RevLeft becoming intolerant? [Archive]

RevMARKSman

14th January 2007, 13:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 07:59 am
Having just read the seven million odd pages of bickering in the opposing ideologies forum, I am begining to worry that RevLeft is... discrimminating? :o Surely not! But yet somehow the common feeling seems to be that you can't be religious and communist :hammer: . WTF?! :blink: I personally hate religion and all the hypocrisy and hate that it preaches, but of course you an hold political and theological beliefs at the same time!

But the point is, surely we are supposed to be tolerant on RevLeft? There is a new thread in this forum which someone has started solely to appologise for calling something 'gay', which is apparently offensive to gays :wacko: , so ffs can we please have a bit of tolerance towards religion!
One word: No.

I'll quote Redstar, the ex-mountaintop-guy of militant atheism--he wrote a shitload about this stuff and I happen to agree with him on this point.

Yes, there's one thing that "stops them"...or, more precisely, reveals their real preference.

And that's real world practice.

Someone can say that they're for "a more egalitarian society" and "basic human rights" all they want.

But, for example, did any of the highly-touted "liberation theologists" call for the abolition of the Catholic hierarchy?

You know they didn't. *laughs*

They were part of that hierarchy. Abolishing it would have meant that they would have had to go out and get real jobs.

My bet is that a "religious leftist" will, in practice, always come down on the side of religion and against the revolutionary left.

It may take a while for that to become obvious...but I think it always comes out that way in the end.

"Most things" is too general.

The list of potentially "progressive" social institutions or philosophies that would "change their nature" under communism is a fairly short one.

Just imagine: could there be a "progressive" variant of sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.?

Some people, I'll grant you, think that there really could be a "progressive" police force or a "progressive" professional military. I'm not one of those people and I think most or all of the "ultra-leftists" here would balk at that idea.

Going further, I think "representative democracy" should be either replaced by direct democracy or by demarchy.

Is a "progressive" religion possible?

I don't see how it could be. How would it dispense with all the features that religions have required in all of recorded history?

It needs a "supernatural realm" of some sort, right?

Preferably one that's inhabited, right?

And the inhabitants must intervene in this universe, right?

And those inhabitants must be seen to be vastly more powerful than ordinary humans or even ordinary natural phenomenon, right?

And they (or it) must be "worshiped" lest they (it) become "angry with us", right?

Most importantly, there must be at least one "holy personality" who grasps the details of all this stuff through revelation.

And, of course, a core of serious followers ready both to follow the "holy personality" and to refine the teachings in such a way as to "spread the faith". Over time, these people become a clergy.

If you don't want to have any of all this stuff, then what's left that you could call a "religion"?

Moreover, if you don't either convert or persecute the non-believers, what's left for you to do?

Deism is not a serious religion, to be sure, but if it were, then would it not be their religious duty to persecute all the people who refused to become deists?

For their own good, of course. *laughs*

Or consider "new religions"...

Falun Gong: homophobic mind control cult

Inside Scientology: Unlocking the complex code of America's most mysterious religion

The weight of evidence, historical and contemporary, is so enormously in favor of the thesis that all religion is reactionary that it seems to me that the burden of proof is on you to provide a credible exception.

I'm sorry to inform you that there appears to be a substantial number of people on this board who still take religion seriously.

I personally find it utterly incomprehensible that intelligent people--assuming lefties are intelligent--can still speak as if these superstitions had any validity whatsoever or are any more deserving of "tolerance" than cannibalism.

I've argued the subject until my fingers were about to fall off...without much success (that I know of). I'm convinced that even after the revolution, the struggle to emancipate the human mind from superstition of all kinds will be lengthy and arduous.

I have no doubt that eventually religion will only be of interest to a few dour and crabbed historians...but I couldn't even begin to guess how long that will take.

Perhaps just two or three centuries...if we're lucky.

You know what I'm accusing you of: complete intolerance of opposing points of view.

An interesting concept, "intolerance". In the abstract, it's supposed to be "a bad thing"...but everyone has things they are definitely "intolerant" of. They don't use the word then, of course. There are other words for that purpose.

As I noted earlier, there are views that I am indeed intolerant of and will try to wipe out in whatever seems to be the most practical way. (Mass murder, by the way, is not very practical.)

Does that make me the next "Stalin"? In your eyes, it certainly does...it's your ox I intend to fatally gore.

Among those who will agree with you about my "evil" intent are capitalists, fascists, sexists, child abusers, etc. I intend to be "Stalinist" towards them as well.

Christians, of course, have a much longer track record of bloody intolerance than communists...even counting Joesph Stalin and Pol Pot into our total. (By the way, the same is true of nearly all other religions whenever they had the chance.)

I will try once more to get to the heart of this matter.

These two fake leftists believe that "tolerance" is at the core of what it means to be a "leftist".

That is wrong!

The fact of the matter is that all human beings are "tolerant" about things that don't matter to them and intolerant about things that do matter to them.

To preach "tolerance" as an abstract virtue is the same as preaching any other abstraction...noise!

As was pointed out, fascists "tolerate" a lot of stuff that leftists find reprehensible. Likewise, leftists "tolerate" a lot of things that fascists find reprehensible. Either will be "tolerant" or "intolerant" as specifics dictate.

Consequently, "tolerance" as an abstract "virtue" is utterly meaningless.

It always comes down to specifics...are you "tolerant" or "intolerant" of this specific thing?

How can you be helping the working class when you preach and practice ideals that alienate a vast majority of the working class? It is illogical to say the least, as well as ultimatly being counter productive to the success of your movment. No, the only way to gain the support of the working class is to indulge its desires and protect its "petty superstitions". In other words take a tolerant attitude to the habits which you believe to be foolish.

Yes, communism is opposed by the "vast majority" of the working class...so better give it up. Socialism is also opposed by the "vast majority", etc., etc....so, better give that up too. On the other hand, the "vast majority" just love superstition, so we'll accept that...or at least be "tolerant" of it, which means accepting it in practice.

If you begin with "what people will accept"...that's where you end. A few small changes, a few petty reforms...and everything goes on as it always has. This is why you two are reformists and all the rhetoric about "moneyless cooperatives" is just meaningless...fairy lights on a dead tree.

And that is why you are "tolerant" of superstition...it does not matter to you if people's minds are crippled by a bunch of crap...you think being crippled is "normal", part of the "human condition", something that will "always" be true. (Not for you of course...just all the rest of the poor sods.)

razboz

14th January 2007, 13:41

:lol: fashbash just got redstarred

Faceless

14th January 2007, 14:46

QUOTE
Yes, there's one thing that "stops them"...or, more precisely, reveals their real preference.

