The Meaning Of

[Enragé]

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...e-hpr/intro.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm)


therefore
religion should not be fought, it should not be encouraged...it will simply wither away once the need for it disappears.


(if this topic is more something for the learning forum..by all means..)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree. People latch onto religion because it often trys to expalin or give reason to suffering in the world. Opressed people and workers have often turned to religion. When people become more radicalized and see themselves as taking part in the changing of society there is less of a need to believe in things like fate or ideas that only god can chage the world so you can only look within and change yourself.

If there is to be a broad revolution, people with religious ideas will most likely be part of that revolution. Many people my drop their religious ideas alltogether during increased struggles or a insurrection and definately during a revolution.

Personally, I don't think religion will immedately wither away after a sucessful revolution. It will not take the form it had under capitalism, but marxism and a revolution and science can not explian everything: people still won't know what happens after you die and other things like that and may attempt to explain them with spiritual or religious beliefs.

If there was a revolution tomorrow I would argue that religious people should have spiritual self-determination. Immediately after the revolution, churches or religions which have counter-revolutionary or bigoted preachings or practices would probably be told to drop thoes ideas or outlawed alltogether if the religion had strong counterrevolutionary practices. I'm not talking about thtings that contradict Marxist ideas; I'm talking about white supremasist religion or ones openly attacking the right for workers to have power in society.

After a revolution, people should be free to believe anything they want as long as it's not directly harmful to other people (practices that include cannibalism for example) or to worker's rule of society (like if one religion spoke out against worker's power and said only God and men of god should have power). However, these beliefs will be out of place in a world which is radically different from today's capitalist society, so religion will have to change and adapt to that new society (such as how religions had to adapt to the industrial age) or they will simply become a strange oddity that people study in history class.

[Martyr]

It's the choice between individuals who chose to worship God and not to worship. Society changes but I don't think relgion should since it would change its foundations and beliefs and be translated the wrong way.

[Zingu]

I love that quote, I posted in the religous forum.


Quite frankly, religous infulence will actually have to diminsh before revolution is actually possible. As we have seen in the Spanish Revolution and in the Paris Commune for example.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
therefore, religion should not be fought, it should not be encouraged...it will simply wither away once the need for it disappears.

Here is a matter where I think we can legitimately discuss whether or not Marx was guilty of an over-optimistic error.

Looked at broadly enough, religion has been "withering away" in all human societies (to one extent or another) as scientific knowledge of the real world "seeps" into every opening, eroding all supernatural conceits and fabrications. Over another two or three or four centuries, only those willing to be regarded as backward dumbasses will admit to any faith in the supernatural.

Was Marx right to imply that "therefore" we communists "need not fight religion"?

I think what Marx overlooked here is the important role that reactionary ideologies play in "slowing down" the revolutionary process. People who are influenced by reactionary ideologies are not as revolutionary, regardless of their good intentions, as they might otherwise be.

Moreover, the whole concept of social constructs "withering away" tends to obscure what is actually involved in that process.

Some 25th century person, looking around at his/her world, might be tempted to conclude that racism or sexism "just withered away...they're just gone". But a good historian would hasten to remind that person that the reason that racism and sexism "don't exist any more" is because of the bitter struggles that were fought to defeat them.

The same is true of religion. It is just as bad as racism and sexism...and in some ways even worse. It's not going to "just go away". Those who have a class interest in keeping people ignorant and superstitious will wage a tenacious struggle to preserve their dirty little racket.

What is presently taking place in the United States, after all, but a determined effort to impose Christian fascism on this country.

Sure, "they'll lose in the long run".

But the reason they'll lose is because sooner or later there will emerge a determined resistance to their reactionary ideas and practices.

Over time, people become openly intolerant of reactionary ideas and determine the need to actively suppress them. That's what "withering away" really means.

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

[Enragé]

Looked at broadly enough, religion has been "withering away" in all human societies (to one extent or another) as scientific knowledge of the real world "seeps" into every opening, eroding all supernatural conceits and fabrications. Over another two or three or four centuries, only those willing to be regarded as backward dumbasses will admit to any faith in the supernatural.

Religion has been on the increase in for example the former Soviet Union as well as its satellite states. Religion will only exist in the measure as it sometimes does while a general unhappiness continues to exist.

And..
Science cannot explain everything..or at least not sufficiently. For example:
A lightning bolt strikes down a boy...his mother screams "WHY WHY?!?! WHY DID THIS HAVE TO HAPPEN TO MY SON?!?"...then a scientist comes around "well ma'am...due to certain atmospheric differences..." yaddayaddayadda...now this might explain scientifically why that specific lightning bolt etc came to be etc...but this doesnt sufficiently answer the mother's question now does it. Religion does answer those questions.

Religion will have to accept that it cannot explain how man scientifically came to be, where the earth is in the universe scientifically..but science will have to accept that it cannot explain every single thing to a sufficient degree...especially the questions regarding to "Why?". Science can explain the scientifical how, but not the more philosophical why.

Religion will slowly be moved to the background when people cease to have a need for it in a material-ish way...however it will probably continue to exist in one form or another for all those "why?" questions.

[KC]

And..
Science cannot explain everything..or at least not sufficiently. For example:
A lightning bolt strikes down a boy...his mother screams "WHY WHY?!?! WHY DID THIS HAVE TO HAPPEN TO MY SON?!?"...then a scientist comes around "well ma'am...due to certain atmospheric differences..." yaddayaddayadda...now this might explain scientifically why that specific lightning bolt etc came to be etc...but this doesnt sufficiently answer the mother's question now does it. Religion does answer those questions.

Religion will have to accept that it cannot explain how man scientifically came to be, where the earth is in the universe scientifically..but science will have to accept that it cannot explain every single thing to a sufficient degree...especially the questions regarding to "Why?". Science can explain the scientifical how, but not the more philosophical why.

