"Socialists" Funding Religion In Spain!?!

[Paradox]

There was an article in Sunday's paper about Spain and Catholic demonstrations against the "Socialist" government and it's legalization of gay marriage and stance on abortion, etc.. Now that part made sense to me. What confused me is when it said that the "Socialists" are reducing funding to the Catholic Church and increasing funding to other religions. What the hell? Why are they funding religion at all? Is this for real? It doesn't make much sense if it is. I mean how fake are these "Socialists?"

[redstar2000]

It's a hangover from the time when all European states had official "state religions" that were openly financed by the various governments.

Some of those subsidies have been reduced and perhaps even eliminated...but a lot of them still go on.

The Spanish "socialist party" is not, of course, the least bit "socialist"...if Ralph Nader were Spanish, he'd be a leader in the Spanish "socialist" party.

In fact, when you see the words "socialist" or "social democratic" in a party's name now, you should just mentally substitute left-bourgeois...and you'll be pretty close to what that party really thinks.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Paradox]

In fact, when you see the words "socialist" or "social democratic" in a party's name now, you should just mentally substitute left-bourgeois...and you'll be pretty close to what that party really thinks.

Well, I already expect this. I just didn't know it was as bad as funding religion. I mean if you're going to cut funding to Catholics, Catholicism being the major religion in Spain, that's fine. But funding other religions??? Fund NO RELIGIONS. It doesn't make sense, even if they are fake socialists. Ah well... what can you do?

Real revolution. That's what you can do. :D

[Camarada]

Please provide a source.

[Camarada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 02:28 AM

In fact, when you see the words "socialist" or "social democratic" in a party's name now, you should just mentally substitute left-bourgeois...and you'll be pretty close to what that party really thinks.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Give me a break. Just because they're not hanging capitalists and burning all the churches down to the ground doesn't mean they're not socialists. I'd be hard-pressed to find a socialist that fits your definition of "socialist", though you'll probably find alot at the Ernesto Guevara forums.

[praxis1966]

Redstar's right. In the majority of cases, most of the older socialist parties have gotten soft. Anyway, how would you know what his definition of a socialist is?

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 03:04 AM
Give me a break. Just because they're not hanging capitalists and burning all the churches down to the ground doesn't mean they're not socialists. I'd be hard-pressed to find a socialist that fits your definition of "socialist", though you'll probably find alot at the Ernesto Guevara forums.
What? When did we talk about hanging capitalist and burning churches?

The Left is traditionally anti-state supported religion. And Socialism is supposedly on the left. These "socialists" aren't socialists because they don't have a platform which reflects socialism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Camarada
Give me a break. Just because they're not hanging capitalists and burning all the churches down to the ground doesn't mean they're not socialists. I'd be hard-pressed to find a socialist that fits your definition of "socialist", though you'll probably find alot at the Ernesto Guevara forums.

What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082900868&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[h&s]

Yes, the SWP of Spain is just another example of the 'democratic' route to socialism. Like the socialist parties of Europe, it started off as a working class movement, but the leadership has gradually shook that off to attract capitalist supporters.
Don't give them any credit.


In fact, when you see the words "socialist" or "social democratic" in a party's name now, you should just mentally substitute left-bourgeois...and you'll be pretty close to what that party really thinks.
There are as many exceptions to that rule as there are followers, but regarding mainstream parties you are right.

[Andy Bowden]

PSOE (the spanish "Socialist" party) has also privatised telecommunications in the past, and introduced "flexible" labour laws :angry:

[Man of the Century]

Not all socialist are revolutionary, or Marxist, or Communits, or believe that an absence of religion is necessary for socialism. Scandinavian countries have usually funded the Lutherin Church for as long as I can remember, and they have a streak of non-revolutionary socialism in their structures.

It's one thing to work to end subsidizing religion, but another to argue that one is fake if one is a religious socialist.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 08:38 PM

In fact, when you see the words "socialist" or "social democratic" in a party's name now, you should just mentally substitute left-bourgeois...and you'll be pretty close to what that party really thinks.

Well, I already expect this. I just didn't know it was as bad as funding religion. I mean if you're going to cut funding to Catholics, Catholicism being the major religion in Spain, that's fine. But funding other religions??? Fund NO RELIGIONS. It doesn't make sense, even if they are fake socialists. Ah well... what can you do?

Real revolution. That's what you can do. :D
Established churches are still pretty common in Europe. Even in the countries which don't have 'em, some have state funding of religious schools - France for example. Which doesn't stop French politicians from pretending to represent "secularism."

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Man of the [email protected] 21 2005, 11:02 AM
Not all socialist are revolutionary, or Marxist, or Communists, or believe that an absence of religion is necessary for socialism. Scandinavian countries have usually funded the Lutherin Church for as long as I can remember, and they have a streak of non-revolutionary socialism in their structures.

It's one thing to work to end subsidizing religion, but another to argue that one is fake if one is a religious socialist.
You are "all over the place" with this post.

1. I'm not aware of any form of "socialism" that is not at least nominally Marxist. As far as I know, non-Marxist forms of socialism died out in the 19th century.

2. The parties that claim to be "non-revolutionary socialists" in fact do not do anything "socialistic" at all. As of late, they frequently turn against their own voters in service to the further rationalization of capitalism. In Europe, the "elections" offer the voters a choice between the "capitalist capitalists" and the "socialist capitalists". But then again, what else would you expect from bourgeois "democracy"?

3. There has never been anything "socialist" about social-democracy in Scandinavia...they were and remain capitalist welfare states in which the means of production remain in the hands of private capital.

4. The issue of religion in post-capitalist society has been discussed at great length in the Religion sub-forum...so I won't get into that here.

But I will note that you seem to be one of the unfortunates who suffers from complacency with regard to the reactionary nature of all superstitions. It never seems to occur to folks like you to wonder why churches get those government subsidies.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[viva le revolution]

Pure and simple, a socialist is not supposed to have anything to do with religion. Advocating policies through religion, Providing religious arguements for their actions is unacceptable. Funding religion is a step away from secularization.
Not very socialist if you ask me. A wolf in sheep's clothing.