And that's real world practice.

Someone can say that they're for "a more egalitarian society" and "basic human rights" all they want.

But, for example, did any of the highly-touted "liberation theologists" call for the abolition of the Catholic hierarchy?

You know they didn't. *laughs*

They were part of that hierarchy. Abolishing it would have meant that they would have had to go out and get real jobs.

My bet is that a "religious leftist" will, in practice, always come down on the side of religion and against the revolutionary left.

It may take a while for that to become obvious...but I think it always comes out that way in the end.
That simply isn't true though. :D For as much as you want it to be true it isn't, and their are concrete counter examples. Historically speaking I will point you in the direction of one of the revolutionaries I admire most. I very much suggest you read James Connolly's reply to father Kane. Certainly when this authority in the catholic heirarchy attacked socialism, Connolly didn't come out against socialism.

I don't need to tell you but this man died in "practice" to try and free ireland from british imperialism, and to make ireland socialist. Which is probably a hell of a lot more than plenty of atheist revolutionaries would be prepared to do.

I work very closely with a Jewish Marxist, and he is very critical of what organised religion does, and has a keen understanding of marxist ideas. I find his interpretation of Jewish orthodoxy fascinating, and by no means normal, but I find him much more committed to Marxist "practice" than most atheist lefts.

The reason RedStar came so hostile towards religious left-wingers is because he failed to distinguish between religion as organised religion and the religious sentiment of the masses. Indeed, he moves almost naturally from talking about religious heirarchy:

They were part of that hierarchy. Abolishing it would have meant that they would have had to go out and get real jobs.
and concluding about religious lefts in general:

My bet is that a "religious leftist" will, in practice, always come down on the side of religion and against the revolutionary left.
as if there were no difference at all!!

Black Dagger

14th January 2007, 15:11

Originally posted by fashbash
for calling something 'gay', which is apparently offensive to gays wacko.gif

You're not convinced it's offensive?

fashbash

14th January 2007, 16:54

One word: No.

I'll quote Redstar, the ex-mountaintop-guy of militant atheism--he wrote a shitload about this stuff and I happen to agree with him on this point. And everything after.

Very, very, very boring reply. Very boring. I am a confirmed atheist but I do believe that everyone has the right to their own beliefs.

Yes, I object to the church when it seeks to be an agent of social control. Yes I object when religions seek to use their influence among believers to control their actions. But faith is important, and no one has the right to slate someone elses belief. Reasoned debate yes, but to say 'Yours is a false God' is offensive, intolerant, and wrong.

As for Facists, my name is Fashbash so I'm guessing that means I don't like them...
But they have a right to say what they want, provided it is in the form of reasoned debate. Where is the difference between saying 'You can't be a religious leftist' and 'you cant be a British Muslim'? There is no difference.

And I will quote Voltaire: 'I don't like what you say, Sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' but only as long as it is in an appropriate form.

As for the gay issue, it amazes me that you can get worked up about someone using a widely accepted (but perhaps on reflection inadvisable) slang word, but not be in the slightest bit bothered about people deliberately, openly, slagging off someone's beliefs. :angry:

:angry:

Fawkes

14th January 2007, 17:08

Originally posted by Black Dagger+January 14, 2007 10:11 am--> (Black Dagger @ January 14, 2007 10:11 am)
fashbash
for calling something 'gay', which is apparently offensive to gays wacko.gif

You're not convinced it's offensive? [/b]
Of course using the name of an oppressed group as an insult is not offensive....

RevMARKSman

14th January 2007, 17:08

Reasoned debate yes, but to say 'Yours is a false God' is offensive, intolerant, and wrong.

That's a conclusion of a rational argument.

If the statement "Yours is a false God" is wrong, then the statement "Yours is a true God" is right (a statement can only be true or false, and if it is not true, it is false). That would make you a believer. Being an atheist requires the conclusion that everybody's god is false.

Is "2+2=4, ALWAYS, no exceptions!" an "intolerant" statement?

Where is the difference between saying 'You can't be a religious leftist' and 'you cant be a British Muslim'? There is no difference.

Being leftist is a paradigm--a way of looking at the world. The communist paradigm includes rationality--not having any sort of faith in that which is false, verifying beliefs using empirical evidence, demonstrating facts, etc. This by definition excludes the religious, as they believe in a nonexistent god. Therefore, they do not have a communist paradigm, and if you're not a communist here, we don't like you. Nazbols and "socialists" as well as "Christian anarchists" are allowed but most of them are restricted.

Very, very, very boring reply. Very boring.

zOMG BOREDOM!!!!1!1111on1111uno111!1!1!111 :ph34r:

And I will quote Voltaire: 'I don't like what you say, Sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' but only as long as it is in an appropriate form.

This has nothing to do with "free speech" in a post-revolutionary society. This debate is about whether RELIGIOUS people can be LEFTIST or REVOLUTIONARY LEFTIST.

Almost all of the properties of the fascist paradigm conflict with those of the communist paradigm.

Almost all of the properties of the religious paradigm conflict with those of the communist paradigm.

Therefore, you cannot be religious and communist, just as you cannot be fascist and communist.

but not be in the slightest bit bothered about people deliberately, openly, slagging off someone's beliefs.

What if their beliefs are RIDICULOUS?

Beliefs in themselves are not inherently unapproachable or immune to criticism. Beliefs are either true, false, or meaningless noise (containing undefined words or contradictions). If I find a belief that's false or meaningless noise, I'm going to ridicule it--openly! I'm going to prove it false and then drive it into the ground! You don't like it, don't stay on a rational, revolutionary leftist forum.

Jazzratt

14th January 2007, 17:25

I'll tolerate religions when they make sense.

I have no time for zealots and other assorted idiots, I have not time for christian "radicals", I want nothing to do with Hindhus or muslims. They're all idiots and I will tolerate them no more than I would tolerate a capitalist.

Yes, I'm "intolerant". I'm intolerant of a lot of things, stupidity is one thing which is high on my list. I suppose you could call me an idiotist if you really wanted.

Finally, yes of course calling something gay is fucking offensive.

Faceless

14th January 2007, 17:36

The communist paradigm includes rationality--not having any sort of faith in that which is false

what if a communist loses their child and goes into denial about their death?

