The Spiritual aspect of Communism

[RBJACKSON]

Obviously, the entire concept of Communism is endowed with humanistic intentions to better the human condition. Though Marx did regard organized religion as "the opium of the people", I believe that was quite aware that what he had theorized had an extremely spiritual undertone.

Perhaps if communism could take a less extreme stance toward religon, we could attract more workers to the revolution. At least it would utilize religious zealotry in a positive fashion!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RB, if you check out:

http://www.leninology.blogspot.com/

you will see (in posts made over the last few months) your suggestions have already been taken on board.

One instance:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/03/marxism-religion.html

[LSD]

Obviously, the entire concept of Communism is endowed with humanistic intentions to better the human condition.

Perhaps, but for solely materialistic reasons.


Though Marx did regard organized religion as "the opium of the people", I believe that was quite aware that what he had theorized had an extremely spiritual undertone.

Well I certainly hope not! :o

I would expect a great deal more from a materialist genius like Marx. Surely he was as aware as anyone that the "spirit" is utter mythology.

Indeed, if you take a look through Marx's writing's you'll see that he consistantly rejected religious garbage in favour of rationality and logic. The idea of a "Marxist spirituality" is a fundamental contraditction in terms.


Perhaps if communism could take a less extreme stance toward religon, we could attract more workers to the revolution.

Perhaps, but that would defeat the point of the revolution.

It's like saying that if we only had a "less extreme stance" towards sexism and homophobia, we'd get a lot more interest. And, in fact that's probably true.

Indeed, we'd get a even more interest if we were more "tolerant" of capitalism!. Most workers today are, after all, capitalists and communism might seem more appealing if it was more compatible with capitalist norms.

Our purpose, however, is not to be as "appealing" as possible, nor is it to fill up member rolls; it's to get a message out. Dilluting that message to increase membership is fantastically counterproductive.

Communism is not against religion because "Marx said so" or out of irrational hatred, it's out of a rational objective material analysis of religion and the social role it plays. Religion is a fundamentally reactionary force in society, one which is nearly universally allied with the interests of the rulling class.

A communist society is, by definition, a materialist rational one and accordingly one with no room for religious superstitions.

The clergy will always fight communism because communism will always fight the hegemony of the Church. Accordingly, anyone still under their thrall is incapable of fully recognizing what must be done.

Religious people can be assets to revolutionary interests, but they cannot be communists.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:58 PM
Obviously, the entire concept of Communism is endowed with humanistic intentions to better the human condition. Though Marx did regard organized religion as "the opium of the people", I believe that was quite aware that what he had theorized had an extremely spiritual undertone.

Perhaps if communism could take a less extreme stance toward religion, we could attract more workers to the revolution. At least it would utilize religious zealotry in a positive fashion!
I guess you're aware that you're about the 200th or so visitor to this board that has made this kind of suggestion...in one form or another.

Many of those who make such suggestions think that there "really is" something called "spirituality"...in spite of the complete failure to empirically detect such a "thing".

There were, in fact, some very distinguished late-19th century scientists who made a "good faith" effort to investigate "spiritual phenomena"...only to learn that there was a hoax at the bottom of every "claim".

After that, scientists lost interest in the "spiritual"...for obvious reasons.

When people come to this board and suggest that revolutionaries should, in some fashion, "use spirituality", what they are really asking us to do is lie to people!

Without knowing, perhaps, that lying to people is the kiss of death for any revolutionary effort.

Telling people the truth is the strongest weapon we have...by a wide margin!

And therefore we must tell people that all religion is reactionary crap.

We have no choice!

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

[Dream Brother]

True.. organised religion.

We're seeing a break down in organised religion.. which is what marx said would be one of the first step's before the poletariat rise up to overthrow the ruling classes.

Yet.. despite all that being said western society.. nah not even that world society is still rising to it's saunchist peak in the embrace of capatalism. So maybe Marx was wrong.. the evidence would seem suggest that.. especially since his revolution is about.. 150 years overdue.

However contary to the belief that science has lost interest in all things spiritual people are identifying that people are biologically predisposed towards the spiritual. (see neuro-theology) ever heard of the god gene?

