A true communist shouldnt believe in GOD!

[rahul]

...............because "its because of the concept of GoD rich plays with poor"..............

so how can a commie believe in GOD?
(__i see some of the leftists here who believ in GoD__)

[Lord Testicles]

i dont belive in god(s) because there is no evidance to support it and causesd more harm than good and its just another way of controling the masses

[Zingu]

A leftist can believe in god; but a Communist cannot. Its a matter of theory and materialist convictions.

If a Socialist belives in god, its most likely that they have the attitude of "Oh, poor suffering masses, I pity you, follow me and let me help you!", which is no better than a burgeoisie politician.
A Communist recognizes the power of the proletariat; and will support them until the material conditions for revolution come about.

I don't know how a Communist can believe in Historical & Dialectical Materialism and be religous at the same time; its impossible

[Clarksist]

There is a lot of truth in what Zingu posted.

However, many people are religious on basic ignorance, or they are trying to will themselves to believe something for their own comfort.

When we break away from religion... we will have saved an immense amount of people.

[Reds]

its not god as much as religion.

[Lord Testicles]

i think it more to do with the stain of organised religion and the hiarachy that comes with it i mean it fine for the proletariat to believe and worship god(s) as long as thier not being influenced by a some religious leader (who will probably oppose communism) or impose their believes on others

[Xvall]

I don't think anyone really cares, actually. Communism is a political science, not a "special club" or a religion. In general, Communists are athiests, but it's not like there's some special council that decides on who is a "true communist" or not. Many authoritarians do not consider libertarian communists to be "true communists" and vice-versa.

[Clarksist]

Communists are athiests, but it's not like there's some special council that decides on who is a "true communist" or not


What he's saying is that if you really follow communist ideology... you wouldn't be religious.

[rahul]

SO you say a socialist / leftist can believe in God?................but 'nt commie??

[Postteen]

Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.Manifesto of the Communist Party: Chapter 1.

I've always loved this sentence.And it's true.Since god is basically connected with organized religion, which has the power to control the masses, not for their own profit, for sure a communist cannot believe in "him".Communists aren't religious.They are materialists.And generally the (christian for example) theory of a god who knows everything, suppresses you, punishes you when you don't do what "he" says, is illiberal no matter how hard christians try to persuade people about the so-called free-will.And finally of course, a communist should be a smart person, therefore his logic would prevent him from believing in god.

[Raisa]

I believe in god, and I believe god is a communist and is inside everyone.

I had smoe damn religious revelations lately and I dont give a damn what non of yall tell me or dis me or whatever, aint like you anybody!

We didnt need to really really have religion untill the class system was made and people were economically opressed and slavery was made.
And some how we KNEW we werent meant to live that way. We were meant to be equal. What happened?! We are meant to have dignity and there is a certain way we are meant to live. And we made up religions as the system progressed, to express this. Religion wa smade up but the spirit damn well wasnt.
Our religions were taken from us and used against us by the ruling class. They were manipulated and taught to an illterate enslaved populace in adifferent way.

All the religions talk about a promised land for the people. It all came from the same spirit, so when you put it together everyone from all over the world with the same spirit talking about the same cocept must mean that the promised land is the world. And the chosen people are the worlds opressed and exploited- who have their land taken from them and held hostage. Those are the workers!
And we know it, its been the truth since the system existed and deep inside we knew it was wrong. Its unnatural and thats why we have to beat our children into it.

Even though the christians book in particular was changed, anyone who reads it with this concept in their head can clearly still see that god is no on the bourgeoisies side and he never was cause he is inside the people. USA is all "gods way this and gods way that" but this shit is really Babylon, the evil indulgant empire and the one who was depicted as an immoral whore who seduces and sleeps with the leaders of 7 nations. Now we have the g8, where 7 other world leaders basically get together sleep wth the US in the peoples bed- their chosen land that they need all their police illiteracy and fascism to keep away from them and enslave them to just toil on instead of own. They thought rome was babylon but they were only half correct.

Marx himself is a prophet too. A prophet isnt chosen by god, a prophet is someone who is intouch with their inside, cause thats where gods at. You were born with it and you damn well know it. There are millions of prophets but only some strike a chord that makes them popular.
What would posses marx to even give a fuck?!
Karl Marx knew it RELIGOUSLY that the people deserve to be free. Where do most communists passion come from? Or the passion of other peoples men? Our passion feels so natural, like we know it isnt supposed to be this way, but who told us?
People know it, man. Five year olds know it. We know the difference even if we are born into slavery. Marx was the last to outline exactly HOW the people will inherit their chosen land.


Religions been controlled by the bourgeois for so long that it has been refined and remixed into the opiate of the masses. Cause they told it to our stupid asses from their gravy assed view. But before that it was the thing that told us we will one day inherit the earth cause we knew that this is not how we are supposed to live. We made it ourselves in an attempt to express the natural freaking truth! And today it is used against us. But next time you read a holy book, just get babylon out of your head and read between the lines they draw. POWER to the PEOPLE!

[RandomRival]

I think im done with catholicsm and I am becoming a jewish communist.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 06:13 PM
A leftist can believe in god; but a Communist cannot. Its a matter of theory and materialist convictions.

If a Socialist belives in god, its most likely that they have the attitude of "Oh, poor suffering masses, I pity you, follow me and let me help you!", which is no better than a burgeoisie politician.
A Communist recognizes the power of the proletariat; and will support them until the material conditions for revolution come about.

I don't know how a Communist can believe in Historical & Dialectical Materialism and be religous at the same time; its impossible
Well, unless they have a non-Marxist interpretation of communism or something like that, given that there were non-Marxist communistic theories that were around long ago.

However, I think that it is rather trivial if we obsess over who believes in god or not; Marxists are to emancipate the workers of the world, regardless of skin color, religion, etc.

Plus, Christianity started out as a primitive communistic struggle against the Roman Empire. See:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...y-christianity/ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/)

[NovelGentry]

Well, unless they have a non-Marxist interpretation of communism or something like that, given that there were non-Marxist communistic theories that were around long ago.

Such as?

[synthesis]

There has been an increasing number of leftists here and elsewhere (myself included) who believe that "true communism" today is represented as much by Bakunin and his ilk as Marx, Engles, and their contemporaries. Bakunin, therefore, is a viable spokesmen for our opposition to the concept of God, and the religion which follows it.

I have included an except from his seminal God and the State which explains the anti-deist viewpoint far clearer than I ever could. It is long even though I clipped some parts which I felt were simply extra baggage to my point, though they are quite enlightened. Anyone who wishes to read the whole piece can find the link at the end of the excerpt.


The gradual development of the material world, as well as of organic animal life and of the historically progressive intelligence of man, individually or socially, is perfectly conceivable. It is a wholly natural movement from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher, from the inferior to the superior; a movement in conformity with all our daily experiences, and consequently in conformity also with our natural logic, with the distinctive laws of our mind, which being formed and developed only by the aid of these same experiences; is, so to speak, but the mental, cerebral reproduction or reflected summary thereof.

The system of the idealists is quite the contrary of this. It is the reversal of all human experiences and of that universal and common good sense which is the essential condition of all human understanding, and which, in rising from the simple and unanimously recognized truth that twice two are four to the sublimest and most complex scientific considerations-admitting, moreover, nothing that has not stood the severest tests of experience or observation of things and facts-becomes the only serious basis of human knowledge.

Very far from pursuing the natural order from the lower to the higher, from the inferior to the superior, and from the relatively simple to the more complex; instead of wisely and rationally accompanying the progressive and real movement from the world called inorganic to the world organic, vegetables, animal, and then distinctively human-from chemical matter or chemical being to living matter or living being, and from living being to thinking being-the idealists, obsessed, blinded, and pushed on by the divine phantom which they have inherited from theology, take precisely the opposite course. They go from the higher to the lower, from the superior to the inferior, from the complex to the simple. They begin with God, either as a person or as divine substance or idea, and the first step that they take is a terrible fall from the sublime heights of the eternal ideal into the mire of the material world; from absolute perfection into absolute imperfection; from thought to being, or rather, from supreme being to nothing. When, how, and why the divine being, eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect, probably weary of himself, decided upon this desperate salto mortale is something which no idealist, no theologian, no metaphysician, no poet, has ever been able to understand himself or explain to the profane. All religions, past and present, and all the systems of transcendental philosophy hinge on this unique and iniquitous mystery.

It is evident that this terrible mystery is inexplicable-that is, absurd, because only the absurd admits of no explanation. It is evident that whoever finds it essential to his happiness and life must renounce his reason, and return, if he can, to naive, blind, stupid faith, to repeat with Tertullianus and all sincere believers these words, which sum up the very quintessence of theology: Credo quia absurdum. Then all discussion ceases, and nothing remains but the triumphant stupidity of faith.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...dstate_ch1.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html)

[bombeverything]

It is my view that Bakunin makes one of the best arguments against a belief in god in this book, but then again I guess I am biased.

[Zingu]

God = Idealist

Communist = Materialist

For the zillionith time, they do NOT go together!

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 01:10 PM
God = Idealist

Communist = Materialist

For the zillionith time, they do NOT go together!
Philosphically, theoretically, etc. then no, they do not go together, but any honest religious person should be welcome to participate in the struggle against capitalism. To exclude so many people from the revolution would be extremely sectarian.

From NovelGentry:


Such as?

I am not sure about this, but didn't the earlier, utopian socialist trends not really say anything about religion in comparasion to Marx?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 01:10 PM
God = Idealist

Communist = Materialist

For the zillionith time, they do NOT go together!
Exactly.

Can the struggle for communism be supported by theists (people who believe in a spirtual being, creator, etc.)? Yes.

Can a thiest be a communist? No.

A communist is a materialist and views the world from the outlook of one. You cannot be a materialist and a theist, the two are counterdisposed.

[NovelGentry]

I am not sure about this, but didn't the earlier, utopian socialist trends not really say anything about religion in comparasion to Marx?

Yes, which is why it is Utopian Socilist trends, and not communist ones.

[OleMarxco]

Jesus, this topic has been on like, 5000 billion-zillion times, and my response's the SAME;
A COMMUNIST IS JUST NOT INVOLVED WITH ORGANIZED RELIGION:
BUT IF THEY ARE SPIRITUAL OR NOT, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Geez! You kid's! ;)

[Zingu]

Philosphically, theoretically, etc. then no, they do not go together, but any honest religious person should be welcome to participate in the struggle against capitalism. To exclude so many people from the revolution would be extremely sectarian.


I was talking about a 'Communist', the pure definition of what a Communist is, a person who takes a materialist theoritical posistion about the conception of history, and god NOR spirituality has no place in it!.

Religous infulence will have to be extremely low or even non-existant as it is for a real revolution to ever work; but I expect most of it would dissaper during the first stages of the revolution, ultimately, religon IS reactionary. If man ever wants to be free from alienation forever, religon is going down the tubes then.

[BeauIdeal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 04:43 PM
so how can a commie believe in GOD?
(Sorry, I don't have time to read all the posts in this thread yet; if this has already been said, I apologize)

I'm a Christian and a *strong* supporter of Communism. However, I am not a Christian in the typical way. I don't go to church, I don't read the Bible (at least not any more often than I read any other books), I'm not too big on "worship music." But I am still a Christian.

Anyone can believe in any God they choose and still be a Communist. It is the belief in organized religion that is a problem. The problem is, organized religion has become so wide-spread that it is difficult NOT to follow it and still be religious.

God doesn't care if you believe in Him or not. That's not what matters. It's always said that God is love, and this is something I hold to be the most important aspect of God. "Unconditional love" is what he posesses, and because of this there is no condition to His love. You could claim to hate Him and he'd still love you.

Communism is a secular form of economy, but not in the way that smashes religion out of the way. It is secular in that the founders of the theory were atheist. This does not mean they excluded religion from their theory, it means they did not particularly include it. Therefore there is no conditional religious value required to be a Communist.

To say that you cannot be a Christian (or a Buddhist or a Wiccan, etc.) and be a Communist as well is a little unrealistic. Marx believed religion would disappear, but he also believed the conditions of the workers would continually deteriorate until a popular uprising happened.

You should not scorn the religious Communists simply because you are not religious.

[Ultra-Violence]

mu thoughts commrade is that any body has the right to believe what ever they want but religion in my opinion is the most disgusting vile thing EVER! but then agian poeple think the same about communism. but if you wanna belive in god be my guest i dont see any good reason why and its bad for you health! :lol:

[James]

With such discussions, it is vital that the terms are defined. Otherwise, for example, it is very possible for two people to argue about completely different things.

I use the dictionary for such things. Not because i'm a crazy religious right wing nut, but simply because it is a definition "set in stone" by convention. It offers a nice basic definition which people can then expand upon.

According to this online dictionary i'm using, i get:


com·mu·nism n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.



Obviously this does not exclude the belief in a God.


That's the essential answer to the question "can a communist believe in God?".

However, of course, this was not the question asked. The question asked, or rather the statement made, was: "a true communist shouldn't believe in God".
Clearly, the subjective nature ("a true communist") of this statement is evident.

Indeed, such a statement suggests to me that the owner has strong feelings regarding the subject: anyone who disagrees is not a "true communist" (i.e. their own definition of communism).
This is a weak argument. A sort of playground type of argument "you arn't in the gang".

It takes alot of confidence to declare that your definition of communism is "true". Alternatively, many would argue that it isn't confidence, but sheer ignorance (the implication that any other definition of communism is "un-true") and intolerance (the implication that other definitions are not allowed - as they are "not true": essentially you are telling others what to think. Or what not to think.).

Obviously this logic leads us to the final conclusion that the individual who made this statement is, in a way, quite correct. Their own brand of communism does exclude the ability of individuals to believe in God: due to ignorance and intolerance.

Ignorance and intolerance.
History demonstrates that these are some of humanities biggest flaws.

[Eastside Revolt]

I don't know how it is where you live, but I find that one of the biggest obstacles with the people where I live, is not religion, but belief in god.

Most people don't go to church, but the vast majoprity of people I know, would somehow feel guilty in saying that they didn't believe in a god.

When your trying to explain to someone that their life could easily be much better under a different system, it doesn't help when they believe that things will be better when they die anyway.

When you come to realize that there is no "higher power" dictating life, then you realize that it's up to you dictate whether someone controls your life. That's called "self-determination", which I'm sure most of you will agree is a big factor in communism.

[Zingu]

Obviously this does not exclude the belief in a God.

You're actually useing a dictionary definition to define what Communism is? :lol:



Anyone can believe in any God they choose and still be a Communist.

I doubt you know what a Communist is then.


Again, religon, just like commodity fetishism, is the product of alienation, Communism is the stage when man liberates himself from the binds of alienation. Religon then must destroyed for Communism to be really 'Communism', as long as people believe in religon, they will not realize they are the sole social tool for change, why worship something of something of your likeness?

Its a matter of definition, for the zillionith time A COMMUNIST CANNOT BE RELIGOUS, YOU CANNOT BELIEVE IN THE MATERIALIST CONCEPTION OF HISTORY AND BELIEVE IN GOD AT THE SAME TIME, ITS CONTRADICTORY , there can be Religous Socialists or Utopian Socialists, but a Communist, thats a different matter;.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Here's an article from the PLP:
Religion -- Tool of Bosses, Enemy of Workers (http://www.plp.org/pamphlets/religion.html)

[Zingu]

Most important part:


Idealism vs. Materialism

Religion is a form of idealism. Idealist philosophies begin with the assumption that a non-material world (and, therefore, a non-material creator) exists which is superior to the world of matter accessible to the senses.

The opposite of idealism is materialism. Materialist philosophy begins with the assumption that the material world exists prior to any mind that thinks about it and that, in fact, thought and "mind" are simply properties of highly organized matter.

Idealism and materialism, religion and science, arose as a result of the class struggle. This article will outline how this happened in ancient Greek philosophy, from which European philosophy derives. This kind of investigation should be undertaken to understand the development in other civilizations as well.

However, a materialist critique of the role of religion in the West should be of some interest to all workers and communists. The imperialism of European and American ruling classes has spread western culture and religions throughout the world, so that its effects are felt everywhere.
Class Struggle and the Struggle of Ideas

In the 7th century B.C.E. the kingship had been overthrown in Athens by an alliance of the urban mercantile classes and landowners who opposed the arbitrary rule of an all-powerful king (always the dangerous aspect of one-man rule, even for the aristocracy).

This was a momentous event for the development of philosophy. Class struggle had showed that social change was possible. Political institutions, therefore, were not "natural" or inevitable. Class struggle also revealed that what was "good" was relative. What was "good" for the aristocracy, that is, was not absolute, but was bad for other classes. The Greeks had discovered that "the good" was not an eternal value, set by the gods, but depended on what class you were in.

The urban, mercantile, anti-aristocratic classes of the ancient Greek city-states developed a philosophy based upon recognizing the universality of change in the world. This was pre-scientific thought of a high order. Heraclitus and other "pre-Socratic" philosophers were dialectical, recognizing that the world was made up from contradictory forces, just as human society was composed of classes with contradictory interests.

In their struggle against the powerful aristocracy, the urban classes developed materialism as a critical philosophy. The implications of materialism are critical and democratic. Materialist philosophy states that knowledge can be gained by studying change in the natural world, and ultimately in the social world as well. Evidence from the material world can be studied and theories built up to account for it.

In short, there is a method for discovering the truth which anybody can learn. No one has to "believe" what some authority says. A person can use their senses and reason and decide for themselves. Armed with these ideas, Greek materialists attacked aristocratic ideas and justified the rearrangement of social institutions to suit their own class interests.

Just as materialism was the ideological expression of the class interests of the urban mercantile classes, so idealism was the ideological expression of the class interests of the aristocracy. According to idealist thought there is a realm of existence beyond that available to the senses, and much more important than the material world.

Knowledge of this world can be gotten only by some kind of revelation from beyond the material world, and this revelation is given to only a few. Since only these few have knowledge, they must rule. The vast majority, who are incapable of knowing the truth, must simply obey. Naturally the wise are identified with the aristocracy!

There are other elitist implications of idealist thought. Since knowledge cannot come from studying the natural world (it only comes from revelation), then studying the changes that can be observed in the natural world can't lead to any real knowledge. Real knowledge comes from contemplation, not from active engagement with the material world. Of course, only the wealthy have the leisure to "contemplate."

Furthermore since, according to idealism, change is generally bad, a static society is the best society. The oldest political arrangements known to the ancient Greeks were aristocratic ones. These, therefore, are the only "good" ones, those most pleasing to the gods. Attempts to change society -- for example, by the urban mercantile classes to oust the aristocracy from power -- are morally wrong.

The materialist philosophers sharpened their analysis in criticism of idealism and the aristocracy. In science, they developed early versions of the theory of evolution and the first atomic theory. These achievements were remarkable for their time, although they were speculative, not based upon experiment. It took Western philosophy, mired in Christian religious idealism, more than two thousand years to surpass them.

The Greek materialists were sharp and merciless in their critique of religion. Xenophanes, about 500 B.C.E., wrote:

The Ethiopians made their gods black and snub-nosed; the Thracians say their gods have blue eyes and red hair... If oxen or lions had hands and could draw with their hands as men can, horses would make their gods in the shape of horses, and lions like lions

-- each making the gods in their own image.

By observing the customs of different peoples of his day, this materialist philosopher deduced correctly that human beings make the gods, not the other way around. Xenophanes used arguments like this to attack aristocratic power, which justified itself by "the will of the gods." No wonder ruling classes have made tremendous efforts to suppress materialism and stifle its proponents ever since!

In politics, materialist philosophy expressed itself in the theory of "democracy," which meant, in effect, rule by the majority of free male citizens. The "sophists" (literally "wise men") directed the weapon of reason and observation against existing political institutions, politicians, and ideas, but always in defense of democracy and against the power of the wealthy aristocrats.

Early materialist thinkers arrived at many brilliant insights about the natural and human world. In fact, early materialism was a primitive form of scientific thinking. But materialism could not develop into full science. It was held back by the primitive level of social and economic development of ancient society. Based upon slave and super-exploited peasant labor, materialist thought was chained within idealist limits. The material basis for the idea of human equality to flourish did not exist. Here is why:

Because work was regarded as essentially slavish and ignoble, even the brilliant achievements of ancient scientists were regarded as curiosities. If work is slavish, then only "contemplation" can be "noble." Thus the slave system caused ancient materialists to shrink from the whole experimental basis on which science must rest.

Archimedes was the greatest scientific mind of antiquity. He discovered parabolic mirrors and the famous principle that bears his name -- that the apparent loss in weight of any object submerged in a liquid is equal to the weight of an equal volume of that liquid.

And yet Archimedes possessed such a lofty spirit, so profound a soul, and such a wealth of scientific theory, that although his invention had won for him a name and fame for superhuman wisdom, he would not consent to leave behind him any treatise on this subject: regarding the work of an engineer and every art that ministers to the needs of life as ignoble and vulgar, he devoted his efforts only to those studies, the subtlety and the charm of which are not affected by the claims of necessity. (Plutarch)

Archimedes' ideology was limited by that of the society of his day, in which work of whatever kind was considered ignoble. Contemplation and passivity, not experiment, were thought by idealists, the philosophers of the aristocracy, to be the only activities appropriate for gaining wisdom. No science could develop under these conditions.
Materialism Suppressed

Alexander the Great conquered the Greek city states in 333 B.C. and put an end to Greek democracy. With the social base for ancient materialism gone, idealism triumphed. Aristotle, the greatest idealist philosopher of all time, was Alexander's tutor. Naturally an enemy of materialism and democracy, Aristotle originated the first thoroughly developed justification for slavery, the notion of 'natural slavery.' With very little change, this idea became the basis of all idealist philosophies that justify inequality. It directly inspired the racist and idealist notions of "genetic superiority" pushed by apologists for exploitation today like Arthur Jensen or, more recently, Herrnstein and Murray in The Bell Curve.

The idealists and their aristocratic bosses declared war on materialism. All of the writings of the ancient materialists were thrown out or destroyed. They exist in fragments only, while the voluminous writings of the idealists -- Plato, Aristotle, and even their later pupils -- exist in many copies.

Plato, the wealthy aristocrat who became the first and most famous idealist philosopher, sided with the aristocrats against democracy. He also hated materialism. One ancient story states that he deliberately bought up and destroyed all the copies he could find of the works of Democritus, the most famous ancient materialist, originator of the first atomic theory of matter. True or not, the story does show that even ancient writers understood the antagonism between materialism and idealism, the class struggle in the realm of ideas.

Materialism went underground. The only materialist work surviving from Roman times, Lucretius' de rerum natura (On the Nature of Things), exists in only one manuscript, and nothing is know about the author. No wonder: it is an extended attack on religion as the main cause of human misery! But Lucretius was an upper-class Roman. Cut off from contact with the masses, ancient materialism never developed an experimental basis, becoming speculative and undialectical (i.e. not able to account for change by examining the contradictions in all things that make change possible).

Materialism remained stifled for 1800 years until the emergence of modern forms of class struggle in the Renaissance. In fact, in its most developed, scientific form -- dialectical materialism, the working-class philosophy of communism -- materialism is still stifled and underground in every country in the world, since they are all dominated by capitalist ruling classes.

The rest of this essay outlines a materialist history of how religion began in the West. We examine how religion was used by the ruling classes of Egypt, ancient Greece and Rome, and the Jews to help keep the exploited classes down. It concludes with an outline of the development of Christianity as an imperialist religion.
Origins of Religion -- in Class Society

For 90% of its existence, the human race lived under primitive communism -- collective, more or less egalitarian societies characterized by a low level of development of productive technology. Since there was no exploitation or inequality, there was no need to justify it. In pre-class societies most myths and beliefs were pre-scientific attempts to understand and control nature by magic, since it could not be mastered through science.

Usually, all members of the society could appeal to the spirits or gods. Certain persons normally became "specialists" in handling these spirits. Modern researchers call these specialists "shamans." They were considered skilled craftsmen like the makers of baskets, pots, stone implements, or clothing. In such societies there was no cult -- no priesthood set apart from and above the masses, who monopolized access to the gods, and used this monopoly to exploit the working masses.
The Agricultural Revolution

Class society was born with the "agricultural revolution", that began in Europe and Asia somewhere between 20,000 and 10,000 B.C.E. "Hunting and gathering" societies, the mode of production which preceded agriculture, generally did not allow accumulation of a large enough surplus to support a class of non-productive persons who live by exploiting the rest of the population. The "productivity of labor" in such societies is very low, because of the low level of technology (tools), so the labor of almost every individual, children included, is needed to ensure the community's survival.

Agricultural production permitted the accumulation of a large surplus for the first time in human history. (The "surplus" is that amount of goods over and above the amount necessary for a population to reproduce itself). Existence of a large surplus for the first time in human history made possible the evolution of a class of persons removed from the production of essential social goods.

It took thousands of years for a ruling class to evolve in the earliest agricultural societies. Some ruling classes seem to have originated when a militarily more powerful group, often from a nomadic, or hunting/gathering society, conquered a more settled, less warlike people and set themselves up as rulers.

But it's just as likely that the origins of the first ruling classes are the same as those of the first religions. Grain (which, if kept dry and away from pests, may be stored for a long time) was often kept in an area devoted to earth or vegetation gods. Both a priesthood -- a group that monopolized access to the wealth-bestowing gods -- and a ruling class may have evolved from the group of shamans who specialized in guaranteeing that the nature gods kept giving good harvests.
Class Ideologies

Class divisions in society led to a corresponding split in the concept of the world. The world was "turned on its head." Instead of humans as the maker of the harvest and of the gods themselves, the gods, products of the human mind, were said to have made humans! Though the gods resembled humans (and still do), they were said to have made man in their image, rather than the reverse.

The gods/humans, or heaven/earth split mirrored the class division on earth between the rulers -- the landowners and warriors, including the king and priests -- and the working masses. The gods become the "great bosses in the sky", to whom everything belongs. They can be approached only by the ruling classes, and respond only to them. Sometimes the rulers are imagined to be gods themselves, like the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, or the descendants of gods, like the Caesars of Rome. Religion is born.
Religion Provides Divine Sanction for Ruling Class

By time that the first written documents appear and some chronological record of history (at least of the history of the rulers) can be attempted -- about 3000 B.C. in the Near East -- religion is already serving what has always been, and still is, its main purpose -- to justify the domination and exploitation of the working people by a ruling class.

In agricultural societies, where the main source of economic wealth is farming the soil, the ruling class is the class of landowners. Throughout human history, the main form the political rule of landowners takes is monarchy, the king beginning as simply the largest and most powerful landowner. In ancient Egypt the whole religion was centered on the worship of the king as a god. This legitimized not only the rule of the Pharaoh (king) but of the whole Egyptian land-owning class.

Despite fierce class struggles by Egyptian peasants and craftsmen -- rebellions never mentioned by most history books -- the Egyptian religion always retained the idea of a divine king, and the power of the landlord class. The different conquerors of Egypt saw the wisdom of using the Egyptian religion to justify their power as well, and so supported it when they took over.
Greece

Greece made the transition from primitive communist -- nomadic, hunting-and-gathering, tribal society without classes -- to agricultural, class society much later than the Near Eastern kingdoms, and under their influence. Furthermore, Greek society developed around many separate cities, divided from one another by mountains and the sea. Strong merchant and craftsman classes developed alongside the landowners and peasantry. This led to a qualitatively different kind of class struggle within the Greek cities.

By 600 B.C. many Greek states had overthrown their kings, representing the dictatorship of the landlords, and established "democracies." Democracy was a form of government that corresponded to a coalition, or armed truce, between the various powerful classes: landowners, or "aristocrats" (as they called themselves; the term means "the best men rule"), and merchants and craftsmen, the "demo" or "people". But women, foreigners, and slaves were not considered to be part of the "people."

Corresponding to the many Greek cities were the many Greek gods. In the "myths", or stories about them, they were more or less equal, and often quarreled among themselves, as did the cities. Different cities, naturally, had different favorite gods.

Within a given city, different classes favored different gods. In Athens of the fifth century B.C.E. the merchants and craftsmen favored Hermes and Hephaestus. Hermes was a kind of messenger-god; Hephaestus, a blacksmith. These were gods of activity, corresponding to the industry of the democratic classes. The aristocrats expressed their different class interests by favoring Apollo, warrior, aristocrat, the god of "reason", and an aristocrat himself. The temples of Apollo were not in the city at all, but out in the countryside, where the aristocracy dominated.

In the mid-fifth century B.C., when the power and wealth of Athenian democracy's imperialism was at its height, the greatest temple built was the temple of Hephaestus. It was even larger than that of Athena, after whom the city was named and who represented the hope of all-class unity within the city -- a hope never realized.

Small statues of Hermes, the messenger/merchant god, stood all around the town. During Athens' war against Sparta, an aristocratic state, and other Greek states which wanted to break away from her imperialist grip (the Pelopponesian War), these statues of Hermes were suddenly mutilated. This was taken as a sign that the aristocrats of Athens were really siding with Athens' enemies, in the hopes that, if they won, they'd overthrow the democracy and set up an aristocratic oligarchy, or "rule by a few". This is, in fact, exactly what happened eventually.
The Social and Economic Basis of the Origin of Monotheism

Democracy -- the rivalry of different classes, and the coexistence of many Greek city states, represented the social basis of "polytheism", the worship of many gods. But by 333 B.C. the Greek city states had all been conquered by Alexander the Great, and 10 years later the whole eastern Mediterranean was under his power.

At the same time, Greek religion began to undergo a change. Less attention was paid by the ruling classes to the many gods. One god, "Father Zeus", was said to be the most powerful. Later he was even said to be the only god; the others were his servants, or even just Zeus himself in different form.

The evolution of monotheism is logical to the growth of imperialism. Polytheism did not provide a good justification for a strong empire with one all-powerful ruler. Plurality in the world of the gods might appear to justify plurality in the political world. "One god" in heaven provided a better justification for "one emperor" on earth.

The first appearance of monotheism, the worship of only one god (in Greek, monos = "one", theos = "god") had been in the Persian Empire, where monotheism, at first suppressed, quickly became the official religion. An Egyptian Pharaoh, Ikhnamen, had tried to replace traditional Egyptian polytheism with the worship of one god, Aten ( a sun god, like Apollo) in the 12th century B.C. But the Egyptian ruling classes were never won to this innovation, and returned to polytheism after his death.

[Raisa]

Religion is only a tool of bosses because the upper class took it away from us in the past when they were the only literate ones. Religion used to be the expression of the times of the human spirit which is meant to have dignity and be free. It justified the people taking over their promised lands, and overcoming and put down the opressors. Thats when we first made it, and then it got edited and taught back to us after the state took over it and they controlled how it was taught.
Then for a while this went on and the priests just passed the ruling class religious view down to people agian and again and it stuck becuase now religion is used by them as the opiate of the masses, when it used to be the reason to resist their asses and reclaim whats ours.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 12:55 AM

Philosphically, theoretically, etc. then no, they do not go together, but any honest religious person should be welcome to participate in the struggle against capitalism. To exclude so many people from the revolution would be extremely sectarian.


I was talking about a 'Communist', the pure definition of what a Communist is, a person who takes a materialist theoritical posistion about the conception of history, and god NOR spirituality has no place in it!.