Or what if a communist is an alcoholic and refuses to believe they are?

Isn't that irrational? Isn't that having faith in something which isn't real? Your games in "pure reason" and trying to make out communists are all-rational is falling flat on its face. I'm the only one who has bothered to give any concrete examples to back up my assertion.

RevMARKSman

14th January 2007, 17:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 12:36 pm

The communist paradigm includes rationality--not having any sort of faith in that which is false

what if a communist loses their child and goes into denial about their death?

Or what if a communist is an alcoholic and refuses to believe they are?

Isn't that irrational? Isn't that having faith in something which isn't real? Your games in "pure reason" and trying to make out communists are all-rational is falling flat on its face. I'm the only one who has bothered to give any concrete examples to back up my assertion.
Then you shouldn't be in a communist movement. If you're going into denial, you've got a psychosis and that's useless to us! You are not a communist if you have deluded yourself into believing something that isn't.

fashbash

14th January 2007, 17:55

No sorry, wrong. You are absofuckinlutely wrong. You are wrong MonicaTTmed and I will tell you why.

For a start, Communism is a political ideology. A paradigm would be, say Marxism. Which is vastly different from Communism
Put simply, a paradigm is a view of how society works. An ideology is a view of how society should work. Marxism explains how society is structured, Communism explains how it should be structred. Religion, faith, belief, what ever you want to call it, does not give a view of society. The Bible does not say anything, to my knowledge (and I have read both the Bible and the Qu'ran in detail), about how society is. It says how people should behave, and this is the key difference.

Religion is neither a paradigm nor an ideology. It is a theology. It deals with the idea that a supernatural being, a deity, has set out rules of how people should behave. Therefore it does not conflict in any way with either paradigm or ideology. The three things can run side-by-side, provided their philosphies (the word philosophies here used to mean a general outlook on life) are compatible. It is obvious that Marxism and Facism cannot go together. It is also just as obvious that Marxism, Communism and Hinduism (a religion based around strict hierachy) cannot go together. But there is no reason why the theologies of Christianity, Judaism, Bhuddism, Wiccan, Paganism or even possibly Islam cannot run alongside the paradigm of Marxism and the ideology of Communism or socialism.

If the statement "Yours is a false God" is wrong, then the statement "Yours is a true God" is right (a statement can only be true or false, and if it is not true, it is false). That would make you a believer. Being an atheist requires the conclusion that everybody's god is false.

I'm sorry, but this issue is not black and white. A statement is not just either true or false. It is about perception. I may appear to be postmodern in this view, but I am not. Good christ, just because one statement may be false does not mean the opposite statement it true. For fucks sake, an issue so vast as 'Is there a God' is not limited to a yes/no answer. Everybody has an opinion, and if yours is simply yes or no, then you have not thought the question through enough.

And what, pray tell, my simple comrade, is a RIDICULOUS BELIEF? You cannot objectively define a REDICULOUS BELIEF, it is entirely subjective, and therefore you are more than welcome and capable of saying 'I think your BELIEFs are RIDICULOUS' if you can back it up, explain why and be willing to listen to the comeback. You cannot say 'Your beliefs are ridiculous', stick your fingers in your ears and say 'la la la not listening!' and expect that to be the end of the argument. Hindus belief the earth was hatched from a kind of egg (I think), would you have the balls, the nerve and the complete ignorance to say to a Hindu 'That is a ridiculous belief'? I hope not.

All I am saying is, yes you can have faith and be leftist. And therefor, we should all be tolerant of other people's faith.

Oh and Fawkes, Black Dagger:

Whether or not that phrase is offensive is up to the homosexual themselves. I don't know, I'm not gay. But my point was that you find this so disgraceful yet you are perfectly happy to accept religious intolerence. :blink: You prats.

Don't Change Your Name

14th January 2007, 17:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:54 pm
But faith is important, and no one has the right to slate someone elses belief.

But they have a right to say what they want, provided it is in the form of reasoned debate. Where is the difference between saying 'You can't be a religious leftist' and 'you cant be a British Muslim'? There is no difference.

And I will quote Voltaire: 'I don't like what you say, Sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' but only as long as it is in an appropriate form.

Contradiction! "Slating" has a rational basis. You seem to suggest that certain forms of "expression" must be "censored" somehow.

Reasoned debate yes, but to say 'Yours is a false God' is offensive, intolerant, and wrong.

Therefore, since for example saying "I'm a Christian" essentially means saying "all the other gods are false", christians are "offensive, intolerant and wrong" (not that we didn't know that already! :D)

As for the gay issue, it amazes me that you can get worked up about someone using a widely accepted (but perhaps on reflection inadvisable) slang word, but not be in the slightest bit bothered about people deliberately, openly, slagging off someone's beliefs. :angry:

:angry:

What's the problem with telling people who believe in oppresive, irrational fairy tales that they are wrong? Why do you hate free speech so much? (!) Should we also shut up every time someone defends a silly idea? Should we also let fascists, capitalists, and people who are simply wrong get away with their bullshit?

Of course christians, for example, get pissed off every time I mock their stupid religion, but that's not my problem. People don't choose to be gay but they can stop being religious. The only difference between being religious and being racist/fascist/wacky is how "emotional" religion is for the "herd".

Faceless

14th January 2007, 18:02

haha, now I've truly heard everything! I have actually met alcoholic communists. They are functional people, and I haven't had any reason to believe that they are incapable of grasping the fundamentals of marxism. And that sort of denial doesn't mean the person is psychotic! Ha!
You attitude towards grieving people is simply cold-hearted. If anything such people need MORE comradeship, not less.

Here are some more questions for you then:
can someone be obssessive compulsive and a communist?
can someone be annorexic and be a communist?
can someone be a stamp collector and be a communist?

I don't think I have to tell you that all of the above and an infinitely long line of further things are "irrational" and involve some belief in something which isn't true. If you can wriggle your way out of all of them, I have more for you...

RevMARKSman

14th January 2007, 18:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 12:55 pm
No sorry, wrong. You are absofuckinlutely wrong. You are wrong MonicaTTmed and I will tell you why.

For a start, Communism is a political ideology. A paradigm would be, say Marxism. Which is vastly different from Communism
Put simply, a paradigm is a view of how society works. An ideology is a view of how society should work. Marxism explains how society is structured, Communism explains how it should be structred. Religion, faith, belief, what ever you want to call it, does not give a view of society. The Bible does not say anything, to my knowledge (and I have read both the Bible and the Qu'ran in detail), about how society is. It says how people should behave, and this is the key difference.