It's a well known fact that anyone with a faith has a stronger immune system, lives longer and is healthier and fitter than the typical atheist, they also have a much stronger determination.. now if it wasn't for this 'blind faith' spouted these would be the ideal candidates for the revolution no?

The fact is some people respond more to physical aspects (greed, sex, logic and reason) and some respond more to spiritually loaded words or atleast the metaphysical.

Therefore I'm afriad for those who retain the notion of wiping out religion? You'll never win becuase even the functionalist theorist say's religion will always exist.. if not in it's traditional sense but in a newly emerging 'cult of man'.

In fact.. scientists are paying more attention to faith and religion now then ever have been. Faith healings? Crystal healings? Miracles?

In terms of confronting the topic of direct religious experiance... rationalist philosophers are beginning to admit that it is infact not surprising that those who do have religious experiance do actually have something genuine (argueably not all but please do examine the principles of credulity and coherency).

The fact is it's a uphill battle to discredit religion purely becuase of trappings it endows on people supposedly. The fact theres enough evidence to say religion is a integral part of humanity suggests thats theres actually further fault with ideologys like Marxism than was otherwise thought.

After all just like aspects of some feminist perspectives, marxism can't be discredited as theory.. According to Compt (the found of sociology.. the study of society) any theory which can't be disproved.. is

a) not a theory
b) not scientific

Considering Marx was a empiricist I'll have you know ladys and gentleman.. that Marx in the eyes of the world was a dog chasing his own tail. It'll remain so unless people actually begin to forsake the rationality of this archaic theory which is dripping in the subjective nature consistant with Marx's work (despite being a empiricist himself. Marx was a atheist long before he even produced his theory.. would anyone like a side order of subjectivity with that?)

As a result Marxism is a conspiracy theory.. and infact it's hard not to laugh when there's more rational logic behind the existance of god than there is to Marx's work. The fact it's been picked up and popularized means people arn't free from anything.. merely choosing another version of the current society they exist in.

Marxism is a conflict theory.. any change which starts in conflict will only support itself through doing so. Christians have suffered not most at the hands of the romans but infact more Christians were killed in the the 20th century (perhaps 5 times more) by soviets alone. Let alone cubans.. chinese and the like. None of those theories support themselves.. and simply kill anyone who disagree's.. call that freedom?

In my eyes those who stand up for what they believe in the face of such institutions like communism and capatalism across the world are more revolutionary than the masses who get manipulated by those who are willing to manipulate others to get there own slice of the pie.

You fight fire with fire but both sides will only end up burnt. Capatalism mocks those with a faith as does Communism.. wheres the difference? you still kill shit loads of people, only thing is those people don't put up with it long enough in communist states. Which is why you always have so many refugee's struggling to get out atheists, deists, theists and any kind of non conformist to the communist manifesto.

Atleast I have my freedom of speech, since this is in the opposing Ideologies I think this critique is fairly warranted. I see alot of people sporting the faces of marxists and revolutionarys with links to that cause what I don't see is any recognition that other people worked to do change outside the 'red left'

If you can't open your mind to fully embrace another concept.. you won't understand the way those who follow it do that way.. therefore you get nothing done. Build no bridges.. Come back to me with an answer to why faith can't be used to change the current status quo when Marx's theorys are used to overthrow the current political system in the west.

The fact that 'revolutionaries' arn't willing to embrace other cultures, customs, beliefs and ideals and simply scowl, laugh and point at them is further evidence that the red isn't that far from facism. The way some people cling to marxism is in itself a pseudo-religion replacing the mysticism which might of once existed in your ancestors.

Don't claim you have any monopoly on the truth. The only thing which has come out of science and rationality is the highlighting of the fact that we really know bull about whats going on to humanity.

Plato was considered the wisest of men when he claimed to know nothing. The fact some people are compelled to tell people certain truths becuase they 'must' is only the pale reflection of a trapped mind.

The simple truth is, this isn't going away.. and aslong as you force ideals on another.. even if communists did come to power.. you'll be displaced by other revolutionarys with a different ideal to yours.. it's a cycle..

a bit like a dog chasing it's own tail really.

[xprol]

" Our slogan must be: a reform of consciousness not through dogmas, but through an analysis of mystic consciousness which is unclear to itself, be it religious or political. Only then will it be discovered that the world has long been in possession of the dream about something which can be realised once the world will be conscious of it...It will then be ultimately discovered that mankind dose not set about a new task, but realises conciously its old one." [FONT=Arial] Karl Marx (Early Writings)

"an analysis of mystic consciousness which is unclear to itself" FUKING BRILIANT

[Dream Brother]

Marx in his early work wrote very closely with the anarchist Proudhon (father of anarchy.. much to popular disbelief) while Marx was exiled in paris. Marx later turned his back on metaphysics and spirituality in his response to Proudhons 'Philosophy of Poverty'

with 'Poverty of Philosophy'

Now 'religion is the opiate of the masses' is probably everyones favourite quote here.

What they don't realise is before that Marx said 'The sigh of the oppressed creature'

Let's prod that a bit..

Hm.. the worker seem's quite oppressed. Marxism.. Communism is the rationalist sigh of the oppressed creature.. a pseudo-religion in it's own right. Criticise religion for it's flaws but as far as flaws go. Now.. whats another word for Nazi.. Neo-Coservative.. wait.. National Socialist?!

Hitler was the german working man's rationalist messiah. He did alot for germany but killed anyone who disagreed.. funnily.. I can relate that with a few other political movements world wide. Hitler made germans 'the chosen people' in the form of the Aryan race, he gave them back there money.. there land and built up a army to take on the entire world purely on socialist spirit and properganda.

I fail to see the difference. It's just the poor wanting a get rich quick scheme with gun's.. any credibility Marx had after that went down the pan.

Marx's writings are like a piece of Swiss Cheese.. comrade

Which is why Proudhon ceased to support Marx

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dream Brother
So maybe Marx was wrong.. the evidence would seem suggest that...especially since his revolution is about...150 years overdue.

Yeah, he got the time-scale wrong.

No big deal.


However contrary to the belief that science has lost interest in all things spiritual, people are identifying that people are biologically predisposed towards the spiritual. (see neuro-theology) Ever heard of the god gene?

A small number of pseudo-scientist hustlers are promoting such theories because there's money in it!

A Glimpse into the Godracket (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1114361146&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


It's a well known fact that anyone with a faith has a stronger immune system, lives longer and is healthier and fitter than the typical atheist...

Yes, the puritanical life-style in which one abstains from all forms of "sin" will doubtless lead to a longer "life"...if that's what you want to call it. :o

We'd have even longer life-spans if we all lived in individual plastic bubbles. Want to try that?


...they also have a much stronger determination.

By this you presumably mean that godsuckers will continue to beat their heads against stone walls long after sensible atheists will stop doing that crazy shit.

Point conceded.


Therefore I'm afraid for those who retain the notion of wiping out religion? You'll never win because even the functionalist theorist says religion will always exist...if not in its traditional sense but in a newly emerging 'cult of man'.

If you're losing an argument, just change the labels and verbally snatch victory from the flapping jaws of defeat. :lol:

Is Marxism a "Religion"? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1101735552&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


In fact...scientists are paying more attention to faith and religion now then ever have been. Faith healings? Crystal healings? Miracles?

All bullshit, of course. No reputable scientist would get involved in that superstitious crap.


In terms of confronting the topic of direct religious experience...rationalist philosophers are beginning to admit that it is in fact not surprising that those who do have religious experience do actually have something genuine (arguably not all but please do examine the principles of credulity and coherency).

Sure they have something "genuine"...a malfunction of the brain. There are a wide variety of chemicals that will give you a "religious experience"...if you want one.

And some people's brains are really fucked up...they "hear voices" and "see visions".

Someday, we'll know how to cure such unfortunate folks.

Instead of letting them run around loose and start religions.


The fact there's enough evidence to say religion is a integral part of humanity suggests that there's actually further fault with ideologies like Marxism than was otherwise thought.

People used to say the same thing about slavery...and they were wrong, weren't they?

While numbers are problematical, it's quite possible that the number of non-believers may be approaching one billion. As more and more people around the world become less ignorant, the future of superstition looks increasingly grim.


Considering Marx was a empiricist, I'll have you know, ladies and gentleman...that Marx in the eyes of the world was a dog chasing his own tail. It'll remain so unless people actually begin to forsake the rationality of this archaic theory which is dripping in the subjective nature consistent with Marx's work (despite being a empiricist himself, Marx was an atheist long before he even produced his theory...would anyone like a side order of subjectivity with that?)

What message are you trying to convey with this tortured prose?

That the (academic) world has a low opinion of Marx? Well, sure. Who's going to pay an academic to say that Marx was right?

That Marx was rational? He was indeed and only a decaying ruling class finds that uncomfortable...well, and people in the godracket. :lol:

That Marx was "subjective"? True enough, but much less so than all the other "social theorists" put together.

Keep in mind that it was not Marx's "job" to "prove" that "there are no gods"...he took that as a "working assumption" because of the already known fallacies of the Christianity of his time and place.

If that was self-evidently false, there was then no reason to assume that any religion was "true".

As things turned out, a correct assumption. :D


...in fact it's hard not to laugh when there's more rational logic behind the existence of god than there is to Marx's work.

Oh yeah. :lol:

Since you were asking about genes earlier, ever hear of the "idiot gene"?


Capitalism mocks those with a faith as does Communism...

An astute observation. Down at its roots, capitalism is concerned only with the accumulation of capital...which places a premium on rational thought. Indeed, modern religions are themselves more and more "capitalistic" in orientation...when they copy their "business model" from Wal-Mart and their "marketing strategy" from McDonald's, they subvert their own faith.

For communists, rationality is "our great hope"...the more of it there is, the better our chances!

Chances to do what? Abolish wage-slavery!


At least I have my freedom of speech...

To say what is acceptable to the despotism of capital. Try this...

God rewards the truly faithful with blessings on earth as well as in Heaven; but the sinful must be punished with earthly fire as they will be punished with Hellfire.

Wealthy godsuckers really like that message and will pay you money to hear it!


If you can't open your mind to fully embrace another concept...

There is no reason to have an "open mind" to reactionary nonsense.


The fact that 'revolutionaries' aren't willing to embrace other cultures, customs, beliefs and ideals and simply scowl, laugh and point at them is further evidence that the red isn't that far from fascism.

Historically, fascism and religion have enjoyed warm working relationships...since they both have a great deal in common.


Don't claim you have any monopoly on the truth.

Why shouldn't we? Marxism certainly is "truer" than any of its competitors.

Religion isn't even "in the race".


The only thing which has come out of science and rationality is the highlighting of the fact that we really know bull about what's going on to humanity.

As a self-confessed ignoramus, why do you assume that the rest of us are?

It's at least barely possible that if you read and think about the things we talk about here, you might actually learn something about how to look at the world rationally.


Plato was considered the wisest of men when he claimed to know nothing.

Plato was the philosophic "father of fascism".

I grow weary of your incoherent banalities and see little point in further discourse with you.

I would suggest that you purchase a spell-check and grammar-check program to help you with your posts.

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

[Dream Brother]

Hm well I guess Marxist melting pot seems to limit your perception on the world. The more we look for an answer the more we'll find one, as you no doubt pointed in being the case for 'godsuckers'. I guess it fits to pretty much anything.

Maybe you missed the point that Marxism in it's concentrated state isn't actually possible.


The simple truth is, this isn't going away.. and as long as you force ideals on another.. even if communists did come to power.. you'll be displaced by other revolutionaries with a different ideal to yours.. it's a cycle..

Why do we get so many refugees’ fleeing communist states?

Marx's was a social theorist and his actual arguments to promote disbelief are among the weakest there is. Religion by definition is
Has many definitions - most of them involve the idea of supernatural agency.

Now.. we live in a place called earth. There’s many people.. Many perspectives and under that fall many faiths. Your enforcement of conformity is by definition a dictatorship.. (yes but a dictatorship of the classes we've heard it all before).

I'm not sure if you've studied any NRL's but one thing which is consistent is the fact there all based on a charismatic individual.. a bit like the way people promote che/lenin/marx and all the wonderful quotes of cream filled crap. If we look at some aspects of Buddhism.. they have no belief in a god yet.. Marxism.. Communism chases these individuals with such fervor that it is suspiciously close of falling under a new religious movement or at least the post modern. I guess if you ever took time to study the workings of society you'd notice that.

Without these charismatic individuals the movements collapse.. Lenin, Che.. Marx didn't even have a movement.


And some people's brains are really fucked up...they "hear voices" and "see visions". What sort of fascist pig do you take yourself for? You have a perfect vision of the human race? We going to make sure they all have blonde hair and blue eyes now too?

Humanity is a built up series of mutations, if you believe in evolution you can't deny that. Therefore there is no set standard for the human race, hence genetic differences. You can argue "sure and removing those with religion ensures 'only the strongest survive'" well if physical violence is your idea of evolution and revolution I'd like to introduce you to a creature known quite simply as the dinosaur.

The argument attempting to be applied is a rationalist argument from a irrational perspective. I don't genuinely give a flying monkeys what you have to say on the issue but if people are going to stagnate here with an open rejection of a freedom of thought and forgo the ability embrace new ideas than if anything your taking step's backwards.

Back on planet earth not everyone agrees with you and quite simply they never will, to those who live on earth you can choose to force people physically to think what you do.. but in doing so you drive them further back into there holes and will fight you the more you actively oppose them. If Marxism is such a fascist conflict theory than your only ever going to be faced with conflict.

I never intended to post this for your benefit unfortunately. If your rationality is your point of view than under who's authority does yours usurp anyone else's? your own fist? the peoples fist? In your own criticisms you highlight the failings of your own theory, you dance between the term "bullshit" and "no one else in their right mind". In turn to target the individual an "us verses them" argument.. actively conflict seeking in nature, an active piece of propaganda. I guess if you read the work of some other left wing thinkers you could get round that. Is Marx the be all and end all? Maybe for you, maybe for a few others. How many do you think?

Could it really be the be all and end all for you? I guess maybe if you bullied enough people.. Destroyed enough peoples free will. Then I guess.. that’s what you say about religion.. I guess this Marxist argument can appear like a dog chasing it's own tail.. what I'm more interested in.. is this a three legged dog? a blind dog? a rabid dog lashing out on the worlds corruption whilst unaware of its own affliction?

You see.. evolution means the strongest and most dominant traits are continued through generation.. marxism isn't a strong ideal.. it certainly isn't dominant. It's the small child wanting to get the one over on the grown up's of the world, a small oppressed child from the spawn of rich spoilt parents.. but it hates it's parents and wants to kill them.. and all there friends and family. Now.. Occasionally it might get another friend who's not so lucky to have the same background as this child.. but it wants what the other child wants too.. but the children squabble.. grow older.. become more like there parents.. and they really don't know what they want..

Any act of war hasn't been committed without a single selfish notion. Marxism is a conflict theory.. it activity uses it's double Dutch logic to pit itself against the other double Dutch institutions and theories existing in this world. What people wish to be liberated by in act is only ensuring a further trapping of the current system.. maybe with the differences in waving a red flag instead of blue and shooting people instead of waving bits of paper at one another.

Do you agree with the fascist gassing of the Jews in WWII? Did you agree with the soviet executions of deserters who returned after the war?? Do you agree with the destruction of those who go against you? You might aswell be trying to argue a case to legitimise widespread pedophilia to me redstar or do your marxist theories even state that to be ok too? After all the familys merely a tool to manipulate the values of the majority and traditional forms of relationship are only set up in the wake of religious doctrine.

You want to dispose the ruling classes to liberate the working majority.. yet you.. the minority wanting to exert your own will on the masses.. in turn 'dog chasing its own tail'

Well no one's going to completely agree with you.. your only going to keep them in line through fear. Their will always be a bigger fish.. you'll always be scared of something or someone else with this theory and ultimately the only thing Marxism is bringing about quicker is the end of your material existence.. now for someone like that.. that must be a terrible fate.

I guess that’s where the idea of nationhood comes in.. but who represents a nation.. or does the nation represent the individual? Self destructive.. and short lived.

This isn't for you. Redstar, you've always decided your stance before you even saw the comment. People can reach there own conclusion.. despite how much things seems to suggest otherwise.

There you've got material.. a statement.. a critique and a final response. Now let individuals decide.. not the colour red.. or black or any name.

'Hopefully we'll be able to 'cure' anyone who doesn't agree with Marxism.. or maybe atleast get to a point where we can shoot them without any trouble..'

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dream Brother
Maybe you missed the point that Marxism in its concentrated state isn't actually possible.

What I'm really missing is the possibility that you will say anything rational on this (or any other) subject at all.


Why do we get so many refugees fleeing communist states?

Is Mexico "communist"?

Or North Africa?

By the way, there's no such thing as a "communist state".

What is Communism? A Brief Definition (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


Now...we live in a place called earth. There’s many people...Many perspectives and under that fall many faiths. Your enforcement of conformity is by definition a dictatorship...

Yep, we don't let people burn other people for "witchcraft" anymore...truly a terrible sign of "dictatorship".

There's more to come! :D


I'm not sure if you've studied any NRL's but one thing which is consistent is the fact there all based on a charismatic individual.

I can't even imagine what an "NRL" is -- "National Religious Lunacy"?

I'm against "charisma"...it's irrational.


If we look at some aspects of Buddhism...they have no belief in a god yet...

You look...I've seen enough!

Is Buddhism "Better"? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1101245436&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


What sort of fascist pig do you take yourself for? You have a perfect vision of the human race? We going to make sure they all have blond hair and blue eyes now too?

I suspect we'll begin with something simple: stem cell implants in the frontal lobes of the rationally challenged...such as yourself.


You see...evolution means the strongest and most dominant traits are continued through generation...Marxism isn't a strong ideal...it certainly isn't dominant. It's the small child wanting to get the one over on the grown ups of the world, a small oppressed child from the spawn of rich spoilt parents... but it hates its parents and wants to kill them...and all their friends and family. Now...Occasionally it might get another friend who's not so lucky to have the same background as this child...but it wants what the other child wants too...but the children squabble...grow older...become more like their parents...and they really don't know what they want...

I know what I want: I want you restricted to Opposing Ideologies.

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

[Comrade-Z]

Obviously, the entire concept of Communism is endowed with humanistic intentions to better the human condition.

Hardly. I think this is where some of the problems that we have been facing lately in this forum have stemmed from--an erroneous conception of the fundamental rationale and driving force behind communist revolution.

I would even go so far as to say that superstitious, backward thinking and the notion that communism is just about "helping humanity" go hand in hand, or at least reinforce each other.

Communism is not humanism. It is self-emancipation from wage-slavery, class society, and all state apparatuses, taken up jointly by an entire class of individuals, the proletariat, because this class recognizes wage-slavery to be a class condition that requires a class effort to overthrow, and because this class recognizes that it is in the rational self-interest of each one of them to create this stateless communist society.

It is not about "helping others," although that incidentally happens, if we do it correctly.

[red team]

Obviously, the entire concept of Communism is endowed with humanistic intentions to better the human condition.

Though Marx did regard organized religion as "the opium of the people", I believe that was quite aware that what he had theorized had an extremely spiritual undertone.


Perhaps, but the problem with "spirituality" as it is currently defined and practiced is that it diverts the constructive and positive human qualities of creativity, imagination, compassion and altruism into irrational adherence to destructive belief systems based on demonstratable falsehoods.

This is then used as a tool by those in power to either keep the followers quiet and accepting of their fate in the world or to marshal them to destroy obstacles to their rule such as science and progressive minded people.

I think that "spirituality" as people desire to experience it is really nothing more than a combination of the four very human traits as I've outlined above, but is perversed into a institution of repression we called religion by those in power. I also think that to experience these four traits is a human need, but is squashed by the workings of an economic system that doesn't value them. This need is therefore met elsewhere through more sinister institutions.

[Dyst]

Well said.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 15 2006, 03:53 PM
Communism is not humanism. It is self-emancipation from wage-slavery, class society, and all state apparatuses, taken up jointly by an entire class of individuals, the proletariat, because this class recognizes wage-slavery to be a class condition that requires a class effort to overthrow, and because this class recognizes that it is in the rational self-interest of each one of them to create this stateless communist society.

It is not about "helping others," although that incidentally happens, if we do it correctly.
Indeed. Idealist kids who think "communism" is "altruism" help embarrasing revolutionary ideas. Same thing with almost "religious" "leftists" who promote "humanist values" and come here just because their "beliefs" include "equality".

