How to Measure Progress Towards Communist Society

[Comrade-Z]

At first glance, one might consider the current worldwide communist movement to be at a low ebb and to have actually lost ground when compared to the worldwide communist movement of the 1960s, or especially the early 1900s.

However, I think this is a misleading way of looking at this. Looking at the worldwide communist movement in this way is to accept rhetoric at face value and not bother to probe deeper and find out what is really going on.

It is my opinion that a lot of people who have called themselves "communist" in history (and presently) weren't truly ready for communist revolution, in that they weren't prepared to seize the means of production on their own and act as a class for themselves. They still looked to "communist despots" or "communist leaders" to "show the way" and "set things right" for the working class. The working class wasn't ready and wasn't determined to take control of society by itself.

It is my opinion that the working class can only truly act as a class for itself when it becomes capable of thinking for itself, foremost.

You must become your own master in your head and break the chains there before you can become your own master in your actions and break your chains there.

If one looks back in history, how many self-proclaimed "communists" actually thought like communists? That is, how many of them thought for themselves and actively applied materialist thinking to history, current society, and daily life? Or how many just unthinkingly accepted the conclusions of "communist leaders" and followed their commands, hoping that that would be sufficient to achieve the self-emancipation of the working class?

The German KPD at one time was receiving over 6 million votes in the national elections. How many of those people who cast their ballots for the KPD were conscious, materialist-thinking communists (instead of just communism supporters or pro-communist sympathizers)?

Because, when you get down to it, when it comes to the self-emancipation of the working class, people who just "support communism" are about as useful as a sack of shit. Sorry to be harsh, but it's true. The most these people will be capable of doing is electing a "communist leader" who claims to want to "build communism" for the working class. They lack the impetus to actively take control of society and act as a class for themselves. They don't feel confident enough to venture that yet. Same thing with self-proclaimed "communists" who engage in leader worship. They contribute nothing to the self-emancipation of the working class, or if they do, then their leader-worship effectively negates whatever good work they were doing. Such utter servility actually retards the time at which the working class defies all authorities and rises up as a class for itself.

The only truly useful comrades in advancing the self-emancipation of the working class are communists who think for themselves and take a critical, materialist view of history, current society, daily life, etc.

Thus, I can be confident in saying that, despite (or maybe because of) the lack of "communist States" (if there could ever be such things) and huge "communist electoral parties," the self-emancipation of the working class is indeed closer today than ever before--because there are more independently-thinking, conscious communists in today's society than before.

Thus, the extent to which such individuals exist in a given society determines how far away the self-emancipation of the working class is in that society.

How do we determine how many conscious communists there are in the world today? I think it would be impractical to conduct a survey to find out.

Instead, I think atheism is likely to be a close derivative characteristic of conscious communist thinking and action.

The vast majority of atheists take a critical view of history, society, daily life, etc. They do not accept what "leaders" proclaim automatically. They think for themselves, and they act for themselves too, on the most part, considering they reject god's will, who is arguably the most pervasive order-giver in society. They also think in strictly rational, materialist terms. They reject all forms of superstition (racism, patriotism, leader-worship, etc.) for which there is no evidence.

Atheists are already conscious communists--even atheists who don't yet support communism are still conscious communists! Why? Because they already think like communists. They consciously operate from perceived material self-interest. They trust no authority except their own reason. They think for themselves and are prepared to act for themselves.

I would wager that the main reasons that all atheists are not communists right now are:
1. Capitalism is still "delivering the goods" for these atheists. It is still in their perceived material interests to support capitalism. Why risk so much on a revolutionary situation if it may prove to be needless. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. In short, the material conditions are not yet conducive to these people developing a desire for communism. But it will come naturally to these people once these people realize that it is in their material self-interest to actively bring about communism.
2. The only communist thought that these atheists have been exposed to is Leninist "worker-bee" communism. I don't blame them for not embracing an ideology of such utter servility.

Also, I must note that agnosticism doesn't cut it. Agnostics are still ostensibly open to superstitions. They cannot be counted on to consistently act as rational, materialist thinkers and doers. Agnostics are also usually quite accepting of superstition as an intellectual argument. They are not willing to repudiate, discredit, and intellectually destroy superstitions. Thus, they cannot be counted on to actively bring about a society of independent, free, rational thinkers and doers.

So, using strictly atheism as an indicator for the timeframe of communist revolution in the world, what do we see?
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Scandanavia:
Sweden--46%
Denmark--43%
Norway--31%
Finland--28%
Iceland--16%

Western Europe:
France--43%
Belgium--42%
Germany--41%
Netherlands--39%
Britain--31%
Switzerland--17%
Spain--15%
Italy--6%
Portugal--4%

North America:
Canada--19%
United States--3% :(

Pacific Rim:
Japan--64%
South Korea--30%
Australia--24%
Taiwan--24%
New Zealand--20%

Note: I have excluded countries that have been or are under State-monopoly capitalist regimes that mandated atheism. That likely skewed the statistics considerably. I want to see statistics for people who voluntarily and of their own rationality chose atheism outright.

[Ol' Dirty]

Very interesting, but I think the economic change in a nation is more important than the religious change.

[YSR]

Some concerns with this theory:

First off, I don't buy those numbers. A lot of people of define themselves differently in different countries as far as their religion goes. What is an atheist in Japan is not the same as an atheist in the United States. I will offer anecdotel evidence, but I think it is worthwhile: the Shinto faith, as I understand it, is not as actively theological as, for instance, Islam or Christianity (to say nothing of the Jewish tradition). That is to say, it is based more on familial beliefs and, I hesitate to use the word but, superstitions, than theologically based religions. For that reason, someone in Japan does not identify themselves as strictly a Shinto just because they engage in some Shinto practice. (Mind you, I don't have research on this, but it seems logical to me).

Checking your sources, furthermore, I notice that you ignore a giant warning on the top of the page you cite.

These figures do not necessarily represent the number of people who are identify themselves as "atheists." For example, in Estonia in 2004, 49% of people surveyed said they did not believe in God. At the same time, only 11% of people in the country identified themselves as atheists.

This little fact by itself invalidates your use of this piece, since earlier in your post you don't count agnostics, such as myself, in your considerations.

Note that I am not disputing your premise, because I haven't made up my mind about it yet, but rather pointing out that you have improperly supported your argument.

So I'll endevor in a few words to address your premise itself: I don't think I buy it. I know that most radical leftists, communists and anarchists and otherwise believe that religion is the enemy of the revolution, but I can't buy that one hook and sinker. I think that religion is a major obstacle to revolution. But everyone needs faith in something. Whether it's God, Marx, or oneself, we need faith to avoid becoming nihilistic. Liberation theology, though not considered part of Catholic dogma, is a radical left-wing idea, as little as I understand it. While I agree that God as a construct is the ultimate authority, I don't think that we will acheive revolution just because everyone becomes an atheist or that atheism is an indicator of such things.

As a previous poster pointed out, economic change is the key, not religious change.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't know how credible that site is, especially after seeing this:


Note: The Communist nations of China, Cuba and North Korea were not included in this study. These countries may or may not be among the "Top 10 Most Atheist Countries" in the world. Sociologically, Communism is as much a religion as other "traditional" religions such as Islam or Christianity, although it promotes (often forcibly) beliefs which would categorize its adherents as atheists. So in Communist countries, large proportions of people may be properly classified as atheists and also Communists, but they would not be considered secular or "nonreligious" in the sociological sense.

[Seong]

While I also distrust the validity of those figures and poll results in general and I wouldn't discount agnostics, I think Comrade-Z may have a point. For many in the past traditional religion held the answers. Now most people worship at the mall and religiously consume whatever brand name is within their socio-economic means. Their worship drives the Capitalist engine and with decreased consumer confidence seems to be slowly destroying it. So there was god, then there was Gucci - both have proved to be the wrong answer. Where are they gonna turn next I wonder?

[Dien Bien]

Comrade Z, I agree with you 110% on the importance of class consciousness and critical, independent thought. You're right when you say that "people who just 'support communism' are about as useful as a sack of shit". But I have to agree with the others that athiesm may not be a very good indicator of the revolution. I personally know many people who claim to athiests because they think its "cool". When asked why the don't believe in God, they say something like "God is stupid." I'm not sure how independent and truly critical this thinking is.

And I think that some people are a bit too hard on religion. True religious beliefs are very much in line with communist beliefs. Jesus was a communist and the early Christians, following the teachings of Christ, were also communists. Read the New Testament - it could very well be, and indeed should be, placed along side the greatest of socialist works. Even the Old Testament is leftwing in its way. Proverbs is very communist and comparable to Quotations from Chairman Mao. And as Young Stupid Radical points out, liberation theology is a radical leftwing idea.

Yes, organized religion has become an obstacle on the road to and perhaps even an enemy of the revolution because the revolution threatens the Church's power and authority, but the basic ideas held by true believers in the religious spirit (eg., help the needy and oppressed, no one is better than another, work together for the betterment of man, etc.) are friendly to the communist cause. We must work to shed the image of being an enemy of religion and of God, and replace it with the truth - that true believers in communism and religion desire the same things.

[Comrade-Z]

A lot of people of define themselves differently in different countries as far as their religion goes. What is an atheist in Japan is not the same as an atheist in the United States.