Religion is neither a paradigm nor an ideology. It is a theology. It deals with the idea that a supernatural being, a deity, has set out rules of how people should behave. Therefore it does not conflict in any way with either paradigm or ideology. The three things can run side-by-side, provided their philosphies (the word philosophies here used to mean a general outlook on life) are compatible. It is obvious that Marxism and Facism cannot go together. It is also just as obvious that Marxism, Communism and Hinduism (a religion based around strict hierachy) cannot go together. But there is no reason why the theologies of Christianity, Judaism, Bhuddism, Wiccan, Paganism or even possibly Islam cannot run alongside the paradigm of Marxism and the ideology of Communism or socialism.

If the statement "Yours is a false God" is wrong, then the statement "Yours is a true God" is right (a statement can only be true or false, and if it is not true, it is false). That would make you a believer. Being an atheist requires the conclusion that everybody's god is false.

I'm sorry, but this issue is not black and white. A statement is not just either true or false. It is about perception. I may appear to be postmodern in this view, but I am not. Good christ, just because one statement may be false does not mean the opposite statement it true. For fucks sake, an issue so vast as 'Is there a God' is not limited to a yes/no answer. Everybody has an opinion, and if yours is simply yes or no, then you have not thought the question through enough.

And what, pray tell, my simple comrade, is a RIDICULOUS BELIEF? You cannot objectively define a REDICULOUS BELIEF, it is entirely subjective, and therefore you are more than welcome and capable of saying 'I think your BELIEFs are RIDICULOUS' if you can back it up, explain why and be willing to listen to the comeback. You cannot say 'Your beliefs are ridiculous', stick your fingers in your ears and say 'la la la not listening!' and expect that to be the end of the argument. Hindus belief the earth was hatched from a kind of egg (I think), would you have the balls, the nerve and the complete ignorance to say to a Hindu 'That is a ridiculous belief'? I hope not.

All I am saying is, yes you can have faith and be leftist. And therefor, we should all be tolerant of other people's faith.

Oh and Fawkes, Black Dagger:

Whether or not that phrase is offensive is up to the homosexual themselves. I don't know, I'm not gay. But my point was that you find this so disgraceful yet you are perfectly happy to accept religious intolerence. :blink: You prats.
Er, religion is a paradigm. Do people just say "ok there is a god" and go around doing the same things they used to? Of course not! Their idea of a god interferes with the world, and so they look at the world in a different way than we communists do.

Communism is not based on how the world "should" be. (Define "should", anyway.) It is based on historical materialism (part of the paradigm) and actually wanting a society that works in a certain way. It also requires rationality, which comes with historical materialism (explaining how society now and society later--communism--work). If you're not rational, if you believe a god can just come in one day and completely fuck things up, you're not a communist.

Oh, and when I say ridiculous, I mean something that has been provent to be false OR is meaningless noise. So if I were to say 2+2=5, that would be a ridiculous statement. If I were to say God existed, that would be a ridiculous statement. If I were to say "the white race" is "superior" to the "other races", that would be a ridiculous statement. (Missing/subjective definitions: "superior", "race", "white race".)

And that sort of denial doesn't mean the person is psychotic! Ha!

If you're going to deny something that has been proven to be true, that is an acute rejection of reality and thus a psychosis.

can someone be obssessive compulsive and a communist?
can someone be annorexic and be a communist?

I have experience with OCD and know that you cannot have it and be a communist. It involves a life-consuming superstition about "order" and "certainty", possibly "contamination" that cannot be calmed by rational arguments. Anorexia is an irrational belief that one is "fat" or "too fat" (define both words). This also intrudes into everything one sees about the world.

can someone be a stamp collector and be a communist?

Of course. Unless you believe stamps are "magic". Stamp collecting comes from a desire to collect, to have memories of something, or to enjoy things that are considered rare.

Faceless

14th January 2007, 18:32

Lol, you did try to evade the subject. First you demonstrate that you do not know what psychosis is. Psychosis, according to our old friend wiki is:

Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state in which thought and perception are severely impaired. Persons experiencing a psychotic episode may experience hallucinations, hold delusional beliefs (e.g., grandiose or paranoid delusions), demonstrate personality changes and exhibit disorganized thinking (see thought disorder). This is often accompanied by lack of insight into the unusual or bizarre nature of such behaviour, difficulties with social interaction and impairments in carrying out the activities of daily living.
Refusing to acknowledge an addiction is not a delusional belief akin to being psychotic, and i doubt that most alcoholics also have hallucinations. These two disorders aren't even in the same ball-park! To suffer psychosis is to suffer a very serious mental illness. Being in denial is not the same thing.
You have however failed to talk about alcoholics. Like I said, I know life-long communists who are alcoholics, and all alcoholics have a stage where they deny that they are alcoholics before they accept it.

I also have experience with OCD, having worked with such a person, and having a mother who also had it for a while. And whilst it does penetrate into every aspect of life, it does not stop the person from being functional (try working for an OCD supervisor! They will certainly make you do your job thoroughly!), nor does it make them intellectually impaired, and they are equally capable of understanding complex ideas, such as marxism, and of having a passion for their ideals.

When talking about stamps I was making a little joke. Although I could go on about commodity fetishism and how that penetrates everyone's life (even one such as thou)

Here is another one:
I have convinced myself that I have done OK in my exams. Obviously I am completely deluded. But I am not psychotic! And I am certainly a communist!

RevMARKSman

14th January 2007, 18:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:32 pm
Lol, you did try to evade the subject. First you demonstrate that you do not know what psychosis is. Psychosis, according to our old friend wiki is:

Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state in which thought and perception are severely impaired. Persons experiencing a psychotic episode may experience hallucinations, hold delusional beliefs (e.g., grandiose or paranoid delusions), demonstrate personality changes and exhibit disorganized thinking (see thought disorder). This is often accompanied by lack of insight into the unusual or bizarre nature of such behaviour, difficulties with social interaction and impairments in carrying out the activities of daily living.
Refusing to acknowledge an addiction is not a delusional belief akin to being psychotic, and i doubt that most alcoholics also have hallucinations. These two disorders aren't even in the same ball-park! To suffer psychosis is to suffer a very serious mental illness. Being in denial is not the same thing.
You have however failed to talk about alcoholics. Like I said, I know life-long communists who are alcoholics, and all alcoholics have a stage where they deny that they are alcoholics before they accept it.

I also have experience with OCD, having worked with such a person, and having a mother who also had it for a while. And whilst it does penetrate into every aspect of life, it does not stop the person from being functional (try working for an OCD supervisor! They will certainly make you do your job thoroughly!), nor does it make them intellectually impaired, and they are equally capable of understanding complex ideas, such as marxism, and of having a passion for their ideals.

When talking about stamps I was making a little joke. Although I could go on about commodity fetishism and how that penetrates everyone's life (even one such as thou)

Here is another one:
I have convinced myself that I have done OK in my exams. Obviously I am completely deluded. But I am not psychotic! And I am certainly a communist!
Well, define "OK" first.

I'm defining psychosis as a departure from reality, not due to ignorance but simply refusing to believe something that is objectively true. I'll use a different word if you'd like but I do know that OCD is a psychosis. It fits the criteria.

Faceless

14th January 2007, 18:49

fine, whatever, I don't care anymore. The fact is that you painted communists as being by necessity all-rational people. If a person can reconcile the irrational aspect of their social life, of their attitude to hygene, of their attitude towards important university exams :wacko: , or their irrational opinion of their body, or indeed, their irrational belief in a higher being; with an otherwise exemplary knowledge of scientific subjects, a passion for the international revolution, then they are my comrades.

LSD

14th January 2007, 18:58

I think this discussion really comes down to what one means by the term "communuist". 'Cause if you define merely as anyone who aspires to a classless stateless society, then of course, religious people can be communists.

But if you mean it in a more narrow -- and more politically appropriate -- sense, including the full political and social agenda that go along with 150 years of Marxist tradition regarding class war and historical materialism ...then, no, religion is incompatible with communism.

Either way, though, no one, except a small extremist minority, is proposing that we can't work with religious people nor that religious workers are not a valid and important part of the international proletariat.

That doesn't require us to "respect" their beliefs, it just requires us to respect them. Because contrary to postmodern propaganda, you don't need to give credence to someone's opinions to value them as a person.

Religion is wrong, it is objectively and logically incorrect. But holding incorrect views does not make a person any less human or any less working class. There are, after all, a whole bunch of superstitious workers out there, not to mention racist and homophobic ones.

And while we do not agree with their views, we will stand by them in their battle against the bourgeoisie.

But at the same time, there is nothing wrong with telling people just how ludicrous their "beliefs" are. After all, most religious folks aren't shy in telling us just how "sinful" our ideas are!

fashbash

14th January 2007, 21:36

This is neither a discussion about how you define a communist, nor whether or not a supernatural deity exists. This discussion is about whether it is right or wrong for someone, anyone, to openly express a childish and narrow minded point of view about someone's religion. There are a number of distinctions that need to be made:

The Church (In this case, I am using the phrase to mean the Priests, the Rabbis, the Imams, whatever) is not the same as faith.

Politics is not inseparable religion, as the Yanks and the Pope may have you believe. These are two wholly different areas.

To call someone a fool for having faith is discrimination, end of story. To challenge someone's views is acceptable. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

And MonicaTTbloodystupidfuckingname, 2+2=4 is a mathematical fact. You cannot apply the same logic to any area of the social sciences. People are irrational. People have irrational thoughts and behave irrationally. Perfectly logical, rational people are called 'Autistic', and typically have no interest in politics because politics is not rational.

Oh, and when I say ridiculous, I mean something that has been provent to be false OR is meaningless noise. So if I were to say 2+2=5, that would be a ridiculous statement. If I were to say God existed, that would be a ridiculous statement. If I were to say "the white race" is "superior" to the "other races", that would be a ridiculous statement. (Missing/subjective definitions: "superior", "race", "white race".)

You have all the IQ of a jam sandwich. :ph34r:

fashbash

14th January 2007, 21:46

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!!! WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? MOVED?! MOVED?! MOVED TO FUCKING... OPPOSING IDEOLOGIES?! WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?

Are not we all comrades? Do we not have essentially the same aim? Then why the fuck have I been moved to this forum, and branded as an OPPOSING IDEOLOGY? Because I think it's wrong that the people on this site should be persecuted for their beliefs? Jesus H Christ!

Hitler, do you like Hitler? Cos Hitler didn't like Jews, and hey, thats a fucking religion. So if you don't like religion, you must like fucking Hitler for getting rid of 60 million religious types.

Or maybe you don't want to go so far as killing religious folk. Perhaps, like Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, you would like to see all Muslims sent back 'home'? Cos Muslims are religious y' know!

Or is it just the Christians you don't like? Is it because I'm saying it's possible to be a fuckin christian and a commie that you dont like? You bunch of hypocritical no-nothing ****s. Seriously, how many of youse fuckers even know the slightest thing about the religions of the world, how many of you even know about fucking socialism? How many of you are over fourteen? Jesus, youse lot are all fucking hypocrites. Fuck You. May Your Genitals Wither.

Knight of Cydonia

14th January 2007, 21:56

hm....

This discussion is about whether it is right or wrong for someone, anyone, to openly express a childish and narrow minded point of view about someone's religion.

if i compare that with this (which is your own statement):

I personally hate religion and all the hypocrisy and hate that it preaches,

then came a question in my mind:

why the fuck would you waste your fucking time for making this thread and replying the post anyway?

bezdomni

14th January 2007, 22:03

No sorry, wrong. You are absofuckinlutely wrong. You are wrong MonicaTTmed and I will tell you why.

Quit being such an intolerant prick!

Jazzratt

14th January 2007, 22:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:46 pm
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!!! WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? MOVED?! MOVED?! MOVED TO FUCKING... OPPOSING IDEOLOGIES?! WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?
To be fair it's the religion and theology subforum, which doesn't automatically make it an opposing Ideology. It's not like you've been restricted.

Are not we all comrades? Do we not have essentially the same aim? Then why the fuck have I been moved to this forum, and branded as an OPPOSING IDEOLOGY? Because I think it's wrong that the people on this site should be persecuted for their beliefs? Jesus H Christ! Did you think before you launched into this hissy fit? You haven't been 'branded' anything. The mod or admin that moved this clearly thought it would be better suited to the religion subforum, probably because of the discussion about religion that was occuring.

Hitler, do you like Hitler? Cos Hitler didn't like Jews, and hey, thats a fucking religion. So if you don't like religion, you must like fucking Hitler for getting rid of 60 million religious types. Where to begin with this ridiculous argument - more riddled with fallacies than your brain is riddled with termites. Look, I hate the jewish faith, it can fuck off but I do not advocate genocide or much else of what Hitler advocated. YOur pathetic nazi strawman is contemptable.

Or maybe you don't want to go so far as killing religious folk. Perhaps, like Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, you would like to see all Muslims sent back 'home'? Cos Muslims are religious y' know! I know muslims are religious and I don't advocate sending muslims "back home" as you say. Shocking that isn't it, you can hate religion without necessarily being a racist. I could also point out a problem with the BNP send 'muslims' back home line, in that a lot of muslims are at home in britain. Seriously though, fuck muslims.

Or is it just the Christians you don't like? Is it because I'm saying it's possible to be a fuckin christian and a commie that you dont like? Mainly I dislike christians because they are the majority where I live.
You bunch of hypocritical no-nothing ****s. I'd say it's a hypocrisy to hate something but support advocates of such a thing (as you do with the organised religion you, ostensibly, hate).
Seriously, how many of youse fuckers even know the slightest thing about the religions of the world, how many of you even know about fucking socialism? I'd wager most of us. This being a socialist board, and relgious education being fairly widespread.
How many of you are over fourteen? Not that it matters, but all of us except MonicaTTmed.
Jesus, youse lot are all fucking hypocrites. Fuck You. May Your Genitals Wither. You really are fucking boring, die of ebola - it may be the only worthwhile thing you'll do.

Pow R. Toc H.

14th January 2007, 22:18

First of all:

Fashbash man, you need to chill out.

Comparing us (revolutionary leftists) to a fucking fascist leader is not right. We never claimed that believing in a god lowered the value of human life you fucking douche. Being intolerant to religion and killing millions of people because they are a certain religion arent fucking comparable. Religion is bullshit, you have admitted it yourself. So i guess it comes down to this question; why are we so intollerant of people that preach bullshit? well maybe because they are preaching BULLSHIT with no proof of anykind whatsoever. It was moved to Opposing Ideologies because well I dont know two or more people had views that OPPOSED. It is also childish to to insult an entire board based on a couple of view points. Im also sure that many many people on this board are educated, over fourteen and have a much better grasp of marxism, communism and leftist political theory than you do. Because if you knew really anything about marxism you would know that it is materialist and since the ideoligical belief in a god is not materialist you cannot be a marxist and religous. If you would actually learn about any of the theories you try to defend maybe, just maybe, you wouldnt come off as a dick-head troll.

Also, I have OCD. Mostly its just that I have very high paranoia. Are you saying that even-though I have an irriational fear, it keeps from being a communist?

Comrade J

14th January 2007, 22:27

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!!! WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? MOVED?! MOVED?! MOVED TO FUCKING... OPPOSING IDEOLOGIES?! WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?
Easy on the caps. Remember kids, the shift button is your friend.

Are not we all comrades? Do we not have essentially the same aim? Then why the fuck have I been moved to this forum, and branded as an OPPOSING IDEOLOGY?
You personally are not an opposing ideology, but this bullshit dogma you are defending is.

Because I think it's wrong that the people on this site should be persecuted for their beliefs? Jesus H Christ!
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (Exodus 20:7)

Easy on the blasphemy there son, wouldn't want to offend those lovely homophobic Christians friends of yours would we?

Hitler, do you like Hitler? Cos Hitler didn't like Jews, and hey, thats a fucking religion. So if you don't like religion, you must like fucking Hitler for getting rid of 60 million religious types.
He hated them because they were ethnically Jewish, and he didn't kill 60 million of them, which shows to what degree your embarassingly poor knowledge of the holocaust reaches. And as Jazzratt said, nobody here supports genocide, we don't tolerate the ideology of religion, but there are a vast number of religious proletariat, and we seek to eradicate the ideology, not the people who believe(d) it.

Or maybe you don't want to go so far as killing religious folk. Perhaps, like Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, you would like to see all Muslims sent back 'home'? Cos Muslims are religious y' know!
Fuck, muslims are religious? No goddamn shit! And no we don't wish to send muslims back 'home' - Communism is an international movement where international boundaries have no relevance, what difference would it make? Have you ever read anything by Marx, Engels, etc? Your knowledge (or lack thereof) of communism is truly laughable. Go introduce a fucking rake to your face and do the world a favour.

Or is it just the Christians you don't like? Is it because I'm saying it's possible to be a fuckin christian and a commie that you dont like? You bunch of hypocritical no-nothing ****s.
Haha, communism is a materialist ideology, religion isn't. Are you so fucking mentally impaired that you can't see the problem here? That's a rheotorical question btw, it is already evident that you are a total fuck-up without having to demonstrate further. But no doubt you'll try.

Seriously, how many of youse fuckers even know the slightest thing about the religions of the world, how many of you even know about fucking socialism? How many of you are over fourteen? Jesus, youse lot are all fucking hypocrites. Fuck You. May Your Genitals Wither.
I know plenty about various religion, I even take Religion and Philosophy for A-Level, and many others here also know just as much and more, which is how we are able to properly criticise it. Some of us were even brought up in religious families (though I personally wasn't). And it's quite ironic that you of all people are asking us if we know about fucking socialism, with your pathetic defence of opposing doctrines. :lol:

RevMARKSman

14th January 2007, 22:51

Originally posted by The Crying [email protected] 14, 2007 05:18 pm
First of all:

Fashbash man, you need to chill out.

Comparing us (revolutionary leftists) to a fucking fascist leader is not right. We never claimed that believing in a god lowered the value of human life you fucking douche. Being intolerant to religion and killing millions of people because they are a certain religion arent fucking comparable. Religion is bullshit, you have admitted it yourself. So i guess it comes down to this question; why are we so intollerant of people that preach bullshit? well maybe because they are preaching BULLSHIT with no proof of anykind whatsoever. It was moved to Opposing Ideologies because well I dont know two or more people had views that OPPOSED. It is also childish to to insult an entire board based on a couple of view points. Im also sure that many many people on this board are educated, over fourteen and have a much better grasp of marxism, communism and leftist political theory than you do. Because if you knew really anything about marxism you would know that it is materialist and since the ideoligical belief in a god is not materialist you cannot be a marxist and religous. If you would actually learn about any of the theories you try to defend maybe, just maybe, you wouldnt come off as a dick-head troll.

Also, I have OCD. Mostly its just that I have very high paranoia. Are you saying that even-though I have an irriational fear, it keeps from being a communist?
Unless you realize that the paranoia is unfounded, then you've got a problem there. If you know that it's the disease and people really aren't all out to get you, you're fine.

Pow R. Toc H.

14th January 2007, 23:21

Ok.
No there is reasoning behind my paranoia( even if it isnt very good reasoning)

Don't Change Your Name

15th January 2007, 21:17

Originally posted by fashbash
This is neither a discussion about how you define a communist,

Actually, it is, because if being a communist is not being religious then your whining is pointless.

To call someone a fool for having faith is discrimination, end of story.

Then you don't know what "discrimination" means.

To challenge someone's views is acceptable. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

Calling someone who believes in a religion a "fool" is "challenging" their views.

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!!! WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? MOVED?! MOVED?! MOVED TO FUCKING... OPPOSING IDEOLOGIES?! WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?

Are not we all comrades? Do we not have essentially the same aim? Then why the fuck have I been moved to this forum, and branded as an OPPOSING IDEOLOGY?

The thread was moved and you weren't restricted, so this whining is pointless.

Because I think it's wrong that the people on this site should be persecuted for their beliefs? Jesus H Christ!

"Persecuted"? Yeah, sure...buy a dictionary next time you come around here, seriously.

Hitler, do you like Hitler? Cos Hitler didn't like Jews, and hey, thats a fucking religion. So if you don't like religion, you must like fucking Hitler for getting rid of 60 million religious types.

Hitler didn't hate "Jews" because of religious reasons, but because of racial ones. Not the same thing. And I don't get where you picked that 60 million figure, it's ridiculous.

Comparing the people you're debating with with Hitler (and especially in such a nonsensical way) is a sign you're about to lose your debate.

Or maybe you don't want to go so far as killing religious folk. Perhaps, like Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, you would like to see all Muslims sent back 'home'? Cos Muslims are religious y' know!

Nobody is asking for Muslims to be "sent back home". You're just delusional. You don't understand what you're arguing about.

You bunch of hypocritical no-nothing ****s.

Sexism. Shut up as soon as possible before you embarrass yourself even more.

Seriously, how many of youse fuckers even know the slightest thing about the religions of the world, how many of you even know about fucking socialism? How many of you are over fourteen? Jesus, youse lot are all fucking hypocrites. Fuck You. May Your Genitals Wither.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

A kid who doesn't even know what "discrimination" is, who compares people who think religion is reactionary with fascists, who happens to be younger than I, who doesn't get the difference between "moving a thread" and "restricting the person who started it", whose best argument is comparing to Hitler even when the comparison makes no sense and even goes as far as to say that Hitler got rid of "of 60 million religious types" (?) telling the rest of "us" that we don't know about religion or socialism (although many, of not most of us were brainwashed into them when we were young and know about them, and know more about socialism than he obviously does), telling us "fuck you". How pathetic.

t_wolves_fan

15th January 2007, 21:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 12:59 pm
Having just read the seven million odd pages of bickering in the opposing ideologies forum, I am begining to worry that RevLeft is... discrimminating? :o Surely not!
The radical left is no more tolerant than the radical right of dissenting opinions. They're different sides of the same coin, tolerant only of that with which they agree.

The radical left neatly pre-packages and markets the idea of "tolerance" which in effect is strict, intolerant adherence to their core beliefs. It's much like how the right-wing will tell you they're opposed to an active judicial branch and then turn around and celebrate activist judicial decisions that support their cause. Nothing is quite so comical as watching a radical leftist advocate tolerance and free speech and then shout down someone for daring to disagree with them with labels of racist, sexist, homophobe, etc. etc. etc. In effect, the label of intolerance is simply a weapon the left uses to enforce its own intolerance in an Orwellian twisting of language.

Nobody who engages in the culture war can rightly label themselves "tolerant" because they are actively seeking to eliminate ideas, customs or behaviors with which they disagree.

Only if you actively support the right of people to say that which you most strongly oppose are you even remotely tolerant.

cormacobear

15th January 2007, 21:43

Hahaha you guys crack me up. Part of my belief in the seperation of religion and politics is that I almost never bother to read the tripe leftists spew in this forum regaurding religion. But occasionally I need a laugh.

Wouldn't it be nice if religion would stay out of politics and politics would stay out of religion. That's what the judiciary is for.

as for is revleft intolerant towards any leftist with religious beliefs who refuses to denounce them on the grounds of the CC majorities oppinion..... Hmmmmm

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/cormacobear/caged.jpg

"Nobody knows the trouble i've seen, nobody knows my sorrow." :D :lol:

t_wolves_fan

15th January 2007, 21:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:43 pm
Wouldn't it be nice if religion would stay out of politics and politics would stay out of religion. That's what the judiciary is for.

Indeed it would and indeed it is.

Johnny Anarcho

15th January 2007, 23:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:25 pm
I'll tolerate religions when they make sense.

I have no time for zealots and other assorted idiots, I have not time for christian "radicals", I want nothing to do with Hindhus or muslims. They're all idiots and I will tolerate them no more than I would tolerate a capitalist.

Yes, I'm "intolerant". I'm intolerant of a lot of things, stupidity is one thing which is high on my list. I suppose you could call me an idiotist if you really wanted.

Finally, yes of course calling something gay is fucking offensive.
Malcom X was a Muslim and without him there would be no Black Panther Party.

Johnny Anarcho

15th January 2007, 23:24

Marx is nothing without Hegel and Hegel was a Theist. Dialect is a Theist idea and because Communism cannot function without Dialect, I deduce that Communism and religion go hand in hand. Also, the Venezuelan president called Jesus the worlds greatest Socialist. Just saying :mellow: I may be Muslim but that doesnt make me reactionary or counter-revolutionary. A revolutionary should be judged by his politics and how he acts on them, nothing more or less. Otherwise the Left becomes a place for persecution and we become no better than the extreme-Right.

Sabocat

15th January 2007, 23:38

Malcom X was a Muslim and without him there would be no Black Panther Party.

That's a bit of a stretch.

In October of 1966, in Oakland California, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale founded the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. The Panthers practiced militant self-defense of minority communities against the U.S. government, and fought to establish revolutionary socialism through mass organizing and community based programs. The party was one of the first organizations in U.S. history to militantly struggle for ethnic minority and working class emancipation — a party whose agenda was the revolutionary establishment of real economic, social, and political equality across gender and color lines.

Link (http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/)

Pow R. Toc H.