The philosophical "why" doesn't matter. That is an irrational question for the mother to act, and, considering her son just died, she is in an emotional and irrational state.



Religion will slowly be moved to the background when people cease to have a need for it in a material-ish way...however it will probably continue to exist in one form or another for all those "why?" questions.

Or people will understand the fact that "why" is an irrelevant question as there is probability and randomness in the universe.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Religion has been on the increase in for example the former Soviet Union as well as its satellite states. Religion will only exist in the measure as it sometimes does while a general unhappiness continues to exist.

no it hasnt. the people who used to be religious in privacy, so not to be caught by the state, are just being open about it now.

i know a russian who i have had talks about this with. from her experiance in the former ussr, there were lots of religious people, but also lots of people who turned atheists. she became and atheist because she was exposed to science.


Religion will slowly be moved to the background when people cease to have a need for it in a material-ish way...however it will probably continue to exist in one form or another for all those "why?" questions.

tell me why people have a material need for religion? im an atheist, and im am alive, its obvious its not necessary to live.


And..
Science cannot explain everything..or at least not sufficiently. For example:
A lightning bolt strikes down a boy...his mother screams "WHY WHY?!?! WHY DID THIS HAVE TO HAPPEN TO MY SON?!?"...then a scientist comes around "well ma'am...due to certain atmospheric differences..." yaddayaddayadda...now this might explain scientifically why that specific lightning bolt etc came to be etc...but this doesnt sufficiently answer the mother's question now does it. Religion does answer those questions.

because her son was obviously not exposed to science. if he had paid attention in school he would have known its not too smart to stand outside in a lightening storm. and he most likely would have been doing something to make the lightening more likely to hit him, such as holding a metal umbrella in the air, etc. if he knew science, he could make a judgement that is better to his health. TO NOT BE WALKING AROUND OUTSIDE IN A SEVERe LIGHTENING STORM!

why did this have to happen to my son?

because, shes a terrible parent to let her son walk around outside instead of providing shelter for them.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
Science cannot explain everything..or at least not sufficiently. For example: A lightning bolt strikes down a boy...his mother screams "WHY WHY?!?! WHY DID THIS HAVE TO HAPPEN TO MY SON?!?".

A scientist might well embark on a scientific explanation of lightning and why it strikes one place and not another.

But s/he would also add that the reason the woman's son died was because of the inadequacy of our science. We don't know yet how to stop lightning from striking at random. (I believe I've read somewhere that lightning strikes kill about 80 or 90 Americans every year.)

I'm sure that someday we will no more "tolerate" random lightning deaths than we presently "tolerate" an epidemic of the bubonic plague.

Unlike the "explanations" offered by the superstitious, the answers of human science, sooner or later, really work!

Think of all those pious idiots back in the 15th century praying for "God" to "save them" from the black death. It is something we do all the time now...and is, in fact, a trivial medical problem. If anyone dies from the plague these days, it's because their doctors misdiagnosed their patient because they'd never seen a case of the plague before.

By 2500 to 3500, I would expect a death from lightning strike would be a public scandal. Heads would roll!

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

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Science cannot explain everything..or at least not sufficiently.

This is a fallacy commonly employed by creationists - "You can't explain everything in excruciating detail, so you're completely wrong nyah nyah"
Religion explains nothing correctly, and in the rare cases in which it does, it's a matter of chance, not investigation.


A lightning bolt strikes down a boy...his mother screams "WHY WHY?!?! WHY DID THIS HAVE TO HAPPEN TO MY SON?!?"...then a scientist comes around "well ma'am...due to certain atmospheric differences..." yaddayaddayadda...now this might explain scientifically why that specific lightning bolt etc came to be etc...but this doesnt sufficiently answer the mother's question now does it. Religion does answer those questions.

No it doesn't. "god's will" "fate" and "karma" are not answers to questions but excuses. Science can explain why he was struck by lightning (It doesn't just happen randomly), and from that explaination you can learn not to stand under trees or on top of hills in a thunderstorm. Religion does nothing but feed off peoples irrational emotions, in this case, grief. It suckers people.


Religion will have to accept that it cannot explain how man scientifically came to be, where the earth is in the universe scientifically..but science will have to accept that it cannot explain every single thing to a sufficient degree...especially the questions regarding to "Why?". Science can explain the scientifical how, but not the more philosophical why.

Religion doesn't "explain everything" either. But at least science doesn't have the conceit to claim it does.


Religion will slowly be moved to the background when people cease to have a need for it in a material-ish way...however it will probably continue to exist in one form or another for all those "why?" questions.

I doubt it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 2 2005, 12:11 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 2 2005, 12:11 PM)
NewKindOfSoldier
therefore, religion should not be fought, it should not be encouraged...it will simply wither away once the need for it disappears.

Here is a matter where I think we can legitimately discuss whether or not Marx was guilty of an over-optimistic error. [/b]
I think Marx was correct in his view that religion will wither away during an upsurge in radicalism and definately in a revolution.

Yes there is the reactionary side of religion that has always told the opressed to not struggle in this life, but turn the other cheek and wait for your reward after death. But what Marx was pointing out is the duel nature of religion; the other side of which is why people turn to religion in the first place i.e. "the heart in a heartless world".

All opressed people are thinking people who do not just turn to religion solely because their parents or the state tell them to. People want to understand the world and why they must toil and be poor. So, in the absence of visable class struggle people have often turned to supersitions and religon. In the absence of class struggle, messages such as "the meek shall inhert the earth" or anologues in other major religions sound pretty good.

Of corse as marxists we recognize that turning to religion is putting a salve (or an opiate) on the problems of society, not actually confronting and attempting to change the roots of these problems.

