that intersection...and maybe sell their house and move out of the "devil's city" altogether.

Now, consider our casual believer (who's interested in socialism or anarchism) and s/he runs into a serious believer who also claims to be a "religious leftist". The serious believer is, naturally, going to talk religion -- it's his "job". He wants very much to spread his medieval outlook -- in fact, his vision of a "commune" is probably borrowed from a medieval monastery. His purpose is to convert that casual believer into a serious believer...to fill her/him with "the Spirit", etc.

Depending on how vulnerable the casual believer might be at that point, the serious believer is unsuccessful, partially successful, or completely successful. Remember that the casual believer has no idea of the complexity of religious belief...especially in its medieval incarnation. S/he will be told of "wonders" and "miracles" in great profusion. S/he may be "dazzled" and...sucked in.

Even if the worst does not happen, s/he may develop a kind of "respect" for the medieval world-view...and insist that others owe it respect also. And that's pretty bad -- it enlarges the "public space" for medievalism as "legitimate discourse" and "not reactionary".

Well, why should we care? A "warm body" in the struggle is a warm body. If its head is a quarter-filled, or half-filled, or completely filled up with medieval nonsense, so what?

So this: warm bodies don't do us any good. We're not recruiting cannon-fodder. We need people who understand capitalist social reality and both why and how to change it!

The very qualities that are "virtues" to the medieval mind -- obedience to authority, a firm belief in miracles and martyrdom, puritanical obsessions, etc. -- are disasters for us.

And worse still: if we were to publicly convey the impression that medieval superstition is "ok with us", what impact will that have on people who are the direct victims of medieval views -- women and children and gay people in particular?

How could we possibly justify any kind of "alliance" with people who lust for the rack or the stake...or envision some kind of high-tech equivalent?

See what I mean?

For example, "Jesus Radicals" are focused on fighting Capitalism for the exact same reasons we fight. They also wish to reform the Church, but reform it in an anti-Capitalist fashion. Their intent is not on converting leftists, it is on fighting Capitalism and influencing Christians to do the same. I don't think those are reactionary intentions.

I think you have to look deeper. Many Christians do dislike capitalism and some even hate it. But why?

Well, what's the history here? What did the capitalist revolutionaries do back in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries?

You know the answer to that and so do serious believers. When the capitalists were young and confident in their destiny to re-fashion the whole world, they totally smashed the intellectual foundations of religious faith and authority.

Now, of course, many capitalists are desperately trying to rebuild those foundations...they need superstition now as much as the lords of feudalism needed it back in the old days.

Too late! Even while many capitalists are verbally urging us to "take up the cross and follow you-know-who", the real capitalist message is "screw that old shit...unless you can make some money from it".

Serious believers understand, some better than others, that the only hope for "the Kingdom of God on Earth" is the mutual destruction of both capitalism and communism -- the restoration of some kind of "up-dated" version of medieval society like...clerical fascism.

That's the real goal of the "politically religious"...even when they insist otherwise.

Because that's the only system that can save the godracket from extinction.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif