Marx, Bakunin, and Faith

[chimx]

I was browsing through the Bakunin and Marx conflicts on marxists.org, and came across a copy of the pamphlet of Bakunin's Program and Rules of the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy which contains marginal notes made by Marx. What is interesting, is that Bakunin demands the following:


The Alliance declares itself atheist; it wants abolition of cults, substitution of science for faith and human justice for divine justice.

link (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1868/iasd-program.htm)

but in Marx's notes on this program, he writes:


As if one could declare by royal decree abolition of faith!

link (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1868/iasd-comment.htm)

I find it interesting that despite this, which was obvious to even Marx, the anti-religious zeal prevalent with the community here. thoughts?

[jasmine]

A lot of the opposition to religion on these boards is a reaction to organised religion's homophobia.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 08:51 pm
A lot of the opposition to religion on these boards is a reaction to organised religion's homophobia.
Quite a bit of it is to do with the fact no one can logically prove a lot of the conclusions religion comes to. (e.g the magical sky wizard)

[chimx]

really? i think it stems from dogmatic attachment to viewing the church through a 19th century lens, as if feudalistic material conditions still dominated life.

[jasmine]

Jazzratt - if religion did not affect you emotionally in some way you wouldn't care.


really? i think it stems from dogmatic attachment to viewing the church through a 19th century lens, as if feudalistic material conditions still dominated life.

We are the prisoners of our emotions, unless we find a way of overcoming them. Has the church changed that much since the 19th century anyway? I do believe in an existence after death but I have no wish to join a church.

[chimx]

it certainly has changed a great deal. in particular the church is no longer entitled to vast land assets. bourgeois revolutions did a pretty effective job at seizing church property, as it was linked to feudal production relations. why people don't acknowledge this shift is beyond me.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 09:15 pm
I do believe in an existence after death
Why?

[jasmine]

it certainly has changed a great deal. in particular the church is no longer entitled to vast land assets. bourgeois revolutions did a pretty effective job at seizing church property, as it was linked to feudal production relations. why people don't acknowledge this shift is beyond me.

I don't doubt what you say is true. But this isn't what I mean. I spent last Christmas eve in a midnight mass in a monastry/church near Barcelona. I was not raised as a catholic and rarely went inside a church as a child. I enjoyed the choir and the music but was appalled that the clergy carried out their service as though they were the only people in the church.

They may as well have been putting on a puppet show.

[jasmine]

Why?

It's personal experience, belief. If you want me to prove it to you I'm afraid I can't. I am not interested in whether you believe me or not.

[MrDoom]

Personal 'experience' is a pretty unreliable reason to believe in God or spiritualism. The human brain is top-of-the-line simulation software. The 'smooth' motion your eyes see? It's filled in by your brain's firmware, our eyes really only send visual signals at a certain rate, and our vision "blacks out" between those sparks of light-information; and your brain fills in between the pictures with simulated data. The same applies to sound. What sounds like a full note is in reality a series of small single compressional vibrations that your brain 'fills in' with its simulated information, creating a full, smooth tone to your sense of hearing.

And don't get me started on optical and auditory illusions.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 09:15 pm
Jazzratt - if religion did not affect you emotionally in some way you wouldn't care.
Wrong.
I oppose many things that are wrong, simply because they are wrong. Mysticism, for example or Alchemy. Alchemy is clearly something that doesn't affect people emotionally, yet I think its practice should be ridiculed and discouraged in favour of actual science. Emotionalism is secondary.



really? i think it stems from dogmatic attachment to viewing the church through a 19th century lens, as if feudalistic material conditions still dominated life. Doesn't surprise me. Most people know that religion just doesn't have the same control it once did but still oppose it simply because it is wrong. Facism and primitivism both have very little control in actual terms but I still oppose both with every electron, proton and neutron that composes my body.

[chimx]

As I have shown in countless other threads, there are no moral implications to religion generally, but rather it is part of the marxist superstructure, and thus subservient to the dominant classes needs. it is a dynamic institution.

[Jazzratt]

Don't shit about with that bollocks, it matters so little I could almost cry and has no relevence to my point, that religion should be opposed because of the mysticsism and promotion of an obvious falsehood (i.e the "god concept")

[Sentinel]

We are against religion because we are communists. It's both the duty and in the interest of every communist to bring out the truth according to historical materialism to everyone -- because with our struggle we don't aspire to become rulers, but want the people to learn to govern themselves. One can't do that without the power an ambition to understand and master the material world creates.

One isn't truly free until he becomes an atheist.

PS LOL at alchemy. :lol:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 01:40 am
PS LOL at alchemy. :lol:
Glad somone appreciated that one ;)

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 01:12 am
Don't shit about with that bollocks, it matters so little I could almost cry and has no relevence to my point, that religion should be opposed because of the mysticsism and promotion of an obvious falsehood (i.e the "god concept")
As if one could declare by royal decree abolition of faith...

Obviously some people find merit in it. But until science has developed theories or tangible explanations to all material phenomenon throughout all times, communists will be unable to explain any "truths", as sentienl puts it. Though I certainly agree with his sentiment, that we should strive for self governing individuals. Religion, as it exists in the abstract, is not inherently antithetical to this concept.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by chimx+December 18, 2006 03:29 am--> (chimx @ December 18, 2006 03:29 am)
[email protected] 18, 2006 01:12 am
Don't shit about with that bollocks, it matters so little I could almost cry and has no relevence to my point, that religion should be opposed because of the mysticsism and promotion of an obvious falsehood (i.e the "god concept")
As if one could declare by royal decree abolition of faith... [/b]
Which is why I oppose it but realise it would be impossible to abolsih it.


Obviously some people find merit in it. But until science has developed theories or tangible explanations to all material phenomenon throughout all times, communists will be unable to explain any "truths", as sentienl puts it. Though I certainly agree with his sentiment, that we should strive for self governing individuals. Religion, as it exists in the abstract, is not inherently antithetical to this concept. Religion can be, and for the most part actually is antithetical to this concept because it has an enforced morality system built into it.

[jasmine]

Personal 'experience' is a pretty unreliable reason to believe in God or spiritualism.

The only certainty we have in life is that one way or another we'll find out whether or not God exists etc. etc. - I'll approach that piece of knowledge my way, you do it your way.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 02:19 pm

Personal 'experience' is a pretty unreliable reason to believe in God or spiritualism.

The only certainty we have in life is that one way or another we'll find out whether or not God exists etc. etc
Of course it isn't!

That's a ridiculous assertion to make. For a start if god doesn't exist and you die, you'll be dead and thus unable to know anything. So are you saying that you are uncertain whether or not you are alive?

[Marsella]

As if one could declare by royal decree abolition of faith!

I agree and I think that this is one of the main differences between Marxists & Anarchists. Marxists see religion as a manifestation of the society in question. So, you can't just 'abolish' religion because its form is found in society (and thus, the mode of production). Anarchists attack the leaves of the plant (which will grow back) rather than the roots of the plant. The same goes for their analysis of the state.

I know that Marxists also talk about 'abolishment' but thats in regards to things that CAN be abolished (e.g. right of inheritence).

I also remember that Bukunin called for 'equality of classes' which I thought was funny. :D

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 01:40 am
because with our struggle we don't aspire to become rulers, but want the people to learn to govern themselves.
If you didn't want to rule and you wanted people to govern themselves, you wouldn't be opposed to their decision to practice religion, in fact you wouldn't care about it at all. Nor would you be opposed to the expression of religion because people can only govern themselves when there is a free marketplace of ideas.

Like every other culture warrior, you want people to be "free" to live life exactly as you think they should. I don't know if you realize your own hypocrisy and manage to justify it with arrogant assumptions of your personal enlightenment or if you're actually too dumb to see it, but either way it sits on top of your head mocking you as you speak.

[Marsella]

If you didn't want to rule and you wanted people to govern themselves, you wouldn't be opposed to their decision to practice religion, in fact you wouldn't care about it at all. Nor would you be opposed to the expression of religion because people can only govern themselves when there is a free marketplace of ideas.

I think that most would agree with you on this board. I've never read anything that Marx wrote which proposed that people do not have the right to believe in whatever they want (even though its not really their will but society's). Even Lenin agreed:


Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated.

The above echoes the views of many bourgeoisie writers - e.g J.S Mill

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 02:30 pm
I think that most would agree with you on this board. I've never read anything that Marx wrote which proposed that people do not have the right to believe in whatever they want (even though its not really their will but society's). Even Lenin agreed:


Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated.

The above echoes the views of many bourgeoisie writers - e.g J.S Mill
Wow. I...agree...with something...Lenin...wrote.

:o

[Marsella]

Wow. I...agree...with something...Lenin...wrote.

Of course, the actions of Lenin & Co. may differ from their theory...but thats another debate...

But back to the main topic:

Capitalism by and large has through the application of science, and its emphasis on material wealth rather than spiritual wealth, made religion a novelty. Remember: it was the advent of capitalism which attacked religion because religion was a prop to support feudal society. Thus, by attacking religion the Enlightenment was really attacking feudalism and advocating capitalism. Religion doesn't need to be 'abolished' its already been made fetters of by capitalism.

Thats not to mention that most religious groups themselves are very socio-democratic (poverty, private property).

[t_wolves_fan]

In general I agree with all of that. However religion, while its role has changed and diminished with time, isn't going to go away. Even in times of relative abundance and prosperity, people have emotional needs that material status cannot answer.

I think there's a difference between the importance of the church and the importance of spirituality.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 02:55 pm
In general I agree with all of that. However religion, while its role has changed and diminished with time, isn't going to go away. Even in times of relative abundance and prosperity, people have emotional needs that material status cannot answer.
Bollocks they do. Many people can easily overcome emotional problems without having to resort to religion, all my emotional needs for example are pretty much fuffiled and I'm not crying to some imaginary friend about it.


I think there's a difference between the importance of the church and the importance of spirituality. :lol: Spirituality? Are you really that fucking batshit? You'll be declaring we have souls next. Spirituality is just another example of false consciousness and it rests on some utterly stupid premises (not least the existance of 'spirit'.). The only spirits worth considering are distilled.

[Marsella]

I think there's a difference between the importance of the church and the importance of spirituality.

That's a fair point. The Church's importance was naturally erroded with the demise of feudalism. Its its place steped spirituality (note that spirituality is really an individual concept).


However religion, while its role has changed and diminished with time, isn't going to go away.

Unfortunately, the irony is that God cannot unequivocaly be unproven. Will society ever be completely athiest? I doubt anyone would answer yes.


Even in times of relative abundance and prosperity
In my opinion the prevailing status of religion is because of capitalism. The commodity fetishism emphasised has left many emotionaly desolute. Therein steps religion. So, we can see to that the advancement of spirituality is the result of a change in material conditions. Whilst religion may help with emotional needs we need to understand where they (emptiness) are from (IMO Capitalism). So, really if you want to change people's emotional happiness you should change society.

Religion isn't the answer.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 03:14 pm



Even in times of relative abundance and prosperity
In my opinion the prevailing status of religion is because of capitalism. The commodity fetishism emphasised has left many emotionaly desolute. Therein steps religion. So, we can see to that the advancement of spirituality is the result of a change in material conditions. Whilst religion may help with emotional needs we need to understand where they (emptiness) are from (IMO Capitalism). So, really if you want to change people's emotional happiness you should change society.

Religion isn't the answer.
I skipped the first parts because I agree.

It seems to be the prevailing opinion, and I think you advocate this view (correct me if I am wrong), that if we can eliminate materialism and the soul-crushing work environment that capitalism engenders, then people will not have the same need for spiritual fulfillment (either in terms of quantity or quality). Presumably, if people have more time and less need to worry about material status, they'll be less inclined to ponder the meaning of life or be susceptible to a faith that offers easy answers.

In theory this makes some sense, but I think it is far-fetched. First, I don't think the communist economic plan can meet people's material needs sufficiently. But that's another conversation. Assuming even that it can, communism assumes people will fill their newly-acquired free time with anything but religion. I am not sure on what this assumption is based. Communists seem to think that religion is solely the opiate of the poor or overworked who use it to find comfort in a life full of toil and worry, but in actuality the wealthy and middle class, at least in the U.S., are just as religious. The boom in evangelicalism is made up mostly of the upper-middle class, for instance. Can we safely assume that these people won't use their expanded leisure time to evangelize even more?

"What does it all mean" isn't going to be answered by providing material well-being and more free time.

Interesting discussion...

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 02:55 pm
In general I agree with all of that. However religion, while its role has changed and diminished with time, isn't going to go away. Even in times of relative abundance and prosperity, people have emotional needs that material status cannot answer.
Bollocks they do. Many people can easily overcome emotional problems without having to resort to religion, all my emotional needs for example are pretty much fuffiled and I'm not crying to some imaginary friend about it.

Wow Jazz, because you managed to meet your emotional needs without religion, everyone else can or should.

Is that your position?

What, if anything, may be wrong with that position?



I think there's a difference between the importance of the church and the importance of spirituality. :lol: Spirituality? Are you really that fucking batshit? You'll be declaring we have souls next. Spirituality is just another example of false consciousness and it rests on some utterly stupid premises (not least the existance of 'spirit'.). The only spirits worth considering are distilled.

It's up to people to decide for themselves how they'll meet their emotional needs, whether they believe they have "spiritual" needs, and how to meet those perceived needs.

You don't get to determine for others whether their consciousness is "false" or not.

Do you?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 04:19 pm
What, if anything, may be wrong with that position?
1. It's not the one I hold, but it is much easier to attack, sounds like a certian logical fallacy you're fond of...something to do with straw.

2. It relies on the assumption that I am the same as everyone else.

My actual position is very different:

Emotional needs can be coped with in multitude of ways, but it's fucking stupid to prop up an imaginary friend for people with emtional needs, it is better to give them concrete things - things that actually exist. Not spirituality ( :lol: ) or God ( :lol: ).




I think there's a difference between the importance of the church and the importance of spirituality. :lol: Spirituality? Are you really that fucking batshit? You'll be declaring we have souls next. Spirituality is just another example of false consciousness and it rests on some utterly stupid premises (not least the existance of 'spirit'.). The only spirits worth considering are distilled.

It's up to people to decide for themselves how they'll meet their emotional needs, whether they believe they have "spiritual" needs, and how to meet those perceived needs. Listen you stupid berk, encouraging spirituality and other fucking sillyness does more harm than good. I certianly can see no practical way of abolishing religion, but it needs to be challenged, ridiculed and sidelined until, like alchemey and witchcraft it is all but destroyed. (I am aware there are areas where those two things have strong support, I knew a "witch" for a while, the fact remains for the most part they are ignored as the hocum they obviously are.).


You don't get to determine for others whether their consciousness is "false" or not.

Do you? False consciousness is not some wishy-washy definition, it is a concrete thing. Anything that is antithetical to class consciousness, such as religion, bigotry and the like.

So yes, yes I do.
Fuckwit.

[chimx]

liberation theology aided class consciousness in numerous places, from latin america to eastern asia. religion isn't so one-dimensional.

[t_wolves_fan]

You don't get to determine for others whether their consciousness is "false" or not.

yes, yes I do.

Wow.

Jazz tell me, if you get to decide people's consciousness for them, are they free?

Yes or no question, which I expect you to avoid.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 04:45 pm


You don't get to determine for others whether their consciousness is "false" or not.

yes, yes I do.

Wow.

Jazz tell me, if you get to decide people's consciousness for them, are they free?

Yes or no question, which I expect you to avoid.
I'm not derciding what their consciousness is you stupid berk, I am simply pointing out whether it is false and reactionary or not.

I do not choose people's opinions but I decide if they are right or wrong.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 04:39 pm
liberation theology aided class consciousness in numerous places, from latin america to eastern asia. religion isn't so one-dimensional.
We'll just have to wait and see whether the churches betray the revolution, as it is obvious they are inclined to.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 18, 2006 05:02 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 18, 2006 05:02 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2006 04:45 pm


You don't get to determine for others whether their consciousness is "false" or not.

yes, yes I do.

Wow.

Jazz tell me, if you get to decide people's consciousness for them, are they free?

Yes or no question, which I expect you to avoid.
I'm not derciding what their consciousness is you stupid berk, I am simply pointing out whether it is false and reactionary or not.

I do not choose people's opinions but I decide if they are right or wrong. [/b]
Yep, you avoided it.

Again, if you get to decide whether people's individual consciousness is right or wrong, are they free?

Yes/No.

Should be easy.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 18, 2006 05:46 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 18, 2006 05:46 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 05:02 pm

[email protected] 18, 2006 04:45 pm


You don't get to determine for others whether their consciousness is "false" or not.

yes, yes I do.

Wow.

Jazz tell me, if you get to decide people's consciousness for them, are they free?

Yes or no question, which I expect you to avoid.
I'm not derciding what their consciousness is you stupid berk, I am simply pointing out whether it is false and reactionary or not.

I do not choose people's opinions but I decide if they are right or wrong.
Yep, you avoided it.

Again, if you get to decide whether people's individual consciousness is right or wrong, are they free?

Yes/No.

Should be easy. [/b]
Yes.

I'm not preventing them from holding these views am I? I am simply opposing them.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 05:49 pm
Yes.

I'm not preventing them from holding these views am I? I am simply opposing them.
Finally!

Hacks like you always need substantial prodding to answer easy questions for some reason.

Next question: Would you advocate using state or societal power to enforce your definition of the "right" consciousness?

[Sentinel]

Like every other culture warrior, you want people to be "free" to live life exactly as you think they should. I don't know if you realize your own hypocrisy and manage to justify it with arrogant assumptions of your personal enlightenment or if you're actually too dumb to see it, but either way it sits on top of your head mocking you as you speak.

No. I want people to only trust scientifically proven facts, and recognise unproven bullshit as what it is. To explore the world and find things out themselves instead of being satisfied with assumptions of others and stagnating. As a communist I fight for human progress. There's really nothing more to it.


Wow. I...agree...with something...Lenin...wrote.

It should be pointed out here that while Lenin had no problem with the proletariat remaining ignorant and imprisoned by superstition, he did require atheism from the members of his party.


Originally posted by Lenin
So far as the party of the socialist proletariat is concerned, religion is not a private affair. Our Party is an association of class-conscious, advanced fighters for the emancipation of the working class. Such an association cannot and must not be indifferent to lack of class-consciousness, ignorance or obscurantism in the shape of religious beliefs.

Because, (bingo!) those were meant to rule over the people. I'm not a Leninist -- I fight uncompromisingly for the liberation of the entire working class from the chains of religion, for their right to a free mind. Because that is what's required, in order to be free at all.

[Marsella]

In theory this makes some sense, but I think it is far-fetched. First, I don't think the communist economic plan can meet people's material needs sufficiently. But that's another conversation.

If capitalism meets the needs of the majority of the population, then communism will. I am of course talking about advanced capitalist countries.


Assuming even that it can, communism assumes people will fill their newly-acquired free time with anything but religion. I am not sure on what this assumption is based.

Its not based on anything that I believe. Let me outline capitalism:

Amount of profit you make - (minus) expenses - (minus) capitalist's interest= wage

Essentially, communism aims at the abolishment of the capitalist's interest, so:

Profit - (minus) expenses = worker's wage

That is the fundamental principle. Does that mean that people will have more 'free time?' Well, logically yes: society is geared towards essentials rather than wasting time on frivolous luxuries and the accumulation of capital for a few. But in a communist society work should be as satisfying as possible. I disdain communists who outline every little detail of future society because it should not be dictated by a few. However, read Rosa Luxemburgs' 'The Socialisation of Society' for a general outlook on the formation of a communist society.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/20.htm

To your first part: religion's purpose is never static. So, it is not solely the 'opiate' of the poor. Its range has varied throughout history. But just because it is now a 'drug' for the working class does not mean it is the working classes ideology. The ruling ideas are always the ruling ideas of the ruling class (whoa!). And, therefore, as you pointed out is mainly evangalised by the upper-classes.

So, in a communist society would the upper-class through their 'free-time' preach and preach and preach. No! The rulling class will not be a rulling class anymore because their economic and thus social status has been abolished.


"What does it all mean" isn't going to be answered by providing material well-being and more free time.

Undoubtedly...otherwise the richest among us would be the strictest athiests. Education, logic and a belief in the power of people rather than a super-natural god will be the death sentence for religion.

[t_wolves_fan]

Like every other culture warrior, you want people to be "free" to live life exactly as you think they should.

No. I want people to only trust scientifically proven facts, and recognise unproven bullshit as what it is. To explore the world and find things out themselves instead of being satisfied with assumptions of others and stagnating.

You answer "no" and then go on to say "yes".

You see that, right?

[t_wolves_fan]

Its not based on anything that I believe. Let me outline capitalism:

Amount of profit you make - (minus) expenses - (minus) capitalist's interest= wage

Essentially, communism aims at the abolishment of the capitalist's interest, so:

Profit - (minus) expenses = worker's wage

That is the fundamental principle.

That is the fundamental principle, but as with everything else it is a lot more complex than that.

The capitalist identifies a need in the market and uses the incentive of a wage to help him/her meet that market need. Communism lacks the incentive of a wage to meet a market need. In communism, if the worker is in charge, the workers' primary incentive is no longer the market-driven wage, but their own personal interests. Do they want to work long enough to meet demand? Do they want to do the hard work necessary to meet demand? Do they want to use the production method necessary? If they vote no, and we can reasonably expect that they will do so, the market need goes unmet.

In other words, with a wage incentive people will do work they may not like to make the wage to meet the market need. Without the wage incentive the worker probably will not do the work he or she does not want to do and the market need will go unmet.


Does that mean that people will have more 'free time?' Well, logically yes: society is geared towards essentials rather than wasting time on frivolous luxuries and the accumulation of capital for a few. But in a communist society work should be as satisfying as possible.

Precisely the problem. You believe that you can define for others what is needed and wanted. You can label an SUV a frivilous luxury and decide that society does not need them, hence labor will be saved. But people may actually need SUVs for reasons you personally may not know or like.

This conversation always breaks down at this point. A communist will tell me that society is going to change so that SUVs aren't needed anymore. The nuclear family with 3 kids who play sports and like to go camping will simply disappear - which is a far too simplistic and unrealistic answer. Or, worse, people simply will not be allowed to want an SUV. Give me a break!

Even the model socialist/communist system still breaks down and allows people to purchase frivilous luxries: Cuba has quite an extensive black market for such goods which naturally are produced abroad. Doesn't that tell you that even after 50 years of being told to want and need only the basics that people will still want frivilous luxuries?



To your first part: religion's purpose is never static. So, it is not solely the 'opiate' of the poor. Its range has varied throughout history. But just because it is now a 'drug' for the working class does not mean it is the working classes ideology. The ruling ideas are always the ruling ideas of the ruling class (whoa!). And, therefore, as you pointed out is mainly evangalised by the upper-classes.

So, in a communist society would the upper-class through their 'free-time' preach and preach and preach. No! The rulling class will not be a rulling class anymore because their economic and thus social status has been abolished.

Religion is not about a "ruling class". I'm not talking about a ruling class out preaching in their free time, I'm talking about anyone out preaching during their free time. If as you say the ruling class is eliminated, there's no guarantee that typical people won't be out preaching during their free time, is there?

How do you prevent this? Laws?

Why was the Pope greeted in Cuba as a rock star 40 years after the revolution?

[Marsella]

Communism lacks the incentive of a wage to meet a market need. In communism, if the worker is in charge, the workers' primary incentive is no longer the market-driven wage, but their own personal interests. Do they want to work long enough to meet demand? Do they want to do the hard work necessary to meet demand? Do they want to use the production method necessary? If they vote no, and we can reasonably expect that they will do so, the market need goes unmet.

This is most often mistake about communism. Why would a worker not want to get a higher wage in a socialist economy. For example, at my work (I work part-time fast food) I make at least $3000 of product a day. Yet I am paid only $80 dollars. Where the hell is the incentive in that! Now, I'm not proposing that a fast-food worker get $3000 a day! And capitalism has made the capitalist redundent in the workplace. We don't need to replace him; he has replaced himself by the simple-machinery and the self-management of the workers.


their own personal interests
You finally understand! Whatever the worker decides is in his best interests he/she can do, providing he does not pay other workers a wage which is a portion of the amount of $$$ they actually make.


Do they want to work long enough to meet demand?
Of course they do, they would want to make as much profit as possible; their profit not their bosses.

Under the present system those who work earn relatively nothing and those who don't work earn the vast majority. Socialism is the incentive for the worker.


Precisely the problem. You believe that you can define for others what is needed and wanted. You can label an SUV a frivilous luxury and decide that society does not need them, hence labor will be saved. But people may actually need SUVs for reasons you personally may not know or like.

Let me rephrase: of course luxuries will be allowed. But the mass accumulation of capital (which is done through surplus labour) will be impossible. I don't think their would be restrictions on SUVs! But the mass waste of capitalism is hard to deny (even you must admit this). Look at the number of computers disregarded, amount of food and the trillions(!!!) of dollars wasted on millitary. Beter uses? Yes!


Religion is not about a "ruling class". I'm not talking about a ruling class out preaching in their free time, I'm talking about anyone out preaching during their free time. If as you say the ruling class is eliminated, there's no guarantee that typical people won't be out preaching during their free time, is there?

How do you prevent this? Laws?

Like I said in the beginning, people are allowed to believe what they want. Preaching may draw a line. But I am of the opinion that it is better for people to express their opinions. WHY? Because it shows the inaccuracy and illogicalness of their thought. Likewise, Nazis should be allowed to express their opinions to show to the rest of the population how morally bankrupt they are.