Ah, good point! I didn't think of that. I didn't know that the Shinto faith was merely "superstitious" and not "theistic" (although I have a hard time grasping that concept. If supernatural entities influence the material world, wouldn't those classify as "gods"?)

It seems a better indicator would be to determine what percentage of people in a society are anti-superstitious, or better yet (to phrase it in a positive manner), materialist in their thinking. Unfortunatately, I don't think many pollsters have polled for materialist thinking as of yet. I don't know where I would be able to get those statistics.


This little fact by itself invalidates your use of this piece, since earlier in your post you don't count agnostics, such as myself, in your considerations.

Note that I am not disputing your premise, because I haven't made up my mind about it yet, but rather pointing out that you have improperly supported your argument.

The source I used is of dubious credibility, I agree. And, technically, it doesn't even give me the information that I needed to support my argument, I will admit that. It was, however, the closest thing I could find. And you'll notice that I took the figures on the lower-bound in each case, in order to try and compensate for the fact that the data was measuring agnositicism, not atheism.

So, hey, if you know of any better sites with comprehensive data on atheism, send 'em this way!

As for religion being an idea with merit or intellectual legitimacy, I have to disagree. And as for it having a benign or even helpful influence on the self-emancipation of the working class, I have to say that makes no sense whatsoever. And as for the proposition that groundless belief in the supernatural (or anything) is inevitable to the human species (part of our "human nature," I guess?), well, that seems a dubious proposition, at best. The fact that atheists already exists would call that into question.

In his 16-part "Communism and religion" series, redstar2000 has a lot to say that I agree with (not all, but a lot.). It would be much less time-consuming to refer you to those articles, which are at http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php

[Comrade-Z]

I have some information on another indicator (urbanization) that might be worth discussing.

I was recently talking with a woman who moved to the U.S. from France a few years ago. She noted that she lived near the border of France and Belgium.

I asked her what the biggest differences were between France and Belgium. She said that the biggest difference was that Belgium no longer had any of the "petit-campagne" (literally, "little-country") that still barely exists in France.

I asked her to elaborate. She said that in France there still some areas of rural backwardness that still exist, although these areas are on the decline and continually becoming more sophisticated and connected to the rest of society.

On the other hand, there were no backward rural parts to speak of in Belgium, when she was last there. Sure, there are farms, but these farms are usually located right outside of the cities. It's partly because of the fact that Belgium is a rather small country, but it's also because Belgium is a very developed country by now.

So, these farms are still there, but they are close to the cities and well-connected to the city life in terms of transportation, communication, etc. The "countryside" (if one can still talk of such a thing in Belgium) is also scattered with lots of small, but compact and developed towns with real city characteristics. That's why, according to this woman, it is rather difficult to even talk about Belgium having a countryside or "petit-campagne" by now.

And sure, there are occasional forests (although the western European countries haven't been the kindest on their environment), but these forests are mostly preserved and not dwelt in, per se. There are no "backwoods dwellers" to be found in Belgium, unlike in the U.S., where you can find many people who live in remote country houses, isolated from any contact with "city life,"--there are, indeed, stereotypical "hillbillies" still in existence in the U.S. (especially in my area, the Ozarks, in southwest Missouri, for instance). These people in the U.S. are, on the whole, very religious and very reactionary, especially when it comes to "family values."

But in Belgium, apparently, these backwoods areas don't exist anymore, and in France these areas are quickly disappearing.

The same thing appears to be going on in the Netherlands. My sister was there for six months a few years ago. She said that the landscape and the cities surprised her very much. She said that the cities, even the small towns, for the most part, are very compact and rather well developed. And there is almost no "countryside." She said that the city limits stopped very abruptly, and all of a sudden there was farmland coming right up to the city limits. I assume that this farmland was also rather well connected with "city life."

She said it struck her as very weird. It strikes me as a very promising thing. Because the end of rural life means the end of "the muck of rural idiocy" as Marx called it. It seems that living in a technologically-developed urban environment strongly correlates with the absence of many reactionary values, rational thinking, and potential for conscious communist thinking.

In fact, if I remember correctly, doesn't Marx discuss at some length the possibility, "after the revolution", of the city and the countryside "becoming one" and blending into one another? And he talks about how this would be beneficial because nobody would be too extremely mired in rural backwardness after the revolution, and thus would not be likely to recreate reactionary values after the revolution.

It may be the case that, just like with the end of religion, the end of widespread rural living must also occur before conscious communist revolution is possible.

And it seems that such a situation has been taking place before our eyes in some of the advanced capitalist countries during the last few decades! This is a good sign, in my opinion.

However, so far I've only given anecdotal evidence, which does not make up for statistics. Although I expect the statistics to be woefully inadequate and possibly misleading and/or inaccurate, I will venture to rank the large advanced capitalist countries based on % of urbanization.

All of the following statistics will be taken from source #1 (below), unless otherwise noted.

http://www.atlapedia.com --(source #1)

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publicati...WUP2001_CH4.pdf (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2001/WUP2001_CH4.pdf) (an html version is also available. Just do a google search on "urbanization level Belgium") --(source #2)


Urbanization% / Rural%

Scandanavia:
Iceland--90.7% urban, 9.3% rural (source 1) / 92.5% urban (source 2)
Denmark--86.4% urban, 13.6% rural
Sweden--83.4% urban, 16.6% rural
Norway--75.0% urban, 25.0% rural
Finland--61.6% urban, 38.4% rural

Western Europe:
Belgium--96.5% urban, 3.5% rural (source 1) / 97.3% urban (source 2) :D
Britain--91.5% urban, 8.5% rural (source 1) / 89.5% urban (source 2)
Netherlands--88.5% urban, 11.5% rural (source 1) / 89.5% urban (source 2)
Germany--85.3% urban, 14.7% rural
Spain--78.4% urban, 21.6% rural
France--74.3% urban, 25.7% rural
Italy--67.2% urban, 32.8% rural
Switzerland--60.0% urban, 40.0% rural
Portugal--33.6% urban, 66.4% rural

North America:
Canada--76.6% urban, 23.4% rural
United States--75.2% urban, 24.8% rural :(

Pacific Rim:
Australia--85.4% urban, 14.6% rural (source 1) / 90.7% urban (source 2)
Japan--77.4% urban, 22.6% rural
New Zealand--75.9% urban, 24.1% rural
Taiwan--74.7% urban, 25.3% rural
South Korea--74.4% urban, 25.6% rural



I also found this quote on Belgium to be also of interest:

...the environment is exposed to intense pressures from human activities: urbanization, dense transportation network, industry, extensive animal breeding and crop cultivation; air and water pollution also have repercussions for neighboring countries...
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/be.html (and yes, I know that the CIA is usually not quite the best source for information, but it seems to me that, in dealing with the topic of urbanization, the CIA factbook will suffice.)

Might Belgium be the place that sparks the first genuine proletarian communist revolution? :rolleyes: :D

Or, perhaps taken together, a bunch of these categories can be combined into a sort of "revolutionary index" or "revolutionary indicator" detailing the present feasibility of conscious communist revolution in the near future.

[which doctor]

I think that people have just forgot about God, they stopped caring for him. They wouldn't neccassairly call themselves Athiests. Just look at the difference in numbers of people in America who call themselves Christians, and actually go to church and pray. Church membership is falling all over the world.

[1984]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 7 2006, 02:02 AM
It is my opinion that the working class can only truly act as a class for itself when it becomes capable of thinking for itself, foremost.

Unfortunally, my friend, thinking for itself is something the modern working class tend to less and less put some effort on, in part due to mass-media subversing "buy our everything and be happy" propaganda we can see today, and this is regardless of religion. Being an atheist is not going to make a person "less conformist" with the capitalist system...

We can fight out conformism - and this is the probably the best thing we can do at the present time - but religion is a more delicate matter... even as an atheist myself, I belive some beliefs of all religions are extremely positive, or should at least be heard. Others, like the belief in a supreme, onipotent being is just an intrument of moral submission.

The major "backwards" thing about religion is not religion itself, but the people behind it - see, Jesus was a really nice guy, after all, he told people how to be nice to others for a change. But look how the Church has used him to enpower itself and build an "army" of sheep puppets...

[STI]

Very interesting, but I think the economic change in a nation is more important than the religious change.

Yes, but you're forgetting that, at its roots, it is the economic change which creates the religious (and cultural, political, whatever) change.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Dien [email protected] 9 2006, 04:11 PM
Comrade Z, I agree with you 110% on the importance of class consciousness and critical, independent thought. You're right when you say that "people who just 'support communism' are about as useful as a sack of shit". But I have to agree with the others that athiesm may not be a very good indicator of the revolution. I personally know many people who claim to athiests because they think its "cool". When asked why the don't believe in God, they say something like "God is stupid." I'm not sure how independent and truly critical this thinking is.

And I think that some people are a bit too hard on religion. True religious beliefs are very much in line with communist beliefs. Jesus was a communist and the early Christians, following the teachings of Christ, were also communists. Read the New Testament - it could very well be, and indeed should be, placed along side the greatest of socialist works. Even the Old Testament is leftwing in its way. Proverbs is very communist and comparable to Quotations from Chairman Mao. And as Young Stupid Radical points out, liberation theology is a radical leftwing idea.