Religous infulence will have to be extremely low or even non-existant as it is for a real revolution to ever work; but I expect most of it would dissaper during the first stages of the revolution, ultimately, religon IS reactionary. If man ever wants to be free from alienation forever, religon is going down the tubes then.
Sorry about that. I must have misunderstood what you were saying. In the pure definition, there is no religion invovled in it. Religion naturally dies at a phase when people have more control over their lives and are not at the mercy of the blind forces of capital. They then do not need things like god and such to explain what they don't really know, for comfort, etc.

In pure definition, they are not compatible, but not in pure defintion, many revolutionaries will be religious (I think that Chavez himself is a Catholic. Correct me if I am wrong.), but at least they will be more honest about it, and they don't believe in using it as a tool to control the minds of people.

[comrade_tyler]

so you guys are hopin when you die youll all rot in your graves. thats a whole lot to dream about. i believe in allah and i also believe in communism. i dont think anybody believes every exact word of the communist manifesto. its just the basic foundation of communism. so you unbelievers have fun in hell!!!

[LSD]

so you guys are hopin when you die youll all rot in your graves.

No, we have determined that through critial rational examination. It's called using our brains.

"Faith" is the subjugation of reason.


thats a whole lot to dream about.

No it isn't. That's why we value life and appreciate what we have. Unlike the superstitious we recognize that our mortal existance is all we get and therefore we struggle to materially improve it.

Religion, by contrast, in promising "heavenly rewards" discourages progressive change.


i believe in allah

And this belief is based on what exactly?


i dont think anybody believes every exact word of the communist manifesto.

I would hope not!

But one does not need that particular document to recognize the fallaciousness and danger of religion.


so you unbelievers have fun in hell!!!

I'm assuming that was facetious, but your "brothers" out there aren't joking.

They not only think that we deserve to be in hell, they are willing to actively help us get there.

When the religious fundamentalists (read: people who actually follow their religions) get control, what do you think happens to the rest of us?

[workersunity]

one can believe in God and still be a "true" communist as you put it, although the only thing they must believe is historical materialism, as material agents direct history not a supreme being

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 09:47 PM
so you guys are hopin when you die youll all rot in your graves. thats a whole lot to dream about. i believe in allah and i also believe in communism. i dont think anybody believes every exact word of the communist manifesto. its just the basic foundation of communism. so you unbelievers have fun in hell!!!

You believe in communism?

:lol:

It's not a fucking religion kid. It's an ideology based on the theory of historical materialism -- which negates belief in god.

Communists fight to change the world, here on earth. You know, the place that actually exists!

[comrade_tyler]

my beliefs are in communism and GOD. the muslims that did that terrorist shit perverted the quran you idiot! i know communism isnt a religion. belief isnt always spiritual. i BELIEVE communism (with the quranic verses applying to it) should be the ruling government of the world. but people like you should not be into politics because communism can have many forms. communism isnt just the way you guys think it is.

[LSD]

the muslims that did that terrorist shit perverted the quran you idiot!

No, they interpreted it, just like you do.

Their "faith" is no less real than yours, that's the point. "Faith" is inherently illogical and implicitly irrefutable.

If you have "faith" in something, there's no convincing you and, yeah, sometimes that "faith" drives you to kill lots and lots of people. Certainly it has throughout history.


i know communism isnt a religion. belief isnt always spiritual.

Perhaps not, but it is always irrational.


i BELIEVE communism (with the quranic verses applying to it) should be the ruling government of the world.

"with the quranic verses applying to it"?

Which "quranic verses"?

The ones saying to subjugate women or the ones saying to subjugate non-muslims?

No offense, I'm just trying to figure out exactly what kind of institutional oppression you advocate.


but people like you should not be into politics because communism can have many forms.

People like "us"?

How about people like you!?

People who "believe" that a 1400 year old collection of fables representes the "word" of a "supreme being"?

If there's anyone who "should not be into politics" it's people with self-deluding fantasies like that.


communism isnt just the way you guys think it is.

Then what is it?

Shariah? :lol:

[Raisa]

<_< At the time the things in the Qur&#39;an were designed to give women better treatment and rights then they were having. There is alot more to Islam then women wearing scarves and subjugating non-muslims. There are muslim women who decide to not wear scarves. Its between them and god, but their still muslims just as much as mohammad himself. Every religion was written down by historical men, so even if it intends to give us better rights at the time, in the grand scheme you cant expect much from men even TODAY when it comes to womens liberation. Yall suck at womens liberation, but you can still help ;)
We cool and everything, but I think you got a very Fox news view when it comes to Islam. Have you ever read the Qur&#39;an?