It is important that we fight against reactionary religions or religious beliefs on political grounds (homopobia or sexism found in many religions, for example). But people will hold onto spiritual-superstitions until reality shows them different; people will wait for a savior to fix their problems until movements and, ultimately, revolution show them that they can actually fix problems of the world themselves. When the root reasons why people turn to religion to ease their daily suffering are gone, then religion will wither away.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
All oppressed people are thinking people who do not just turn to religion solely because their parents or the state tell them to.

But as small children we are not "thinking people" yet.

We have no "intellectual defenses" against whatever nonsense that our parents and other "authority figures" tell us.

In fact, it's even been argued that we are "genetically predisposed" to "obey our parents" because this "trait" conferred an advantage in survival during the hundred thousand year period of human savagery.

I'm skeptical of all "genetic explanations" of human behavior, of course, and this one is no exception. But I've actually heard people say "I was raised Catholic and that's why I'm a Catholic".

One of the "sociological" features of religion is that it's an important part of the "social glue" that holds a particular society "together". Even when we reach "the age of reason" (whatever that might be), we want to be "a part" of whatever society we grew up in...and the continued maintenance of whatever superstition we were raised to believe seems to be "part of that package".

Unless other events have already driven us to be unusually skeptical, I think people show a marked tendency to just "accept" their "cultural traditions"...including religion.

They don't really think about it.

I think it's part of our revolutionary communist duty to compel people to "think about it"...in a critical way.

We can't just "let it slide" or "handle it later".

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

[DaCuBaN]

Part of the problem with attacking religion is that people naturally become defensive when they perceive themselves "under attack". More often than not, a legitimate criticism of one relgious entity or another (or perhaps the idea itself) will result in the individual feeling that the "assault" is in fact directed at them, which of course is sipmly not the case. I'm sure you'd agree that somewhat like the so-called "missionaries", most conversations with those of a religious nature are done out of good intentions.

I'm going to menton a somewhat "dirty word" here, simply because I believe it is the solution to the problem: Agnosticism.

Agnosticism, whilst flawed in itself, provides the foundation for what appears to the "godsucker" to be a discussion rather than a criticism or attack - the atheist after all is the "enemy" of relgion, whilst the agnostic appears to be a willing recipient of their "beliefs", leading to the much needed discussion. I know I certainly find when you set out to "convert" someone intelligent to an idea, if they appear to be holding the middle ground the odds are higher that you'll listen to them properly.

Noone listens when they feel persecuted!

[KC]

First, agnosticism is just as bad as theism. Second, we are here to show people the truth, we are not here to trick people into revolting for us.

[DaCuBaN]

First, agnosticism is just as bad as theism.

I'm going to ignore this simply because it's been discussed so many times on here that it's just not worth it. Consensus says you're right...


Second, we are here to show people the truth, we are not here to trick people into revolting for us.

Might I apologise for the tone, but can you read?

"tricking" people has nothing to do with this. My post was an observation that theists are as unwilling to listen to the viewpoint of the athiest as the other way round - and as I said, Agnosticism may be flawed but it provides the foothold for conversation. An agnostic is, as you intimate, a "moderate" and as such an enemy of both sides - but not nearly so much as their polar opposites.

So to reiterate (as you haven't acually added anything), the agnostic can bridge the gap between the theist and the athiest, dependant on which direction s/he leans. Partisanism, on the other hand, leaves NO room for discussion.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 02:59 PM
We can't just "let it slide" or "handle it later".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
If someone says "revolution is impossible because man is flawed and only God can change things for the better" or "we can only hope to meditate and change ourselves, not society", then these are political arguments we should try to make with them.

If someone says "palistinians have no right to exist because god gave determined that only jewish people should live in Israel" or "homosexuality is wrong because god says so", thne they are a an imperilaist or a bigot and should be opposed on political grounds.

We will always have to deal with some mixed-consiousness and (as in the past) movements and revolutions are going to have some people who hold religious baggage. Malcom X was religious (beofre and after he was in the NOI - which has some really reactionary ideas*); I have worked with religious people many times in the anti-war movement and during the anti-globalization movement. I made arguments for them to become Marxist revolutionaries, but not why they should be aithiest first.

Winning people to aithiesm is not a precondition for revolution; people will give up their supersitions when thier percieved need for them is gone. Until then, the daily life for someone under capitalism will still drive people to believing in anything that might make their lives feel less worse. I know my job makes me want to pray everynight and I'm an athiest!

I don't think it is a coincidence that after the defeats/retreats of the movements in the 60s and 70s, there was a "born-again" movement in the US. In the absence of movents which were proving that the system causesd bad things to happen (not the devil) and that another world was possible in the here and now, people turned to religions and spiritual ideas to explain "evil" and promise a better live (after you're dead).

As for kids being indoctrinated: well I was raised catholic and am an aithiest. Indoctrination dosn't explain "born-agains" or people who are raised with a secularly or christian and later turn to eastern religion or rastafarianism or whatnot. I think people turn to these things to explain the world. It's a poor explaination, but one that many people turn to when they feel politics can not explain things.

We should spend out time building movements (even ones where we may ally with religious people - like the anti-war movement) and these movements will show people the possibilities of the here-and-now.

Saying we have to convince people to be athiests before the revolution is to happen is like saying we need to convince people of marx's arguments about marriage before the revolution can happen. I think Marx was correct about his arguments on marrige too, but I'm not going to tell a potential ally or comrade that he has to give up his supersitions about marrige in order for the revolution to happen; it's backwards - when a revolution happens and women don't feel like they need a husband to supprot them, or people don't feel like they need two incomes in order to support children, then people will give up marriage.


*Malcom X turned to the NOI and believed that white people were "evil" and devils and this is the cause of jim-crow and the opression of blacks in the US. His beliefs changed, however, as black radical movements emperged in the latter part of the civil rights movement. Though he still kept many religious ideas, he dropped ones about white people being devils and located the root of "evil" not in supernatural causes but in the government and imperialism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:14 PM
Part of the problem with attacking religion is that people naturally become defensive when they perceive themselves "under attack". More often than not, a legitimate criticism of one relgious entity or another (or perhaps the idea itself) will result in the individual feeling that the "assault" is in fact directed at them, which of course is sipmly not the case. I'm sure you'd agree that somewhat like the so-called "missionaries", most conversations with those of a religious nature are done out of good intentions.

I'm going to menton a somewhat "dirty word" here, simply because I believe it is the solution to the problem: Agnosticism.

Agnosticism, whilst flawed in itself, provides the foundation for what appears to the "godsucker" to be a discussion rather than a criticism or attack - the atheist after all is the "enemy" of relgion, whilst the agnostic appears to be a willing recipient of their "beliefs", leading to the much needed discussion. I know I certainly find when you set out to "convert" someone intelligent to an idea, if they appear to be holding the middle ground the odds are higher that you'll listen to them properly.

Noone listens when they feel persecuted!
The solution to the problem of people taking religious arguments personally wouldn't be made any less by saying that you are agnostoc as opposed to aithiest.

We can not win a theological argument because we are matirailists, so we need to make political arguments about their beliefs.

We are not going to win over anybody by argueing: "Why do you believe in God when there is no proof?" but we can win arguments like "Why do you believe that only god/meditation can make the world better when historical example A, B, and C show that through political struggle, people were able to win freedom or rights or a better life".

[KC]

Might I apologise for the tone, but can you read?

"tricking" people has nothing to do with this. My post was an observation that theists are as unwilling to listen to the viewpoint of the athiest as the other way round - and as I said, Agnosticism may be flawed but it provides the foothold for conversation. An agnostic is, as you intimate, a "moderate" and as such an enemy of both sides - but not nearly so much as their polar opposites.

So to reiterate (as you haven't acually added anything), the agnostic can bridge the gap between the theist and the athiest, dependant on which direction s/he leans. Partisanism, on the other hand, leaves NO room for discussion.

Maybe I misunderstood what you mean by agnosticism. What I got out of your post is that we are either going to accept agnosticism, or we are going to promote it over other religions. If this is what you meant, then I stand by my post; otherwise, please clarify.

[redstar2000]

Much to "chew on" here.


Originally posted by DaCuBaN+--> (DaCuBaN)Part of the problem with attacking religion is that people naturally become defensive when they perceive themselves "under attack". More often than not, a legitimate criticism of one religious entity or another (or perhaps the idea itself) will result in the individual feeling that the "assault" is in fact directed at them, which of course is simply not the case.[/b]

All too true! I've seen that actually happen in this forum even when I said explicitly that I was not attacking them personally.

The miserable people so oppressed by superstitious ignorance that they feel it is "tied" to their sense of "self identity" are indeed wretched specimens of humanity.

They are even more crippled than a person without arms or legs...it just doesn't show!

We have not yet learned how to teach a person's cells to grow new arms or legs...can we teach people how to grow a "new" brain?

Well, we do know that when people learn new things, parts of the brain actually do grow. That's even true for old guys like me!


Agnosticism, whilst flawed in itself, provides the foundation for what appears to the "godsucker" to be a discussion rather than a criticism or attack - the atheist after all is the "enemy" of religion, whilst the agnostic appears to be a willing recipient of their "beliefs", leading to the much needed discussion.

I've known atheists to take that approach -- pretend to be agnostic in order to "cool things down". And it "sort of works" -- the non-professional godsucker is often willing to "tolerate" an attitude of "friendly skepticism".

But that "friendly atmosphere" is very fragile...at such time as the atheist reveals his "true colors", that usually ends all pretense of "discussion". Now, it's the "defender of the faith" versus the "agent of the devil".

May I suggest that what's really at fault with your idea is that we atheists are engaged in a struggle to "convert" people from theism.

As I've noted many times, people convert themselves from one mode of thinking to another...based on their own evaluation of evidence, arguments, the demands of material circumstances, etc.

Communists do not "convert" people to communism...they simply make available the evidence and arguments on behalf of communism as best they can.

Some people will find that evidence and those arguments especially compelling -- they "resonate" with that person's own experiences and observations. And others will respond with pro-capitalist banalities that they learned as children and have never seen any reason to question.

Thus one person decides to become a communist while another wants "nothing to do with such crazy fools" as us.

And so it goes with religion, patriotism, racism, sexism, etc., etc., etc. -- which are all forms of superstition, when you get right down to it.

Some will argue that "this superstition" is "worse" than "that superstition"...but to me that's like an argument about "which ghost" is "more" imaginary.

We are speaking here of ideas that all lack any justification in reality. They are all "social constructs" made for the purpose of exploitation and oppression.

They must all be destroyed!


Gravedigger
We will always have to deal with some mixed-consciousness and (as in the past) movements and revolutions are going to have some people who hold religious baggage.

I think this "common sense" observation is disputable.

To be sure, it was the case that rebellious workers (and, even more so, rebellious peasants) were hobbled by the chains of superstition. And I think this did play an important role in the failures of all past revolutionary movements.

But can you really "just assume" that this will "always" be true?

A proletarian revolution in western Europe sometime in the next 50 years would be overwhelmingly atheist...not because of any "special effort" by revolutionaries but because the appeal of superstition has sharply diminished among those most politically and culturally advanced of peoples.

Is there any reason to think that what has happened in Europe will not happen, sooner or later, everywhere?

Modern humans are all fully capable of rational thought and reflection...only knowledge is still the greatest inequality in all contemporary class societies.

And, as noted earlier, what do we communists do if not spread knowledge of the real nature of reality -- both material and social?

Remember, we are not supposed to be reformists. Our task is not to depose "this particular bourgeois politician" or stop "this particular war" or gain "this particular reform".

Those things might be useful...but they are not why communists exist.

Our purpose, to put it simply, is to fan the flames of discontent. We would like to see people so furious with the entire system that they will bring it down!

Wage-slavery is an outrage and must be absolutely destroyed!

Thus the question arises which I have raised before: can a superstitious proletariat even make a successful revolution...or hold onto power even if it succeeds in briefly attaining it?

And I maintain that the answer to that question is negative. Superstitious people are, by inclination, followers. They will pick a "great leader" and flop on their bellies.

And "that's your ballgame" and communism loses.


Winning people to atheism is not a precondition for revolution...

It's not a matter of "winning people to atheism"...it's rather a case of people "winning themselves" to atheism.

But it is a "precondition" for successful proletarian revolution and beginning the immediate transition to communist society.

Those who are simply content with the socialist variant of class society can be as friendly to superstition as they like...indeed, they'll likely find it just as useful as the bourgeoisie.

Moreover, the professionally superstitious will gladly cooperate in such a project. If there ever is "another Stalin" or "another Mao", the priests will all stand in line to kiss his ass.

And solemnly inform their followers that "Almighty God" has "blessed us" with this "great leader".


Indoctrination doesn't explain "born-agains" or people who are raised with a secularly or Christian [upbringing] and later turn to eastern religion or rastafarianism or whatnot.

Marginal phenomena can "get by" with marginal explanations. Organic brain damage from bad drugs would probably serve to explain some of the "stranger" choices in superstition.

A huge number of American Christians claim to be "born-again"...it's almost as if you're "not a real Christian" unless you call yourself "born-again". This is mostly a matter of fashion in my opinion.

It's not as if we were talking about something real, after all.


Saying we have to convince people to be atheists before the revolution is to happen is like saying we need to convince people of Marx's arguments about marriage before the revolution can happen.

You're still thinking in terms of "us" having to "convince" people...as if people do not, in reality, convince themselves.

But setting that aside, YES! it is absolutely necessary that a revolutionary proletariat has already rejected all the ideas "about women" that have prevailed in class society.

That's "another thing" that can't wait until "after the revolution".

Do you see where I'm going with this? A genuine proletarian revolution with a real shot at achieving communism is NOT a matter of an "enlightened despotism" showing people "the way" and "gradually abolishing" all the old shit.

That's been tried and it didn't work!

Marx himself said it! The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.

I know...it sounds "impossible" that almost every worker would actually "have to be" a Marxist.

Workers "can't do that" we are told. They're "too ignorant" or even "too stupid". Or "too lazy" or "too selfish" or "too irresponsible".

They "need" to be ruled "for their own good".

Yes...we communists have heard these banalities all our lives.

I would call them capitalist superstitions.

Just as worthy of our hatred and contempt as the religious varieties.

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

[Enragé]

why the fuck was this moved to OI?!?!

Its a discussion about MARXIST theory!

"You can't explain everything in excruciating detail, so you're completely wrong nyah nyah"

im NOT saying that. All im saying is that even if science would know everything in excruciating detail...it still would not be able to explain a "why" just a "how".

Maybe there is no "why" but you cant blame people for trying to seek it.


We are speaking here of ideas that all lack any justification in reality. They are all "social constructs" made for the purpose of exploitation and oppression

Bullshit. It was not made to be a tool for oppression, it was perverted into one. You can see this very clearly in Islam.
Basicly there's two sides to Islam, one side is the sociali construct of oppression and exploitation, the other side is the liberation from certain (other) social constructs of oppression and exploitation. A niqab (a headscarf) can be used in two different ways: the oppression of a woman's right to expression (the way you see it) and the way in which is tried get rid of the woman as simply an object for men to lust over.


They must all be destroyed!

NO! Once you get rid of the material basis of religion (poverty, oppression, indoctrination) religion as we know it will wither away, while religions as mere theoretical [flawed] explanations of how the earth came to be, or as a guide to how to live your personal life might still continue to exist



But it is a "precondition" for successful proletarian revolution and beginning the immediate transition to communist society.

not really. The only prerequisite needed is for religion to be reduced to something which does NOT prevent people from thinking rationally.
And yes it is possible to be (somewhat) religious and still think rationally, its mostly a matter of seeing the bible for example for what it is; a literary work by which to provide people with a guide to a good life through various examples (which also includes the relativisation of those examples, interpretation of symbolics etc..Parthenos, the greek and original word used to describe the "virgin" mary can mean anything from young woman, to virtuous woman and..virgin..but not exclusively the latter, also malum..the latin word for evil, also means apple...Eve ate an apple?). (personally i think the bible is full of shit but thats not the point)


I agree with you on the last part of your post.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
Bullshit. It was not made to be a tool for oppression, it was perverted into one. You can see this very clearly in Islam.

Oh, your preferred superstition is "different" from all the others.

Which is just what every follower of every superstition claims.

Your claim is easily refuted here...

The Skeptic's Annotated Quran (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.html)


Once you get rid of the material basis of religion (poverty, oppression, indoctrination) religion as we know it will wither away...

I addressed what "wither away" actually means in this post...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291964572 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42268&view=findpost&p=1291964572)


The only prerequisite needed is for religion to be reduced to something which does NOT prevent people from thinking rationally.

Oxymoronic.

Religion is "a theory of everything". If you accept it, then it logically follows that it affects how you think about everything.

Irrationally.

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

[Enragé]

"Oh, your preferred superstition is "different" from all the others."

nope im not even remotely islamic. It was just the first example which came to mind.

Oh but i have nothing against struggling bitterly against religion as an idea, as long as we're not going to forbid it.

"Religion is "a theory of everything". If you accept it, then it logically follows that it affects how you think about everything."

Not really. Many people who believe in (a) God simply believe that the bible isnt a scientific document, but its a narrative document of examples of how people should live.

This old guy at my school actually said how he supported the bible's theory of the creation of the earth as well as the evolutionary theory, "the bible is a religious text, it has to do with everything except science. The church should not meddle in scientific affairs, they cannot make a mother a virgin [refferring to mary] but science should stay out of religious affairs as well...science cannot explain the [philosophical] why [just the how]"...or something along those lines. This might seem oxymoronic...but the way he explained it really did make sense.

Thats why i think we should fight religion as a scientific theory, but not a purely philosophical one or sumthin.




and...somebody get this thread back into theory or whatever, it really isnt OI. Its about a goddamn marx quote for cryin out loud.

[enigma2517]

Religion is "a theory of everything". If you accept it, then it logically follows that it affects how you think about everything.

Very true.

Yes, I realize that some (even most) people are not die hard Christians that rely on strict literal interpretations. Most of my liberal friends put wacky spins on the Bible to make it seem like it actually justifies their point of view!

However, the basic premise is there. I believe in God...why? Most can't answer that without an overtly spiritual overtone...sort of like using the system to justify itself.

A belief in God is irrational because it doesn't assert that any empirical evidence is necessary to do so.

If you can allow yourself to do that, why limit it there? With this logic, I can believe in anything if I "feel" that its right...and thats all the argument I have to make to another person to justify my view! Pretty silly. And dangerous


...simply believe that the bible isnt a scientific document, but its a narrative document of examples of how people should live.

Slavery, patriarchy, and classism appeal to you? Me neither.

You can go on amazon.com and find 10 self help books that are ten times more insightful and relevant. Most of them lack the reactionary bullshit too.

[Enragé]

"I believe in God...why?"

its called faith.

"Slavery, patriarchy, and classism appeal to you? Me neither."

Love, respect, equality.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
Many people who believe in (a) God simply believe that the bible isn't a scientific document, but it's a narrative document of examples of how people should live.

Perhaps...but what of the plain examples of "how people should live" found in the "sacred text"? By modern standards -- informed by science -- they are barbaric.


This old guy at my school actually said how he supported the bible's theory of the creation of the earth as well as the evolutionary theory, "the bible is a religious text, it has to do with everything except science. The church should not meddle in scientific affairs; they cannot make a mother a virgin [referring to Mary] but science should stay out of religious affairs as well...science cannot explain the [philosophical] why [just the how]"...or something along those lines. This might seem oxymoronic...but the way he explained it really did make sense.

Well, perhaps your own summary of his views is inadequate. What you say "he said" sounds like the babblings of an idiot.

It is popular in some circles to pretend that there's "a religious sphere" and "a scientific sphere" and the two spheres should "peacefully co-exist" and refrain from challenging each other's views.

That's a chickenshit approach! Religious ideas about reality (both material and social) are just plain reactionary bullshit. Any scientist (or anyone else) who suggests that we should not struggle against superstition is just a damn coward.


and...somebody get this thread back into theory or whatever, it really isn't OI. It's about a goddamn Marx quote for cryin out loud.

Experience has taught the mods and admins of this board that even indirect references to religion "turn into" discussions of religion itself...and thus "end up" in this forum even if they didn't start out that way.

Thus such threads get moved here "sooner or later".

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

[which doctor]

All throughout history organized religion has becoming nothing more than an excuse to our existence here on earth. People wonder why we are alive and living here on earth, religion answers that question. Religion also answers the question f life after death. We have no evidence of what happens after we die. I is a mystery to us all, religion helps us answer these questions that otherwise we would have no idea of explaining. Us who are ble to cope with not knowing the reason for our existence or what happens after we die have become athiests or agnostics.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 4 2005, 03:16 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 4 2005, 03:16 AM) Much to "chew on" here.
[/b]


Gravedigger
We will always have to deal with some mixed-consciousness and (as in the past) movements and revolutions are going to have some people who hold religious baggage.

I think this "common sense" observation is disputable.

To be sure, it was the case that rebellious workers (and, even more so, rebellious peasants) were hobbled by the chains of superstition. And I think this did play an important role in the failures of all past revolutionary movements.

But can you really "just assume" that this will "always" be true?

A proletarian revolution in western Europe sometime in the next 50 years would be overwhelmingly atheist...not because of any "special effort" by revolutionaries but because the appeal of superstition has sharply diminished among those most politically and culturally advanced of peoples.

Is there any reason to think that what has happened in Europe will not happen, sooner or later, everywhere?Europe also has social-democratic parties and larger revolutionary organizations and active union movements; I think there is a connection there that is what Marx was getting at.


Thus the question arises which I have raised before: can a superstitious proletariat even make a successful revolution...or hold onto power even if it succeeds in briefly attaining it?

And I maintain that the answer to that question is negative. Superstitious people are, by inclination, followers. They will pick a "great leader" and flop on their bellies.I think you are looking at consiousness too statically. People turn to irrational explainations when rational ones seem inadequate or are not known. People turn to religion often becuase it promises a better world in the "next life" and this is because they do not believe a better life is possible in "this world". So the best thing communists can do to rid people of irrational supersitions is build movements that show that it is possible to have a better world now, by making it ourselves rather than relying on an invisible man in the sky!

THe question is: do religious ideas create an atmosphere in which capitalism thrives or does capitalism create an atmosphere where religion thrives? For me, I think people turn to religion as a poor way to explain the messed-up world capitalism has created and so people will stop turning to religion to explain this mess when they are actually building a better society. So it will be the process of radicalization leading up to revolution that will convince people more than any ammount of anti-religion propaganda or one-on-one arguemnts (I don't mean propaganda in a pejoritive sense).



Winning people to atheism is not a precondition for revolution...

It's not a matter of "winning people to atheism"...it's rather a case of people "winning themselves" to atheism.Ok, maybe I misunderstood your argument then.


Moreover, the professionally superstitious will gladly cooperate in such a project. If there ever is "another Stalin" or "another Mao", the priests will all stand in line to kiss his ass.

And solemnly inform their followers that "Almighty God" has "blessed us" with this "great leader".Thank you for this lovely straw-man, I will call him Bob and put him in my fields. THere's a difference between what I'm argueing (people will likely have mixed-consiousness going into the revolution and carry baggage with them which will wither away as they struggle agains the conditions which created that baggage in the first place are gone) and saying that communists should try and encourage or adopt religious assumptions to "trick people".



Indoctrination doesn't explain "born-agains" or people who are raised with a secularly or Christian [upbringing] and later turn to eastern religion or rastafarianism or whatnot.

A huge number of American Christians claim to be "born-again"...it's almost as if you're "not a real Christian" unless you call yourself "born-again". This is mostly a matter of fashion in my opinion.That's completely a-historical. "Born-again" and the evangelicallism of the 80s came after secularism and humanism of the 60s and 70s. People were "born again" meaning they converted to christianity from being non-religious. In the US we don't have a thocracy (yet) and so to argue that people who are religious are so because they are "brainwashed followers" is rediculous. Again, these people turn to these ideas because it is an explaination for the world (although a piss-poor one) and until a radical explaination of the world that makes more sense is more widespread, people will continue to turn to other explainations.



Saying we have to convince people to be atheists before the revolution is to happen is like saying we need to convince people of Marx's arguments about marriage before the revolution can happen.

You're still thinking in terms of "us" having to "convince" people...as if people do not, in reality, convince themselves.Ok, like I said, maybe I didn't understand what you were argueing. I agree with that, only I see it as movements are the vehicle which will cause people to see that religious views are inadequate because we can change society without a God.


But setting that aside, YES! it is absolutely necessary that a revolutionary proletariat has already rejected all the ideas "about women" that have prevailed in class society.

That's "another thing" that can't wait until "after the revolution".
Here, let me give you an example of how radicalization does cause many harmful assumptions to "wither-away" through the process of struggle. In the Auto-worker strikes during the Depression, many male workers probably held ideas about female infiriority. But when workers had sit-down strikes in factories, working-class women organized and supported the strike from outside the factory. This challenges the assuptions of male workers. Similarly, in nalional liberation movements such as in Vietnam and Algieria, women played a very central role in struggles and were often on the battlefields fighting. This challenges the belief that women need to be protected or can't handle themselves as well as men.


Do you see where I'm going with this? A genuine proletarian revolution with a real shot at achieving communism is NOT a matter of an "enlightened despotism" showing people "the way" and "gradually abolishing" all the old shit.Maybe I'm not making myself clear. I'm not saying that we should have a coup or have a gurella revolution on behalf of "the people"... I'm saying that the people who make the revolution are most likely going to carry some bagage with them, but the process of actually being involved with movements to do away with inequality and poverty are going to make religious explainations of these things "wither away". If you are religious and believe that people are poor becuase God is somehow testing them, but then you are involved with a union struggle or are suddenly unemployed because of economic crisis and find yourself fighting for better wages or jobs for the unemployed, your religious assumptions are suddenly inadequate to explain the world and so many of these assumptions will not longer serve a perpose.


That's been tried and it didn't work!Another straw man, I'll put him with the others. Again, I'm not argueing for revolution for, but "above the workers".


Marx himself said it! The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. But these workers will hold contradictory ideas as the engage in the struggle. Many workers will both believe in god and struggle for the revolution. In this process, irrational assumptions held by struggleing workers such as male-superiority or justifications of poverty being "natural" or a "choice" will be challenged and the ones which can not explain the changing world will be set adrift. This is what will happen with many religious ideas.


I know...it sounds "impossible" that almost every worker would actually "have to be" a Marxist.

Workers "can't do that" we are told. They're "too ignorant" or even "too stupid". Or "too lazy" or "too selfish" or "too irresponsible".

They "need" to be ruled "for their own good".

Yes...we communists have heard these banalities all our lives.

I would call them capitalist superstitions.

Just as worthy of our hatred and contempt as the religious varieties.And workers will hold onto many of these ideas too until the actual process of being involved with struggles expose the baselessness of these superstitions.

[idealisticcommie]

Se my reply under Buddhism

[Enragé]

"Perhaps...but what of the plain examples of "how people should live" found in the "sacred text"? By modern standards -- informed by science -- they are barbaric."

thats why you have to interpret it. Something which might seem barbaric was actually progressive 1400 yrs ago (in the case of the Qu'ran). (the reason why i dont say the bible in this respect is cuz it was made up 400 yrs after jezus died, the qu'ran was written/"revealed" to muhammad or sumthin).

"It is popular in some circles to pretend that there's "a religious sphere" and "a scientific sphere" and the two spheres should "peacefully co-exist" and refrain from challenging each other's views.

That's a chickenshit approach! Religious ideas about reality (both material and social) are just plain reactionary bullshit. Any scientist (or anyone else) who suggests that we should not struggle against superstition is just a damn coward."

perhaps its chickenshit..but its NOT reactionary!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
People turn to irrational explanations when rational ones seem inadequate or are not known. People turn to religion often because it promises a better world in the "next life" and this is because they do not believe a better life is possible in "this world".

It's difficult for me to understand just who you are talking about here.

This is not the year 150,000BCE...when people invented supernatural explanations for phenomena that they didn't understand.

Most people who are superstitious now are so because they were raised that way. They may convert from one superstition to another as seems desirable to them. They may become "more fervent" in their beliefs either because of some "inexplicable" personal catastrophe or simply as a tactic to win greater social acceptance or even prestige among their peers.