Yes, organized religion has become an obstacle on the road to and perhaps even an enemy of the revolution because the revolution threatens the Church's power and authority, but the basic ideas held by true believers in the religious spirit (eg., help the needy and oppressed, no one is better than another, work together for the betterment of man, etc.) are friendly to the communist cause. We must work to shed the image of being an enemy of religion and of God, and replace it with the truth - that true believers in communism and religion desire the same things.
Some words from Mansoor Hekmat I feel apply:

Religion is Part of the 'Lumpenism' in Society (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/1999/06/13.htm)

To say jesus was a communist is absolute nonsense. How can someone be something that doesn't even exist yet? Communism/Marxism doesn't come about until long after the time jesus supposedly lived in; you can't apply our modern concepts of communism to someone from an entirely different time period.

Back to the original theory, I have to say I disagree. I don't see a direct, or even indirect, correlation between atheism and communism. The more people question religion and gods and spirits, the better. But that doesn't make them communists.


Yes, but you're forgetting that, at its roots, it is the economic change which creates the religious (and cultural, political, whatever) change.

Exactly.

[Comrade-Z]

Back to the original theory, I have to say I disagree. I don't see a direct, or even indirect, correlation between atheism and communism. The more people question religion and gods and spirits, the better. But that doesn't make them communists.

But I think we will find that the vast majority of atheist, hedonist workers who support capitalism right now will turn their backs on capitalism and start fighting for communism the minute material conditions plainly show them that it is in their material self-interest to do so. I have no doubt about this. Thus, atheism in and of itself is something to promote.

I would be very happy if, 25 years from now, the U.S. had acheived a fully secular capitalism, full of atheist, hedonist, sophisticated workers who still happened to support capitalism because capitalism was still "bringing home the goods." Because if marxist economics are correct, this will not be the case forever.

And, if historical materialism is any indication, workers who are still holding onto pre-capitalist notions cannot ever hope to function in or build a post-capitalist society. It would be like telling an Egyptian Pharoah to start introducting parliamentary rule. The pharoah would reply, "What the hell are you talking about?"

Consider any worker in today's world who:
*earns $20,000 a year.
*is atheist (implying a certain level of hedonism and sophistication).
If this worker isn't communist yet, then this worker will be communist the moment that material conditions plainly show that communism is in the material self-interest of this worker.

The reason why this might not make much sense now is that most atheists in the U.S. right now are not of the working class, but of the petty-bourgeois professional/techno-managerial class. Thus, we tend to associate atheism with the outlook of this class. Right now these people plainly perceive capitalism to be in their material self-interest. Why would people of the petty-bourgeoisie be communists, rationally speaking, when the idea looks so fraught with troubles and so impossible right now, not to mention harmful to their material priviledge? Why not just strive for personal advancement? After all, the System is not screwing these individuals to the extent that it is screwing a working class atheist.

A working class atheist has an entirely different outlook. I've heard Armchair Socialism (or someone else) make the argument that working class + college-educated = deadly to the ruling class. I would, likewise, propose: working class + atheist = deadly to the ruling class.


Yes, but you're forgetting that, at its roots, it is the economic change which creates the religious (and cultural, political, whatever) change.

Correct. This is why I think atheism is such a good indicator of potential for communist revolution.

Atheism is a product of economic (material) changes--more specifically, it is the product of the advanced education, technological expertise, sense of autonomy and personal initiative, and sophistication that an employer needs a worker to have in order for that worker to be productive in advanced capitalist society. Atheism is a natural product of the workings of capitalism, in other words.

Thus, when capitalism has fully accomplished its task of transforming workers into atheists, capitalism will have, in one aspect, fully exhausted its capabilities for increased productivity and be ripe for overthrow.

Indeed, capitalists right now find themselves in quite a conundrum. They see that religion is a useful distraction and fetter on the mind for the working class. Yet they also see that, for productivity's sake, they need workers who have advanced education, technological expertise, a sense of autonomy and personal initiative, and sophistication. Furthermore, the capitalist may perceive that furthering these things in workers will destroy religious ideas in the process. What to do?

Some of the ruling class may try to keep on reinforcing religion in the working class. This will harm the productivity of the working class as a whole and put the capitalist system into severe economic jeopardy. Hence, the ruling class will, at this point, have become a fetter on production and future progress and development, and thus be ripe for overthrow.

[Scars]

Athiesm is not an indicator, nor is it particularly important. Nietzsche was an atheist, and many of the fascist movements are atheist or made up primarially of atheists (although they are generally more open to cooperation with conservative elements of the church) and obviously are not at all socially progressive. Nazi Germany was a secular state and most of the big wigs were staunch atheists, excluding Himmler who was into 'Ayran Mysticism'.

Atheism does not necessary mean good. Some of the worst examples of humanity that I have come across have been atheists. The problem with statements like this is that they are made (largely) by Americans, who are (as a rule of thumb) exceedingly ignorant about anything outside the boarders of their fair country. In the states maybe this, utterly flawed, indicator may hold some water. But in the majority of the world it does not.

People have become obsessed with atheism as it is easier and more achivable than communism. Communists claim the rise of atheism as some how one of 'their' victories, when it is plainly not. It's a blanket to make us feel better about the fact that we have achived almost nothing, have almost no support in the first world, the greatest attempts have all failed, we have been almost completely suppressed by neo-conservatism and millions of communists became social democrats in the late 80s and early 90s. Marx said that atheism should not be at the head of our struggle and was part of the Marx-Bakunin split. Economic and social change is far more important. Harder, but more important.

Closing your eyes in an attempt to make yourself feel better about our hopeless situation at present does no one any good.

[drain.you]

Its not as though religion disappeared in Russia during the Soviet Union or that Cuba is atheist now. Sure it may be easier to convince an athiest to our cause than a catholic but religion is not a sole indicator of our progress.
Though it should be regarded as a good thing that religion is slowly falling.

Reckon in the US, people are increasingly religious because of the alienation and suffering caused by the state? And that this is very dangerous because they are wanting to 'save' other countries by exporting their religious morals and ideas.

[anomaly]

I think urbanization might be a better indicator than atheism. But, there is a bit of a trend with those two, eh?

Western Europe seems to have higher levels of atheism and urbanization than North America, generally.

However, I don't know what to make of the Asian statistics. They seem to correlate a bit with the European ones, but we have to realize that South Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan, and the like have just recently entered the capitalist epoch of production. Meanwhile, the sun will soon be setting (if Marx was right) on the capitalist epoch in Europe and the US and Canada.

[Paradox]

Thus, when capitalism has fully accomplished its task of transforming workers into atheists, capitalism will have, in one aspect, fully exhausted its capabilities for increased productivity and be ripe for overthrow.

Indeed, capitalists right now find themselves in quite a conundrum. They see that religion is a useful distraction and fetter on the mind for the working class. Yet they also see that, for productivity's sake, they need workers who have advanced education, technological expertise, a sense of autonomy and personal initiative, and sophistication. Furthermore, the capitalist may perceive that furthering these things in workers will destroy religious ideas in the process. What to do?

I'm sorry, but I don't see where you're getting this from. Being educated and working class doesn't make you prone to atheism, much less communism. And just being an atheist doesn't make you "communist subconsciously" or something like that.

Again, it's good to see when people begin to question and abandon spiritual and religious ideas. But that doesn't mean they still can't be right-of-center, rather than left. I see no verification for this "indicator."

[Body Count]

I think this argument assumes that these western and northern euro nations are more "progressive" then others.

They may be RICHER, but its not like their societies are a *better* representation of what a communist society would look like. Every place on earth needs a massive amount of work.....:lol:

I don't think more urbanization is better either, once again, most likely means that a country is richer.

I think that some of these highly urbanized places may need to become MORE rural post revolution. I truthfully know nothing about farming or agriculture, but the little I do know would draw me to this conclusion.

And BTW, I'm not sure that this "wave of athiesm" is all that great.

Something that I have personally noticed in America is that much of these athiest are not communist and sometimes not even liberals....they are with the mainly conservative, libertarian movement. They are capitalist that are tired of the limitations that christianity has on them....

[redstar2000]

In my opinion, the search for "positive indicators" is on the right track and the suggestion of atheism is a good one. Regular church (mosque, temple, etc.) attendance might "draw the line" even more clearly.

Urbanization is also an excellent suggestion...though some care must be taken to allow for the "suburbs". In the U.S., suburbs are often counted by the Census Bureau as "part of the metropolitan area" even when they are quite rural in character. The great American "mega-churches" are almost exclusively suburban now.

Another indicator might be that proportion of the working class with at least some post-high school education (not just advanced vocational training).

Yet another might be the proportion of women in the workforce (other than private household maids or servants).

Still another, albeit it perhaps weaker, would be internet access. Where does a potential communist go, these days, for communist ideas?

Remember, we are talking about indicators...not suggesting that abandoning religion, moving to a city, or going to a junior college for a year or two "automatically" makes one a "communist".

The plausibility of these suggestions rests on empirical observation...the western European countries lead the U.S. in all (or nearly all) of these indicators and, though the left is still weak there, it is significantly stronger than it is in the U.S.

It's not just stronger numerically, it is further to the left (on the average) than corresponding left groups in the U.S.

It's been said in this forum more than once that the U.S. is the "most advanced" capitalist country...based, I guess, on the conviction that America is "Number One" in advanced technology or at least imperial ambition.

That may have been true up through the 1970s or so...but I don't think it's true any longer. Yes, the U.S. is still "Number One" in imperialism...but I don't think it looks so hot with regard to any of the suggested "indicators" of communist potential.

Another possible "indicator" just occurred to me: rapid changes in income inequality (up or down). The existence of such changes, positive or negative, creates a climate of "expectancy" about the future which could, in turn, spark interest in movements for dramatic social change.

There's lots to think about here. :)

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

[STI]

Originally posted by Comrade Z+--> (Comrade Z)

Correct. This is why I think atheism is such a good indicator of potential for communist revolution. [/b]

And also why I agree.


Redstar2000

Urbanization is also an excellent suggestion...

Not necessarily. Iraq has pretty much the same level of urbanization as Canada, but nobody would suggest that Iraq is anywhere near as advanced as even the most reactionary parts of Alberta.

[SmithSmith]

United States--3% :lol:

[SmithSmith]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 17 2006, 04:05 AM
I think that people have just forgot about God, they stopped caring for him. They wouldn't neccassairly call themselves Athiests. Just look at the difference in numbers of people in America who call themselves Christians, and actually go to church and pray. Church membership is falling all over the world.
Not in the US.

[Comrade-Z]

Nietzsche was an atheist

Nietzsche was anti-Christian. There's a difference.

He was most certainly spiritual in his thinking. Or are you going to tell me that "The Will to Power" as a sort of eternal cosmic "life-force" is a scientific concept? Have you ever read any of his stuff? Can you tell me with a straight face that his thinking is scientific and logical?

I know that Wikipedia often gets things wrong, but I think here it gets it right:


Nietzsche is also well-known for the statement "God is dead". While in popular belief it is Nietzsche himself who blatantly made this declaration, it was actually placed into the mouth of a character, a "madman," in The Gay Science. It was also later proclaimed by Nietzsche's Zarathustra. This largely misunderstood statement does not proclaim a physical death, but a natural end to the belief in God being the foundation of the western mind. It is also widely misunderstood as a kind of gloating declaration, when it is actually described as a tragic lament by the character Zarathustra.

"God is Dead" is more of an observation than a declaration. Nietzsche did not advance arguments for atheism, but merely observed that, for all practical purposes, his contemporaries lived "as if" God were dead. Nietzsche believed this "death" would eventually undermine the foundations of morality and lead to moral relativism and moral nihilism. To avoid this, he believed in re-evaluating the foundations of morality and placing them not on a pre-determined, but a natural foundation through comparative analysis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche


and many of the fascist movements are atheist or made up primarially of atheists (although they are generally more open to cooperation with conservative elements of the church)

And why would they do that, if they were atheist?

Atheists reject superstition (concepts without a basis in logic or the material world). An atheist does not believe in "the Fatherland" or "the Race." Fascists who consider "the Fatherland" and "the Race" as meaningful concepts are not atheists. If they say they are, they are lying. Just like Kim Jong-Il claims to be communist. Look beneath the labels.


Nazi Germany was a secular state and most of the big wigs were staunch atheists.

"Staunch atheists"? You make them sound like regular comrades. :lol:

Where I come from, atheists don't support or receive support from the religious. That would be an absurd thing to do, right? Lend support and legitimacy to your declared foes?


Some of the worst examples of humanity that I have come across have been atheists.

An atheist is more likely to consciously operate from perceived material self-interest and be more clever in doing so. If the atheist you are talking about is of the ruling class, then it makes sense that they would have a harmful influence on society. But I'm not really concerned about ruling class atheists. I'm interested in working class atheists.

And if you are referring to Stalin, I hardly consider him atheist. Do you think those years in Seminary school wore off the moment he joined the Bolshevik Party? His associates would remark even late in his life that his style of thinking and speech was still "catechistic."


The problem with statements like this is that they are made (largely) by Americans, who are (as a rule of thumb) exceedingly ignorant about anything outside the boarders of their fair country. In the states maybe this, utterly flawed, indicator may hold some water. But in the majority of the world it does not.

I will grant you that many Americans are ignorant. I consider myself fairly knowledgable of the outside world. I see no reason why this indicator would not hold true elsewhere as well.

I think what varies is what people think is necessary for successful communist revolution. Some people in Nepal, for instance, think that they can create communist society while still believing in "Great Leaders" (or religion, for that matter). They are wrong. What they will create will be "communist" in name only.


People have become obsessed with atheism as it is easier and more achivable than communism.

No, I have become "obsessed" with atheism because I regard it as an absolutely necessary pre-requisite for successful (genuine) communist revolution.


Communists claim the rise of atheism as some how one of 'their' victories, when it is plainly not.

Certainly, secular humanists, bourgeois liberals, hedonistic capitalists, etc. help out from time to time. This makes sense when you realize that atheism is a natural product of the functioning of the capitalist system.


have almost no support in the first world

Leninists have almost no support in the first world for good reason. Same thing with Maoists.

Communists have almost no support in the first world because people are not yet atheist (and because the capitalist system is still limping along and "bringing home the goods."). In other words, capitalism has not matured enough to bring about widespread atheism, economic ruin and stratification, and all the other seeds of its own demise. Capitalism still has a lot of work to do.

Encouraging one of the seeds of its own demise (atheism) by itself helps a lot.

I must also point out that I don't want people to "support" communists (that would do more harm than good). I want people to become consciously-thinking communists themselves. I want to create a proletariat that doesn't "support" anyone, but instead, acts as a class for itself.


Economic and social change is far more important. Harder, but more important.

Rather, economic development and changing material conditions will create atheists, who will then argue for atheism and prepare the proletariat for self-rule. So, yes, economic changes are fundamental, but only because they, in turn, change the ideas people have. As a person arguing for atheism, I am simply playing a (small) role in the historical process leading up to communist revolution. But someone's got to do it.


Sure it may be easier to convince an athiest to our cause than a catholic but religion is not a sole indicator of our progress.

Correct. It is not the sole indicator. It is an indicator. Urbanization might be another, for instance.


I think urbanization might be a better indicator than atheism. But, there is a bit of a trend with those two, eh?

Well, of course. That is no accident. Living in an urbanized, technologically-advanced environment which requires logical, scientific thinking on a day-to-day basis is more likely to lead to "full-time scientific thinking" (atheism).


However, I don't know what to make of the Asian statistics.

Yeah, I'm not sure either. It may be that the people in the Asian countries think that they are answering different questions due to incompatible translations of concepts such as "god." Or maybe they are slightly more developed than we think? After all, their capitalisms have been "jumpstarted" by direct foreign investment in ways that Britain or France didn't have. Maybe their capitalisms are more advanced than we think?


Being educated and working class doesn't make you prone to atheism, much less communism.

Errr, you've got what I was saying kind of muddled.

I would say that being educated certainly does make you more prone to atheism, regardless of your class background. Living in a backwoods shack, isolated from all scientific knowledge, and probably indoctrinated with religion from your parents, one would be very unlikely to adopt atheism. Being determines consciousness, after all.

I'm also arguing that being either:
*being educated and working class
or
*being atheist and working class
(or both)
will make you more prone to revolutionary, non-Leninist, scientific communism (which is the kind that I want).


I think this argument assumes that these western and northern euro nations are more "progressive" then others.

I don't necessarily think this argument makes (or requires) that assumption. I do happen to think that is, indeed, the case.

This has nothing to do with any concepts of "superiority." The backwards countries are fully capable of progressing. To argue otherwise is racist. It was "historical chance" that Europe was the first region to become industrialized.

There is some evidence that it had to do with the fact that Europe had the right sort of climate and easily-domesticatible animals to facilitate high food surpluses early on to facilitate the growth of cities, the advance of research, industrialization, etc. That might be an explanation that works. But that still says nothing about "inherent superiority," which I think is what you are trying to pin on me.

After all, we don't see many advanced capitalist socieites in Antarctica. Are we being "racist" to people living in Antarctica by acknowledging this?


They may be RICHER, but its not like their societies are a *better* representation of what a communist society would look like. Every place on earth needs a massive amount of work.....

I think "more economically and technologically developed" would be the more precise description.

And yes, France is a better representation of what communist society would look like than, say...Nepal. At least in France people have computers, nice libraries, mass-transit systems, etc., which I expect will be necessary aspects of communist society. But you are correct that a massive amount of work is needed everywhere.


I don't think more urbanization is better either

I'd have to argue otherwise. For me, living in a city is much better than living out in the middle of nowhere. And an urbanized, technologically-developed environment prompts people to think scientifically and become skilled at managing themselves on a moment-by-moment basis. Living in a bustling city with buses hurtling down the road makes you think quickly on your feet and make autonomous decisions.

These are things that will instill in the proletariat a sense of confidence, autonomy, ability to self-rule, sophistication, scientific thinking, and all the other things that are required for successful communist revolution.


I think that some of these highly urbanized places may need to become MORE rural post revolution. I truthfully know nothing about farming or agriculture, but the little I do know would draw me to this conclusion.

I certainly hope that urban environments become cleaner and more efficient (less polluting). I hope this is what you are thinking...because farm life really sucks. I have no intention of "de-industrialization" or getting rid of advanced technology post-revolution. In fact, I will want more of those things.

Actually, this sounds an awful lot like the "de-urbanization" plan of the Maoist Internationalist Movement. You know, where the third world countries will create communist societies and then "punish" the first-world "imperialist" societies by exacting economic reparations, and in doing so equal out the urbanization level of the entire world.

Not what I have in mind.


And BTW, I'm not sure that this "wave of athiesm" is all that great.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Next thing you know, boys and girls will be running around and having sex without parental permission! Oh, the horrors! :lol:

If you are serious about advancing the creation of a self-ruling, self-confident proletariat that is capable of self-emancipation from wage-slavery, then atheism is very much something to be encouraged.

[Scars]

<<He was most certainly spiritual in his thinking. Or are you going to tell me that "The Will to Power" as a sort of eternal cosmic "life-force" is a scientific concept? Have you ever read any of his stuff? Can you tell me with a straight face that his thinking is scientific and logical?>>

Firstly, quit it with the scientific crap- Marxism is no more scientific than Nietzsche.

His beliefs were atheistic, he was in no way a theist. The &#39;spiritualism&#39; that pops up occationally in his work is based on the idea of &#39;will&#39; as laid down by Schopenhauer, only Nietzsche offer a positive (as opposed to the relentless pessimism of Schopenhauer) alternative which is in line with his belief in the superiority of &#39;Dionysian&#39; philosophy, as opposed to &#39;Apolloian&#39; philosophy.

As for my experence with Nietzsche- I have read pratically everything he wrote, excluding his letters and a couple of his later and more minor books.

<<And why would they do that, if they were atheist?>>

Because their goal is power and they are willing to cooperate with people who can help them get it. Once they get power there is generally a power struggle where the Fascists attempt to set themselves up as a sole authority in whatever country, which often brings them into conflict with old allies.

<<Atheists reject superstition (concepts without a basis in logic or the material world).>>

No, he rejects the existance of God. A (no) + thei (god) = Atheist (a person who does not believe in the existance of god). It has nothing to do with an acceptance of logic, rationality, materialism or anything like that.

<<An atheist does not believe in "the Fatherland" or "the Race." Fascists who consider "the Fatherland" and "the Race" as meaningful concepts are not atheists.>>

Nationalism and other such things emerged without any involvement of religion, as did the modern nation state, which is a largely secular affair. As I&#39;ve said, atheism has nothing to do with rationality or logic.

<<If they say they are, they are lying.>>

So, if they are nationalists they believe in god because no &#39;true&#39; atheist would be a nationalist?

<<"Staunch atheists"? You make them sound like regular comrades.>>

I don&#39;t have the same obsession with atheism, so no. Many of them were dedicated atheists, you cannot deny this simply because you don&#39;t want to accept it.

<<Where I come from, atheists don&#39;t support or receive support from the religious. That would be an absurd thing to do, right? Lend support and legitimacy to your declared foes?>>

In Germany the church found the Nazi&#39;s programme more to their liking than what the SPD and KPD were proposing. The majority of the Wehrmacht&#39;s leadership never supported Hitler, they believed that he was the best option available to Germany at that point in time- most certainly better than either Socialists or Communists.

You&#39;re being incredibly simplistic and showing your historic naitivity.

<<An atheist is more likely to consciously operate from perceived material self-interest and be more clever in doing so. If the atheist you are talking about is of the ruling class, then it makes sense that they would have a harmful influence on society. But I&#39;m not really concerned about ruling class atheists. I&#39;m interested in working class atheists.>>

All of them have been &#39;working class&#39; and all of them have been thoroughly disgusting people. Would they be better people if they were religious? Maybe, maybe not- however that&#39;s not the point. Atheism doesn&#39;t instantly make you a good or noble person.

<<And if you are referring to Stalin, I hardly consider him atheist. Do you think those years in Seminary school wore off the moment he joined the Bolshevik Party? His associates would remark even late in his life that his style of thinking and speech was still "catechistic.">>

I wasn&#39;t refering to Stalin, however Stalin was an atheist. He went to the seminary primarially because it was the only available source of education for working class people in a backwards place like Georgia in the late 19th century. As for his style of speaking, yes, it did refect the fact that he went to a seminary- but that&#39;s because he would have been taught public speaking at the seminary because being able to make speeches is an important part of what a preist does. So what?


<<I will grant you that many Americans are ignorant. I consider myself fairly knowledgable of the outside world. I see no reason why this indicator would not hold true elsewhere as well. >>

Well, I&#39;m telling you it doesn&#39;t hold true at all.

<<No, I have become "obsessed" with atheism because I regard it as an absolutely necessary pre-requisite for successful (genuine) communist revolution.>>

So a lack of absolute atheism is the latest excuse for the remarkable failure that has been the left in the first world? Well, atleast it&#39;s a new one and doesn&#39;t rely on determinist excuses of &#39;the time isn&#39;t right&#33;&#39;.

<<Leninists have almost no support in the first world for good reason. Same thing with Maoists.>>

Leninists, maoists, stalinists, anarchists, council communists, autonomist marxists, orthodox marxists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-primitivists, trotskyites, left communists, actually everything further left than social democrats have almost no support in the &#39;first world&#39;.

<<Communists have almost no support in the first world because people are not yet atheist (and because the capitalist system is still limping along and "bringing home the goods."). In other words, capitalism has not matured enough to bring about widespread atheism, economic ruin and stratification, and all the other seeds of its own demise. Capitalism still has a lot of work to do.>>

Because atheists are more inclined to take on board communism? In the &#39;first world&#39; they&#39;re just as likely to be distracted by the great glowy box.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade&#045;[email protected] 6 2006, 08:03 PM
The only truly useful comrades in advancing the self-emancipation of the working class are communists who think for themselves and take a critical, materialist view of history, current society, daily life, etc.
I agree&#33;


The vast majority of atheists take a critical view of history, society, daily life, etc. They do not accept what "leaders" proclaim automatically. They think for themselves, and they act for themselves too, on the most part, considering they reject god&#39;s will, who is arguably the most pervasive order-giver in society. They also think in strictly rational, materialist terms.

Heh. Plenty of self-described atheists do not think rationally at all.

For example, plenty of people have rejected traditional religion, but believe in alien abduction, psychic powers, ghosts, etc.

Even those who reject such non-materialist beliefs - don&#39;t always think at all rationally about society.

On the other hand, religious people sometimes do think relatively rationally about social questions. People are complicated.

In general, human beings are just not Vulcans or robots - not perfectly rational. It&#39;s the most irrational thing of all to act as if we are.

And to think as rationally as possible, requires an education in materialism, skepticism, the scientific method. I think the Skeptics Society is probably the most useful of the bourgeois atheist organizations because it consciously educates in this method of thought - it doesn&#39;t just proclaim religion is bad.

And then there&#39;s people who describe themselves as atheists...but slavishly accept every idea proclaimed by Pope Redstar, no matter how ridiculous.

For example, you go on to say:

Atheists are already conscious communists--even atheists who don&#39;t yet support communism are still conscious communists&#33; Why? Because they already think like communists. They consciously operate from perceived material self-interest. They trust no authority except their own reason. They think for themselves and are prepared to act for themselves.

Not exactly a rational conclusion, or materialist in that this conclusion is contrary to observed facts. So you have to explain away the observed facts:


I would wager that the main reasons that all atheists are not communists right now are:
1. Capitalism is still "delivering the goods" for these atheists. It is still in their perceived material interests to support capitalism.

Or the real interests of many. Atheists disproportionately belong to the upper and middle classes.


Note: I have excluded countries that have been or are under State-monopoly capitalist regimes that mandated atheism. That likely skewed the statistics considerably.

Again, you have to try to explain away facts which are contrary to your preconceived idea. A materialist approach does the opposite - it derives ideas from facts.

The inconvenient fact, here, is that atheism is still widespread in the former Soviet-bloc countries. Yet these countries are not exactly the most ripe for revolution.

In contrast, there are relatively few atheists in Latin America - but those countries have been the scene of massive worker and peasant upsurges in recent years. In terms of the consciousness of the population - the subjective factor for revolution - those countries are the most ready for revolution of anyplace.

And atheism is, after all, a subjective factor.


I want to see statistics for people who voluntarily and of their own rationality chose atheism outright.

But of course most of those regimes have fallen, and people there are under no coercion to continue professing atheism. Their various quasi-religious personality cults have also collapsed, not only officially, but in terms of most people&#39;s beliefs.

To take an extreme case, east Germany is under the formerly West German capitalist regime. One of the major parties is named the "Christian Democratic Union". The German government&#39;s tax collection system also collects church dues (on a voluntary basis, but even so.)

Yet the former east Germany still has one of the highest - maybe the highest? - rates of atheism in the world. One survey found that 88% of east Germans were atheists (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html)

So is east Germany seething with revolutionary revolt? Not exactly.

Sorry, this bizarre thesis that atheist = communist just does not hold up under a materialist, that is fact-based analysis. Ironically, it only holds up under a faith-based, anything Pope Redstar says must be right, analysis.

***

I&#39;m wondering if Redstar and LSD will be along to move this thread to the Religion subforum of OI.

[Comrade-Z]

No, he rejects the existance of God. A (no) + thei (god) = Atheist (a person who does not believe in the existance of god). It has nothing to do with an acceptance of logic, rationality, materialism or anything like that.

Fine, I suppose I should rename the thread, "Materialism as an indicator of progress..." because that&#39;s really what I&#39;m going for. I usually use the term "atheism" to denote materialism, and in most cases it suffices, but I suppose one could draw some fine distinctions.

But if you recall what I said at the beginning of this thread:


How do we determine how many conscious communists there are in the world today? I think it would be impractical to conduct a survey to find out.

Instead, I think atheism is likely to be a close derivative characteristic of conscious communist thinking and action.

What I&#39;m really getting at is a way to determine how many "conscious communists" there are in the world today. But polling agencies don&#39;t conduct surveys on "communist consciousness." :lol:

Neither do they conduct surveys on materialism. Thus, atheism is the most congruent (but not entirely congruent) phenomenon about which we do have some (probably unreliable) data on. Unfortunately, it&#39;s the best we can do at this point as far as investigating this stuff with statistics.

And I still assert that someone who is atheist is more likely to be materialist and a conscious communist. I do think these phenomena correlate to some degree. I&#39;ve tried to explain why. I guess I&#39;m just not being clear enough.


Nationalism and other such things emerged without any involvement of religion

I think it is a reasonable conjecture that the religious mindsets that pervaded the primitive capitalist countries made it easier for mystical concepts such as the "Nation" to make sense to people. Religion very much had an effect.


as did the modern nation state, which is a largely secular affair.

Many aspects of the modern nation state are secular, I agree. But the "Nation" aspect of it is most certainly not secular.


So, if they are nationalists they believe in god because no &#39;true&#39; atheist would be a nationalist?

If they are nationalists, they believe in mystical concepts called "Nations," which is tantamount to believing in any other mystical concepts, such as "Gods." It is pretty much the same thing. Same sort of mindset. It&#39;s like trying to distinguish between Catholics and Protestants. They both believe in supernatural entities. They both have roughly the same mindset. Catholicism and Protestantism are, for our practical purposes, indistinguishable. They both promote reactionary mindsets. They both must be fought.


In Germany the church found the Nazi&#39;s programme more to their liking than what the SPD and KPD were proposing. The majority of the Wehrmacht&#39;s leadership never supported Hitler, they believed that he was the best option available to Germany at that point in time- most certainly better than either Socialists or Communists.

Right, I know this. This is exactly my point. These actions indicate fairly strongly that the Nazis weren&#39;t atheists. If they had been atheists:
*The clergy wouldn&#39;t have supported the Nazis because the rise of the Nazis to power would have meant the end of religion as a legitimate concept in the public discourse. The clergy would have, instead, opted to find (or create) another alternative to the Nazis, socialists, communists, etc.
*The Nazis would not have received support from, and thus give legitimacy to, the clergy.
*The Nazis would have actually gone about vigorously attacking the intellectual foundations and intellectual legitimacy of religion once in power. That is, they would have proceeded to drive religion out of the realm of legitimate public discourse.

How many press conferences or rallies did the Nazis hold? During how many of them did Hitler utter something to the effect of, "There are no gods&#33;"?


All of them have been &#39;working class&#39; and all of them have been thoroughly disgusting people.

The Nazis were working class? I know that the Nazi elite certainly wasn&#39;t working class, especially once they came to power and explicitly became a part of the ruling class. Are you saying that most of the members of the Nazi party were working class? And most of these members were atheist, to boot?

From what I understand, most of the members of the Nazi party were from the petty-bourgeoisie. And I doubt many of these people were atheist. The Nazis got like, what, 33% of the vote in 1933? Had 33% of Germany abandoned religion by 1933?


Atheism doesn&#39;t instantly make you a good or noble person.

I don&#39;t want noble people. I want scientific, rational, self-directed, and farsightedly-selfish people. These types of people will be the only ones capable of making successful communist revolution.

And atheism promotes these traits.


So a lack of absolute atheism is the latest excuse for the remarkable failure that has been the left in the first world? Well, atleast it&#39;s a new one and doesn&#39;t rely on determinist excuses of &#39;the time isn&#39;t right&#33;&#39;.

It is one reason why there hasn&#39;t been successful communist revolution in the advanced capitalist countries as of yet.

Another reason is that many people still believe in "Great Leaders," which negates any possibility of successful communist revolution. Another reason is that capitalism is still "bringing home the goods" (sort of). In other words, capitalism has not yet exhausted all of its potential for developing the means of production and improving standards of living in the advanced capitalist countries. It has not yet become a fetter on economic progress.

Another reason is that the so-called "left" in the first-world is still stuck in the muck of reformism, parliamentary cretinism, and vanguardism.

And actually, I do rely on the excuse of "the time isn&#39;t right" (see above).

But I would love to be proven wrong. Go ahead, seize a radio station and "launch" a "communist" revolution. Then listen to the crickets chirping in the night. Because that&#39;s all the response you are going to get.

Or, if you are successful at first, somehow make sure that the working class acts as a class for itself and take control of society. Make sure that the working class doesn&#39;t rely on "Great Leaders." Make sure that a despotism over the working class doesn&#39;t develop.

If, 20 years after your revolution, your society still looks like anarcho-syndicalist Spain, then I will have been proven wrong. "Successful communist revolution was possible after all&#33;" I&#39;ll say.

And I&#39;ll be delighted to hop on the nearest flight to your stateless communist country. Everyday, I yearn for experiencing that. But I don&#39;t delude myself in thinking that successful communist revolution is closer than it really is.

And if determinism frustrates you, I&#39;ll re-phrase it:

"There is a 0.01% chance of successful communist revolution being initiated in the United States within the next year."


Because atheists are more inclined to take on board communism? In the &#39;first world&#39; they&#39;re just as likely to be distracted by the great glowy box.

Does it not make sense to be distracted by the "great glowy box" in today&#39;s world? It is certainly a lot more enjoyable than being "sacrificing" one&#39;s self for the revolution. I don&#39;t blame them for watching TV.

When communist revolution actually starts to look possible, when they see that communist society has much more to offer, when they become far-sighted enough to realize that it is in their self-interest to fight for communism, then they will respond to their perceived material self-interest and become interested in fighting for communism. And capitalism&#39;s own natural functioning should bring this situation about.

[Comrade-Z]

For example, plenty of people have rejected traditional religion, but believe in alien abduction, psychic powers, ghosts, etc.

Even those who reject such non-materialist beliefs - don&#39;t always think at all rationally about society.

On the other hand, religious people sometimes do think relatively rationally about social questions. People are complicated.

Good points. Yes, people are complicated. Certainly atheism cannot be used as a fool-proof reading of when revolution is imminent, in that one could not say, "By George, Britain just topped 86.7% atheism. That&#39;s the breaking point&#33; Communist revolution is imminent&#33;"

But it still seems reasonable that people who are atheist are more likely to think rationally, and religious people are less likely to think rationally and, in fact, unable to think rationally about certain subjects that their holy books cover (meaning, just about anything of significance).

I also suppose some really intelligent Christian apologists can think rationally while starting from completely absurd premises. That doesn&#39;t cut it either.

And widespread rational thinking is a necessary, but not sufficient, pre-requisite for successful communist revolution. Those seem like reasonable propositions.


And then there&#39;s people who describe themselves as atheists...but slavishly accept every idea proclaimed by Pope Redstar, no matter how ridiculous.

Redstar is by no means my "Pope" or "Great Leader," if that is what you are getting at.

I happen to use some aspects of his writing style because I find them effective at communicating my ideas. I also happen to agree with Redstar on many issues (but certainly not all. For instance, I vehemently disagree with Redstar over the way in which religion is to be combatted. I want vigorous intellectual assaults on religion and prohibition of coercive religious practices. He seems to want prohibition of all public religion whatsoever, even if it is of a "passive" nature. I don&#39;t think this is the way to go.). I don&#39;t accept what he says just because he&#39;s the one saying it. I accept it because it makes sense to me.

If Redstar said that we should all support Hillary Clinton for a presidential run in 2008, or if he said we really should set up a permanent State apparatus with a standing army after the revolution, I&#39;d say, "Fuck you, Redstar&#33; Those ideas are terrible for the following reasons..."


Atheists are already conscious communists--even atheists who don&#39;t yet support communism are still conscious communists&#33; Why? Because they already think like communists. They consciously operate from perceived material self-interest. They trust no authority except their own reason. They think for themselves and are prepared to act for themselves.

I don&#39;t think this is illogical at all. Let me elaborate:

Materialist thinkers who are suffering economic hardship, especially compared to what they once had before the economic downturn, who also see no hope for improvement outside of revolution--these people will be conscious communists capable of making successful communist revolution.


Again, you have to try to explain away facts which are contrary to your preconceived idea. A materialist approach does the opposite - it derives ideas from facts.

The inconvenient fact, here, is that atheism is still widespread in the former Soviet-bloc countries. Yet these countries are not exactly the most ripe for revolution.

I discard the data from present-day "communist" regimes because the State is likely to have overtly rigged the statistics.

On the other hand, I suppose I should have included the data from the former Soviet-bloc countries. I was thinking that this atheism would be more of a lingering hold-over from the Soviet days, and not of a very "conscious" nature. But it may be that that is just as well.

If we regard the statistics on the former Soviet-bloc countries as accurate, then we can verily say that they are very advanced with regard to getting rid of religious superstition in their societies.

Thus, it would seem reasonable to suggest that once their capitalisms become advanced, they will have an easier time making successful communist revolution. Once again, atheism is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for communist revolution.


In contrast, there are relatively few atheists in Latin America - but those countries have been the scene of massive worker and peasant upsurges in recent years. In terms of the consciousness of the population - the subjective factor for revolution - those countries are the most ready for revolution of anyplace.

But will these be communist revolutions? In name only, I would assert. They will either end up introducing modern secular capitalism or a Bonapartist despotism which will, in turn, prepare the country for modern secular capitalism.


Sorry, this bizarre thesis that atheist = communist just does not hold up under a materialist, that is fact-based analysis.

To clarify: atheist (or more precisely, materialist) + working class experiencing failure of capitalism = communist. Both parts of the sum are necessary. Non-materialist workers experiencing a failure of the capitalist system cannot make successful communist revolution, I would assert.

[red team]

Atheism doesn&#39;t instantly make you a good or noble person.


I don&#39;t want noble people. I want scientific, rational, self-directed, and farsightedly-selfish people. These types of people will be the only ones capable of making successful communist revolution.

And atheism promotes these traits.


Not exactly, suppose I am selfish atheist who think nothing of lying or cheating to gain more wealth for myself. How exactly is that going to progress toward making Communist society more likely? More importantly, how are you going to control corruption in your Communist society and if you do devote resources to control corruption would that not drain resources away from more materially progressive programs which then would in turn undermine your Communist society in the first place? Furthermore, if people were conscripted to perform duties that make a society function effectively wouldn&#39;t that undermine a person&#39;s enthusiam for your altruistic society which again would lead to corruption and a drain on further resources? People do have the potential to be altruistic, but their motivation to voluntarily do so depends on whether or not they are given a choice or are coerced to do so. Furthermore, you seem to rely far too much on intangible factors like rational thought which although may contribute to people&#39;s rejection of super natural explanations to social problems, does it make it possible that Communist society can function on these intangibles alone? Just how far do you think your "Communist" society would last if you rely on either "iron discipline" or "heroic altruism propaganda" to motivate people to work in a rationed labour system? It might "work" for a few years, but it would eventually wear thin as people won&#39;t see the selfish benefits of being a "heroic" janitor or a "heroic" miner :lol:

[Comrade-Z]

Not exactly, suppose I am selfish atheist who think nothing of lying or cheating to gain more wealth for myself. How exactly is that going to progress toward making Communist society more likely?

Selfishness and Hedonism: two seeds of capitalism&#39;s demise.
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46573

I would ask you, why do you think lying and cheating will gain you more wealth for yourself? Might that be because that&#39;s what capitalism promotes?

Those really are the most feasible tactics for personal advancement in capitalist society. Do I anticipate those tactics to work in communist society? No.

In communist society there are no private property laws. You can draw from whatever resources you need in society. How is lying and cheating going to help you then? All that will do is get you socially alienated, dejected, and despised.

In this circumstance, the more selfish you were, you would make sure to refrain from lying and cheating, as those would work against your perceived material self-interest.

I guess what I also need to ask you if your selfishness is of a short-sighted or far-sighted nature. If your selfishness was of a far-sighted nature, and assuming you are working class, you&#39;d realize that a communist society without corruption offers a much more enjoyable existence than capitalist society.

Furthermore, you&#39;d realize that, in a communist society, it would be in your self-interest to help create a social environment in which lying and cheating are generally regarded with disdain, so that you would not be lied to and cheated against. (In capitalism being lied to and cheated is unavoidable. So you might as well join in on the fun, as you say). And what would be the best way to do that? Well, to abstain from lying and cheating yourself.


Just how far do you think your "Communist" society would last if you rely on either "iron discipline" or "heroic altruism propaganda" to motivate people to work in a rationed labour system? It might "work" for a few years, but it would eventually wear thin as people won&#39;t see the selfish benefits of being a "heroic" janitor or a "heroic" miner.

I don&#39;t expect to rely on either "iron discipline" or "heroic altruism propaganda." That&#39;s the point. I expect to rely on selfish individuals who will recognize, nonetheless, that someone needs to take out the garbage, or else I am going to get sick or inhale nasty odors, or whatnot. They will take out the garbage out of purely selfish motivations.

I also expect selfish people to naturally find rotating these undesirable but necessary tasks to be the best way to get them done.

[red team]

I don&#39;t expect to rely on either "iron discipline" or "heroic altruism propaganda." That&#39;s the point. I expect to rely on selfish individuals who will recognize, nonetheless, that someone needs to take out the garbage, or else I am going to get sick or inhale nasty odors, or whatnot. They will take out the garbage out of purely selfish motivations.

I also expect selfish people to naturally find rotating these undesirable but necessary tasks to be the best way to get them done.


Of course job rotation could be implemented, but what&#39;s to stop people from favouring a "rotation" to a less demanding position and leave all the drudge work to the suckers that are left behind? This hypothetical situation actually mirrors reality as when the Soviet Union neared the end of it&#39;s life it was a society plagued with bribery and corruption. Some jobs are very demanding and are simply not inspiring for people to stick around to do it without compensation in which people working at the job are bribed into doing it with material gain or as happened in Socialist societies after the initial revolutionary fervor had died down bribery of higher officials for a "softer" position which results in a patronage system.

The only long term solution that works is technological innovation to reduce or eliminate uninspiring toil so then nobody would need to make a career out of those jobs at all. Furthermore, as society gets more complex job rotation won&#39;t be effective for swapping positions that require skills training. Are you really going to swap a mechanic&#39;s position with a janitor&#39;s or a secretary&#39;s position with a computer technician&#39;s :rolleyes:

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade&#045;[email protected] 28 2006, 04:19 PM
I happen to use some aspects of his writing style because I find them effective at communicating my ideas.
Heh. I didn&#39;t even notice that. I just noticed the content was completely taken from the Redstar Papers. That&#39;s great, you even have to emulate your Guru&#39;s writing style.


If Redstar said that we should all support Hillary Clinton for a presidential run in 2008, or if he said we really should set up a permanent State apparatus with a standing army after the revolution, I&#39;d say, "Fuck you, Redstar&#33; Those ideas are terrible for the following reasons..."

I&#39;ll believe that when I see it.


On the other hand, I suppose I should have included the data from the former Soviet-bloc countries.

Which screws up your conclusions.

I forgot to mention before, you also left out Latin America. Which screws up your conclusions from the opposite angle. You&#39;re really good at cherry-picking facts to support your conclusions.

Of course, to achieve the real Redstar style, you have to omit facts completely. So you still have work to do.


If we regard the statistics on the former Soviet-bloc countries as accurate, then we can verily say that they are very advanced with regard to getting rid of religious superstition in their societies.

Thus, it would seem reasonable to suggest that once their capitalisms become advanced, they will have an easier time making successful communist revolution.
.....
To clarify: atheist (or more precisely, materialist) + working class experiencing failure of capitalism = communist.

Which one is it? Advanced capitalism or failure of capitalism? If it&#39;s the latter, people in the former Soviet bloc are definitely experiencing it&#33; The attempt to reintroduce capitalism in Russia, for example, has led to a social disaster of such depth that the population has actually declined...due to plummeting life expectancy and birthrates.

So again: is the former Soviet bloc experiencing a revolutionary upsurge....or is your simplistic theory wrong?


But will these be communist revolutions? In name only, I would assert. They will either end up introducing modern secular capitalism or a Bonapartist despotism which will, in turn, prepare the country for modern secular capitalism.

You mean, Redstar asserts it so it must be true.

[red team]

Being a Castro fan yourself Severian you could hardly be in a position of an impartial observer to anybody&#39;s conjectures including RedStar&#39;s. As I see it how is your conjectures anymore valid than anybody else&#39;s. Oh by the way, prostitutes and small businesses working on the tourism racket (sex tourism racket :lol: ) earn a lot more than a teacher&#39;s wage or the wages of many of the other professionals. From this simple fact alone I&#39;ve shot down your whole "theory" that Cuba is anywhere near an ideal society.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)The attempt to reintroduce capitalism in Russia, for example, has led to a social disaster of such depth that the population has actually declined...due to plummeting life expectancy and birthrates.[/b]

Quite so. And public polls there reveal an enormous nostalgia for the old USSR and even Stalin.

Does this mean that the Russia is "on the eve" of a second proletarian uprising?

I don&#39;t think so...but I wouldn&#39;t completely rule it out, either.

We&#39;re really not in a position to gage the attitudes of ordinary people there towards the "new oligarchs", the Putin cabal, etc. Is there a sense that "they&#39;re in power to stay" or are they perceived as "overthrowable"?

I simply don&#39;t know...and I don&#39;t think you know either.


In contrast, there are relatively few atheists in Latin America - but those countries have been the scene of massive worker and peasant upsurges in recent years. In terms of the consciousness of the population - the subjective factor for revolution - those countries are the most ready for revolution of anyplace.

Yes, they appear to be interested in the revolutionary option...but I know of no evidence that they are at all "ready for" or even interested in communism.

There are, as far as I&#39;ve heard, no significant Leninist parties in Latin America now. So there goes your "revolutionary leadership" factor down the toilet.

It seems most likely to me that the best possible outcome of the current turmoil in Latin America is the rise of a "radical" bourgeoisie that will, in turn, modernize those countries up to what we consider "western" standards.

That&#39;s progressive and should be supported...but it&#39;s definitely not communism.


Atheists disproportionately belong to the upper and middle classes.

Certainly a unique rationale for your increasingly strident defense of religion.

But I question its validity for most of the "old" capitalist countries. It may well still be true for the United States...but I&#39;m not convinced that it&#39;s true for most European countries.