I'm particularly concerned with the way many people think that communism is "collectivism". I've actually heard some girl (in "real life", not internet) complaining about how disgusting "communism" seems to her because we will "all wear the exact same clothes" and so on. :rolleyes:

[AK47]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:07 PM

Obviously, the entire concept of Communism is endowed with humanistic intentions to better the human condition.

Perhaps, but for solely materialistic reasons.


Though Marx did regard organized religion as "the opium of the people", I believe that was quite aware that what he had theorized had an extremely spiritual undertone.

Well I certainly hope not! :o

I would expect a great deal more from a materialist genius like Marx. Surely he was as aware as anyone that the "spirit" is utter mythology.

Indeed, if you take a look through Marx's writing's you'll see that he consistantly rejected religious garbage in favour of rationality and logic. The idea of a "Marxist spirituality" is a fundamental contraditction in terms.


Perhaps if communism could take a less extreme stance toward religon, we could attract more workers to the revolution.

Perhaps, but that would defeat the point of the revolution.

It's like saying that if we only had a "less extreme stance" towards sexism and homophobia, we'd get a lot more interest. And, in fact that's probably true.

Indeed, we'd get a even more interest if we were more "tolerant" of capitalism!. Most workers today are, after all, capitalists and communism might seem more appealing if it was more compatible with capitalist norms.

Our purpose, however, is not to be as "appealing" as possible, nor is it to fill up member rolls; it's to get a message out. Dilluting that message to increase membership is fantastically counterproductive.

Communism is not against religion because "Marx said so" or out of irrational hatred, it's out of a rational objective material analysis of religion and the social role it plays. Religion is a fundamentally reactionary force in society, one which is nearly universally allied with the interests of the rulling class.

A communist society is, by definition, a materialist rational one and accordingly one with no room for religious superstitions.

The clergy will always fight communism because communism will always fight the hegemony of the Church. Accordingly, anyone still under their thrall is incapable of fully recognizing what must be done.

Religious people can be assets to revolutionary interests, but they cannot be communists.
I think what you fail to see is the lens Marx was seeing with. Late 19th century Elizabethan society was the second most psychological self destructive period of western history. Number one being the dark ages, post Roman empire collapse when the Catholic Church (already infested with Roman Imperialism, I always thought Imperialism and spiritualism do not mix) Back to the main point. Nearing the end of the Feudal period of Western society I am sure Marx could see change coming. He could theorize as to its cause and direction. He wrote a multitude of theories since he, as a scientist saw flaws in earlier concepts and tried to fix them in later theories. On the other hand the lens he saw the world was cluttered with irrational presumptions of that period. The idea that a communistic people would need a leader for life I am sure stems from the current thinking about royalty. Now, just maybe the idea that even though he predicted the coming of socialism-then communism he could not make the anarchist link to the equality of all people. Even if he could understand the concept, could he have predicted its total impact (at least his mortality would restrict his ability to figure out the details.

Hey Freud did the same type of mistake with his psycho sexual stages of development. His Late 19th-early 20th century mindset about the emotional and cognitive abilities of children assumed children were just like adults. Piaje prooved that wrong. It happens,



Stop thinking all the thinking is done. Nothing is written in stone. Stop worrying about Marxism, Capitalism, Communism ad infinitum and think about how best to use this planets limited resources for the good of everyone. If that means for example having cars that can only get up to 75mph, that gets 80mpg and or uses alternative flues then it is a small sacrifice for a stable planet. One must look to making change gradualy as well as revolutionary. Our lens may be clouded by our post industrial time as well,

[Epoche]

Good points everyone. I haven't much to add other than the idea of a temporary suspension of respect to religions until they no longer serve as an opiate...as a way to pacify. Atheism should be encouraged if only to strengthen humanism and eliminate religious conflict which obviously divides people.

This is not to say that God does not exist, for I haven't a clue. But I do know that if God existed, he would not be so clumsy as to allow his name to be defended in more than one way. Religious denomination is the result of a clumsy or prankish God, since God must know that we must know that God would know better. If not, then God is a sadist I would suspect.

The extent of religious investment should go no further than Pascal's wager. Life must be lived in preparation for both outcomes; mortality or immortality. The appropriate and rational life will be one that works for both scenarios.

And it should be obvious that the religious metaphor is really only a psychological expression of moral duty and compassion. "God" is an archetype for the fraternal instinct in man.