But I almost have the impression that you're speaking of some hypothetical individual who has "never heard of religion" and then "suddenly turns to it" out of quasi-rational processes.

No doubt there are such people...but I think they are an insignificant minority of the totality of the superstitious.

My estimate is that 99% plus of all followers of all religions were raised to believe that crap...by parents who were also raised to believe that crap.


So the best thing communists can do to rid people of irrational superstitions is build movements that show that it is possible to have a better world now, by making it ourselves rather than relying on an invisible man in the sky!

I'm not convinced that it's "the best thing" that communists "can do". But I agree with you that the tasks of building a new world "right here and now" will certainly distract people from superstition.

I've read that in the first decade of the USSR, there was a substantial decrease in the number of urban residents who described themselves as "believers".


The question is: do religious ideas create an atmosphere in which capitalism thrives or does capitalism create an atmosphere where religion thrives?

I don't think that's a very good way of posing the question.

The mechanisms of capitalism are anti-religious. Where "Profit is Lord", religion must yield.

The capitalist class seems to be increasingly turning to the encouragement of superstitious ideas...some of them even becoming crusaders for the faith themselves.

The social utility of religion for all ruling classes has been known since the days of the Roman Empire if not a lot earlier than that.

In addition, it's been suggested that the capitalist ruling class is "losing faith in itself" and must compensate for that loss by turning to religion. That seems to me to be a very plausible suggestion.

What generally flourishes under religious auspices is submission to legitimate authority. "Legitimate" in this context always means authority that recognizes the "special role" of religion and, especially, its leaders.

Historically, the seriously superstitious have not been overly fond of capitalism as a social system...they much preferred feudalism.

They accept capitalism now as "the best available option"...and, indeed, their last chance to save the godracket.

They know that "what comes next" is communism...the total ruin of all their ambitions and conceits.

So they'll "pray for capitalism" and display considerable enthusiasms for many of its aspects. Churches that are the foundation of Christian fascism boast of being organized "like McDonald's" or "like Microsoft".


"Born-again" and the evangelicalism of the 80s came after secularism and humanism of the 60s and 70s. People were "born again" meaning they converted to Christianity from being non-religious.

I completely disagree with you about this.

It seems to me that "born-againism" was indeed a reaction to the "secular humanism" of the 60s and 70s...but one that took place among people who were already infected with the virus of superstition.

We're not talking about people who "abandoned secular humanism" to embrace Christianity. Instead, we are talking about people (mainly white Southern Baptists) who felt deeply threatened by "secular humanism" and responded by becoming more fanatical in their beliefs.

Frankly, I think the loss of a lot of symbols of white supremacy played a big part in their "revival". Their "whole world" was "falling apart"...and they attributed this to a loss of their own fervency and willingness to "fight for God".

To be sure, some changes have occurred in their "core constituency". They are much less "rural" now and much more "suburban" -- especially the most distant suburbs. One finds, here and there, a person of color in their congregations.

And they've learned a lot about how to fleece the suckers...they are wealthy now on a scale undreamed of three decades ago. Their version of Christianity strongly emphasizes "God's Blessings IN THIS WORLD".

But I think your picture of "secular humanists turning to Christianity" simply does not correspond to what happened or what is going to happen.


In the U.S. we don't have a theocracy (yet) and so to argue that people who are religious are so because they are "brainwashed followers" is ridiculous.

No it isn't. It doesn't require a theocracy to "brainwash" small children. All that's needed are parents who were "brainwashed" as small children themselves.


Here, let me give you an example of how radicalization does cause many harmful assumptions to "wither-away" through the process of struggle. In the auto-worker strikes during the Depression, many male workers probably held ideas about female inferiority. But when workers had sit-down strikes in factories, working-class women organized and supported the strike from outside the factory. This challenges the assumptions of male workers. Similarly, in national liberation movements such as in Vietnam and Algeria, women played a very central role in struggles and were often on the battlefields fighting. This challenges the belief that women need to be protected or can't handle themselves as well as men.

Quite true...those things did happen. Unfortunately, the effects were rather limited.

It turns out that it's not enough to simply "challenge an assumption" in the course of an ongoing struggle.

The assumption must be explicitly confronted and defeated.

Do you imagine that women are "really equal now" in the United Auto Workers or in Vietnam or in Algeria???

Algeria is, of course, a glaring example of the error of your assumption. It's another Islamic hellhole for women...better, no doubt, than Iran or "Saudi" Arabia but not even remotely approaching the status of women in even a really backward European country (like Poland or Greece).

Yes, the "demands of the immediate struggle" can often compel even the most backward elements to temporarily accept ideas that they would normally reject.

But until you confront those bad ideas as such and defeat them, the "old shit" will "creep back".

And things will be "just about" as bad as they were before.


I'm saying that the people who make the revolution are most likely going to carry some baggage with them...

Well that remains to be seen, doesn't it?

It seems to me that our task as communists is to convince people to "off-load" all that old crap. But those who think that we should simply "accept it" because "that's how people are" have given up the real struggle before it has begun.

Such people might overthrow a government...but the communist project will be as far beyond them as designing and building a working starship.

You can no more build a communist society on the foundations of superstition than you can fly to Alpha Centauri using "angelic wings".

Neither "method" is even worthy of rational consideration.

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

[Commie Rat]

I there really was a god what would you do?

a) live through you shitty life and live by the rules knowing there is an eternity or pleasure waiting for you

or
b) Stand up for what you belive in, breaking the rules to get a better life and living for hte now?

[red_che]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 8 2005, 06:47 AM
I there really was a god what would you do?

a) live through you shitty life and live by the rules knowing there is an eternity or pleasure waiting for you

or
b) Stand up for what you belive in, breaking the rules to get a better life and living for hte now?
Pray that there is no god.... :D