Moreover, we have no way of really telling how seriously the American ruling class takes its own "pro-religion" rhetoric. The Cheney cabal is as atheist as I am. But there have been recent examples of leading corporations and big capitalists making special (and expensive) efforts to promote religion as "respectable" and "legitimate".

Is it not possible that at least some of them truly believe in "God"?


And atheism is, after all, a subjective factor.

The desire for communism is a "subjective factor". No one, I think, argues that communism will be achieved "by accident".

What has been argued here is that there are (or may be) useful indicators of what is possible in various countries.

If you disagree with this approach, fine.

Go back to "dialectics" and see what that gets you. :lol:


So is east Germany seething with revolutionary revolt?

No, it&#39;s "seething" with social democracy...the German "Left Party" is, I believe, stronger there than anywhere else and the officially named "Social Democratic" Party has been a capitalist party for a long time.

When people there perceive that the "Left Party" or whatever formation follows it cannot deliver on its reformist promises, then we may see a revolutionary left emerge there.


Scars
Marxism is no more scientific than Nietzsche.

:lol:

One thing about message boards...if you missed the last nutball, there&#39;ll be another one along in a few minutes. :lol:

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

[Dyst]

It is important Atheism doesn&#39;t necesseraly imply consciousness or even free thought. It can just as much be imposed upon children like any other belief, and some people will never question it (everyone should question everything).

It is impossible to measure "progress towards communist society" by using atheism... It&#39;s not like capitalism doesn&#39;t support atheist thought. Maybe except in the US. Anyways, you can&#39;t measure the "progress" of "communism" by using a philosophical line of view as an indicator, as they have nothing to do with each other. Most atheists are far from communism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade&#045;[email protected] 28 2006, 04:19 PM

On the other hand, religious people sometimes do think relatively rationally about social questions. People are complicated.

and religious people are less likely to think rationally and, in fact, unable to think rationally about certain subjects that their holy books cover (meaning, just about anything of significance).

I also suppose some really intelligent Christian apologists can think rationally while starting from completely absurd premises. That doesn&#39;t cut it either.
Do you know any actual religious believers, or do you live in some kind of atheist monastery or something?

The world is, in fact, full of religious believers who manage to tie their own shoes, walk and chew gum at the same time, have pretty decent general-direction political instincts, etc. They think about all kinds of things without necessarily quoting the Bible.

(Which, incidentally, does not cover "just about anything of significance", or even half the things some people think it does. It says nothing about abortion, for example.)

When it comes to social and political questions, religion is not the main reason why people can&#39;t think rationally. Class and political biases are.

Here&#39;s a few forms they take:

*Believing whatever&#39;s pleasant to believe. I see that a fair bit on this board.

*Believing things that keep you from having to do anything. For example, thinking "your" government is more or less decent - even though everyone knows on some level that&#39;s not true - because otherwise you might have to do something about it. There is a religious version of this - yes, the world&#39;s messed up, but God will fix it and nobody else can. (That&#39;s the main political effect of religion, really, that it promotes that type of passivity. Which is why religion is sometimes called the inertia of history.) Occurs to me Redstar Thought is a version of this.

*If your enemies say water is wet, believing it&#39;s dry. Also seen a fair bit on this board.

*Groupthink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink) Mindguards and confirmation bias are especially common here. &#39;Course, religion can be seen in part as a form of groupthink.

A common form of groupthink on the left is competition to be the most radical-sounding. In a closed circle of activists, rhetorical radicalism can escalate due to this competition, with anyone who injects a note of sanity being tarred as a sellout.

*Contempt for most working people, aka most of humanity. To be a communist, it takes confidence in human beings&#39; capacity for self-transformation in the course of changing the world.

I could go on.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)The world is, in fact, full of religious believers who manage to tie their own shoes, walk and chew gum at the same time, have pretty decent general-direction political instincts, etc. They think about all kinds of things without necessarily quoting the Bible.[/b]

Most people behave mostly decently and mostly rational most of the time.

People are not "horrible beasts at heart"...no matter how many fascist ideologues argue otherwise.

That factual observation cannot be used to defend the proposition that religion is "harmless" or "mostly harmless" or "mostly irrelevant to politics".

We observe, on the contrary, that wherever and whenever religion is taken seriously, the consequences are reactionary.

And atrocities proliferate.


Mark Osiel, who studied the Argentine military in the Dirty War, reports that many of the torturers had qualms about what they were doing until priests reassured them that they were fighting God&#39;s fight. By the end of the Dirty War, the qualms were gone, and, as John Simpson and Jana Bennett report, officers were placing bets on who could kidnap the prettiest girl to rape and torture. --emphasis added.

"Liberalism, Torture and the Ticking Bomb" by David Luban in Harper&#39;s Magazine, March 2006, pp. 11-16 (the quote is from page 16).


Severian
When it comes to social and political questions, religion is not the main reason why people can&#39;t think rationally. Class and political biases are.

I think this is, at least, highly disputable.

Human rationality is certainly constrained by all sorts of biases and prejudices.

It would seem to me that the pertinent question would be something along the lines of: what bias stands strongest in our way, as revolutionaries, at the present time?

One could make strong arguments in favor of nationalism or racism or perhaps sexism.

In my opinion, it is religion that presently holds back the proletariat from developing the rational class consciousness required to advance.

Not that those other biases aren&#39;t "bad" enough...but religion is worse&#33;

Indeed, religion serves -- in the present period -- as a kind of "cosmic foundation" for biases like nationalism, racism, and sexism.

What reactionary does not explicitly invoke "God" to build popular support for his ambitions?

Even the Nazis claimed that "God was with them"...to the near universal approval of the German clergy.


Believing whatever&#39;s pleasant to believe. I see that a fair bit on this board.

You don&#39;t have to go to a message board to "see it". It&#39;s an almost "universal" human assumption.

If you imagine that you are "personally above" that sort of thing, then I think you&#39;re just kidding yourself.

You think that it&#39;s still "possible" to successfully struggle for "reforms" and "democratic rights" under the aging despotism of capital.

A perfect example of what you decry in others.


Believing things that keep you from having to do anything.

It&#39;s always in our perceived interest to avoid unnecessary toil.

Or, as the saying has it, never do today what can be put off until tomorrow.

Another human "universal".


If your enemies say water is wet, believing it&#39;s dry. Also seen a fair bit on this board.

A common "short-cut" arising from the fact that neither our brains nor the time available for thinking are infinite.

If a known godsucker tells me it&#39;s raining outside, I&#39;ll leave my raincoat and umbrella in the closet.

On what grounds should I expect him to get anything right?


A common form of groupthink on the left is competition to be the most radical-sounding. In a closed circle of activists, rhetorical radicalism can escalate due to this competition, with anyone who injects a note of sanity being tarred as a sellout.

That&#39;s one way of interpreting "what happens".

What I think happens is a mutual reinforcement of radical thinking. It&#39;s not simply "rhetorical", it&#39;s a change in the whole way the participants look at the world.

Comrade A makes a critical statement about capitalist reality.

Comrade B points out that Comrade A&#39;s statement does not go far enough...that a "deeper" and "more radical" critique is possible.

Comrade C might suggest that the truth lies somewhere between the views of Comrades A & B.

And struggle ensues...from which the participants learn.

Reformists always disparage this process...from motives of self-interest. They regard "radical talk" as a threat to their careers.

Which it is. :lol:


Contempt for most working people, a.k.a. most of humanity.

A super-sized "can of worms" here.

A ruling class generally does display open contempt for its subjects...except, perhaps, when they want to start a war and think they need popular support to win it.

Upwardly-mobile petty bourgeois elements happily join in the chorus.

But there are also those who interpret any criticism of popular folly as "contempt for the masses"...as if "being a worker" gets you a "free pass" to be reactionary&#33;

Or as if popular reactionary ideas should be treated "less harshly or critically" than really unpopular reactionary ideas.

I&#39;ve heard "leftists" say that we "shouldn&#39;t" condemn the police or the soldiers for their atrocities...because "they&#39;re just workers" and it&#39;s their bosses who "are really responsible".

As if "carrying out an atrocious order" is somehow "less reprehensible" than issuing an atrocious order.

Not in my book&#33; :angry:


I could go on.

By all means. :lol:

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 12:22 PM
If you imagine that you are "personally above" that sort of thing, then I think you&#39;re just kidding yourself.
Oh, of course not. But I&#39;m not the one proclaiming myself so much more rational than the majority of humanity.

[Comrade-Z]

Here&#39;s another statistic (of dubious validity) on atheism that could indicate some progress.


Through its aggressive atheism, the Left has succeeded in virtually eliminating Christianity from our public arena, and to a large degree from the private sphere as well. This trend has been especially pronounced in Europe where only some seven percent of the population engage in some form of regular religious observance.

This author is probably trying to paint a more alarming picture (in his/her view) than is actually the case, but if this statistic is accurate, then this is very significant. Because if only 7% of the population is going to Church, that means that, regardless of how many nominally religious adults there are right now, only a small proportion of the youth is going to Church and being indoctrinated with the stuff.

It is very doubtful that this next generation will become attracted to religion in adulthood after not being indoctrinated with it during childhood. Thus, this next generation may only be 7% religious at all, and much of this 7% may likely slide into being just nominally religious and not bring their kids to Church, etc.

This suggest that not the generation experiencing childhood and the teenage years right now will only be about 7% religious upon reaching adulthood, and thus be capable of advancing communist revolution, given other factors as well (such as a crisis in capitalism).