-I study law and I understand that even the best of laws are useless in the face of public opinion (e.g. prohibition). But in this case, law is public opinion and will deal accordingly.

Why was the Pope greeted in Cuba as a rock star 40 years after the revolution?
Probably because the Cuban people are generally respectful to figures who stand for social justice....lets not get trivial. I could repeat the same question:

Why was GWB greeted in (insert here) as a fucking lunatic after 200 years of capitalism?

[t_wolves_fan]

Communism lacks the incentive of a wage to meet a market need. In communism, if the worker is in charge, the workers' primary incentive is no longer the market-driven wage, but their own personal interests. Do they want to work long enough to meet demand? Do they want to do the hard work necessary to meet demand? Do they want to use the production method necessary? If they vote no, and we can reasonably expect that they will do so, the market need goes unmet.

This is most often mistake about communism. Why would a worker not want to get a higher wage in a socialist economy. For example, at my work (I work part-time fast food) I make at least $3000 of product a day. Yet I am paid only $80 dollars. Where the hell is the incentive in that! Now, I'm not proposing that a fast-food worker get $3000 a day! And capitalism has made the capitalist redundent in the workplace. We don't need to replace him; he has replaced himself by the simple-machinery and the self-management of the workers.

You didn't answer the question.

Without the $80 a day, which you need to live on, would you be in a restaurant making fast food? Would you as a worker be inclined to give the consumers what they clearly want when they visit your restaurant?

Would you the workers efficiently determine which new products to offer to your consumers? Presumably in communism you'd have to vote on it and reach consensus, right?

I worked at McDonald's for four years, by the way.



Do they want to work long enough to meet demand?
Of course they do, they would want to make as much profit as possible; their profit not their bosses.

Under the present system those who work earn relatively nothing and those who don't work earn the vast majority. Socialism is the incentive for the worker.

Ahh I see, you advocate a different strain of communism than do a lot of others here.


Like I said in the beginning, people are allowed to believe what they want. Preaching may draw a line. But I am of the opinion that it is better for people to express their opinions. WHY? Because it shows the inaccuracy and illogicalness of their thought. Likewise, Nazis should be allowed to express their opinions to show to the rest of the population how morally bankrupt they are.

-I study law and I understand that even the best of laws are useless in the face of public opinion (e.g. prohibition). But in this case, law is public opinion and will deal accordingly.

I agree.


Why was the Pope greeted in Cuba as a rock star 40 years after the revolution?
Probably because the Cuban people are generally respectful to figures who stand for social justice....lets not get trivial. I could repeat the same question:

Why was GWB greeted in (insert here) as a fucking lunatic after 200 years of capitalism?

:lol:

Great question.

I think we agree on more than we disagree on. In general.

What kind of law are you going to practice?

[Marsella]

Without the $80 a day, which you need to live on, would you be in a restaurant making fast food? Would you as a worker be inclined to give the consumers what they clearly want when they visit your restaurant?

Well I enjoy working there. Presumably you did as well since you would not have wasted four years of your life there! So yes I would continue to work there. Why wouldn't I give the customer what he wanted?


Would you the workers efficiently determine which new products to offer to your consumers? Presumably in communism you'd have to vote on it and reach consensus, right?

You think that there needs to be some sort of hierarchy and therefore Communism can't work? I'd imagine that the workers would decide whom would work in each area (e.g what new products etc). But this really is abstract: everything is OK as long as the worker's are being paid in full.


Ahh I see, you advocate a different strain of communism than do a lot of others here.
Of course there are stages. But the essential element remains the same: you can only earn what you do.


I think we agree on more than we disagree on. In general.
I also agree. Socialism is the logical advancement after capitalism. Their is nothing malign about it.


What kind of law are you going to practice?
No idea if Im even going to practice law. And If I do it will only be for a couple of years. I've only studied Criminal Law so far. But contract law, torts, property, equity looks by far more interesting.

[gilhyle]

So, Marx is post-enlightenment, even anti-enlightenment and did not believe in legislating against faith and believes rather in the withering away of faith, while Lenin believes religion is a private matter for the State but not the party.

There are two tensions here:

1. The secular character of capitalism has not proven to undermine religious faith in many areas of the world (although strikingly so in Europe !) and the conceptualisation of the secularising potential of a socialist society as a continuation of the secularising influence of capitalism is called into questin by this fact, and

2. the close relationship between party and State in the USSR makes Lenin's formulation (Private for the State/public for the Party) also problematic.