16th January 2007, 01:19

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 15, 2007 11:24 pm
Marx is nothing without Hegel and Hegel was a Theist. Dialect is a Theist idea and because Communism cannot function without Dialect, I deduce that Communism and religion go hand in hand. Also, the Venezuelan president called Jesus the worlds greatest Socialist. Just saying :mellow: I may be Muslim but that doesnt make me reactionary or counter-revolutionary. A revolutionary should be judged by his politics and how he acts on them, nothing more or less. Otherwise the Left becomes a place for persecution and we become no better than the extreme-Right.
You deduce wrong. Communism is materialist. Religion and Communism cannot walk hand in hand just like Science and Religion cannot walk hand in hand.

cormacobear

16th January 2007, 04:46

Oh no, have the millions of non-athiest scientists and revolutionaries been told they don't exist yet?

Pow R. Toc H.

16th January 2007, 05:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:46 am
Oh no, have the millions of non-athiest scientists and revolutionaries been told they don't exist yet?
I dont think so.

Who should break it to them?

YSR

16th January 2007, 06:18

This thread is fucking idiotic and it only got worse when it got moved here 'cause the restricted kiddies got to chime in.

FashBash, your righteous indignation is neither called for nor necessary. If you calm down and actually read posts in this thread for the sake of understanding, not to "win" an argument, you may learn something.

As LSD aptly pointed out (and you pointedly ignored), few communists would recommend that religious leftists not be considered leftists. Okay? So calm down.

The point is, from the conventional radical leftist perspective, organized religion and communism are incompatible. If Tolstoy or a liberation theologist want to chum up with us, I ain't gonna stop 'em. However, in working with religious comrades, we can and must continue to try to stamp out illogical thinking wherever it shows itself. We don't abide "communists" who are sexist, racist, or homophobic (well, I wish we didn't, at least).

Comrades with faith are qualitatively different. Their perspectives are perfectly fine (if wrong) up until they act on them against the interests of the great mass of humanity. For instance, a Christian anarchist (like Tolstoy) is all good if he/she picks up on what little good stuff there is in the Bible and applies it to his political beliefs. Righteous. But when he/she starts talking about how women should hold lower position in society because of Eve, I'll smack 'em upside the head or stop working with them.

Johnny Anarcho hits it close: "A revolutionary should be judged by his politics and how he acts on them, nothing more or less." I'd add that he (or she) should also be judged if he/she preaches doctrines of religion that distract the people from our cause. Like the Wobblies used to sing, "There'll be pie in the sky when you die, that's a lie."

Nuance, FashBash, nuance.

The Feral Underclass

16th January 2007, 08:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 07:02 pm
Here are some more questions for you then:
can someone be obssessive compulsive and a communist?
can someone be annorexic and be a communist?
can someone be a stamp collector and be a communist?
What ridiculous comparisons!

None of those things are inherently reactionary or oppressive, where religion is. None of those things conflict with a materialist conception of history, where as religion does.

You can have OCD or be an alcoholic and a communist because those things don't conflict where as being "religious" and a communist is a contradiction in terms.

Pretty simple stuff, really.

I don't think I have to tell you that all of the above and an infinitely long line of further things are "irrational" and involve some belief in something which isn't true.

Those things have material consequences. Fear maybe irrational, but it's a biological construct designed to protect the body. Sometimes that goes wrong, sometimes people don't eat food because of social constructs or become alcoholics because of objective factors.

It's a totally different kind of rationality than believing a sky wizard created us through his finger tips and it is totally contradictory to the materialist concept of history which communism finds its fundamental basis.

Someone may get over their fear of spiders or their need to turn a light on and off ten times but you can never be a materialist and a non-materialist equally and at the same time.

That's irreconcilably irrational.

If you can wriggle your way out of all of them, I have more for you...

Oooh scary!

The Feral Underclass

16th January 2007, 08:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 07:49 pm
The fact is that you painted communists as being by necessity all-rational people.
Well, politically and philosophically they must be, otherwise they're not communists.

The Feral Underclass

16th January 2007, 08:39

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 16, 2007 07:18 am
As LSD aptly pointed out (and you pointedly ignored), few communists would recommend that religious leftists not be considered leftists. Okay? So calm down.
Leftists they maybe, but communists they are not.

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 15:44

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+January 16, 2007 08:39 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ January 16, 2007 08:39 am)
[email protected] 14, 2007 07:49 pm
The fact is that you painted communists as being by necessity all-rational people.
Well, politically and philosophically they must be, otherwise they're not communists. [/b]
Except that no person is perfectly rational because they are not capable of being perfectly rational. Even a good communist has biases, irrational fears and irrational beliefs.

Believing that you can effectively stop people from excercising their spiritual needs and wants is inherently irrational. Believing that you as an uneducated working-class teenager know what is best for every other of the 6 billion people on earth is astoundingly irrational, just as it would be if you were a 65 year-old Harvard graduate. Believing that certain things are inherent in capitalism when they obviously are not simply because you've decided they are is also quite irrational.

Communism in reality isn't much different from religious faith. Both seek to impose an order onto humanity in order to protect the believer from the inherent disorder in humanity.

If only (input):

-Everyone were Christian
-Everyone were Muslim
-Everyone was a good communist
-Everyone put their faith in the technate to determine for them how much they want and need of everything

Then (output):

-Disorder and conflict would be abated or eliminated and we'd all live in a glorious paradise.

They're all the same process, just with different inputs. The real irrationality is the belief that any of these inputs can ever be achieved.

RevMARKSman

16th January 2007, 16:51

If only (input):

-Everyone were Christian
-Everyone were Muslim
-Everyone was a good communist
-Everyone put their faith in the technate to determine for them how much they want and need of everything

Then (output):

-Disorder and conflict would be abated or eliminated and we'd all live in a glorious paradise.

Since when did anyone say communism would be paradise? Of course people would argue, people would fight, people would just get into conflict about different things. We'd just be worrying about smaller things than whether we'll live through the next year.

Pow R. Toc H.

16th January 2007, 17:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:51 pm
Since when did anyone say communism would be paradise? Of course people would argue, people would fight, people would just get into conflict about different things. We'd just be worrying about smaller things than whether we'll live through the next year.
Do you really worry about whether or not your going to live through the next year? I mean I dont like living in a capitalist society, but I dont ever fear for my life.

Whats makes communism so irrational? Its not like we believe that a mythical being is going to come down from the sky and abolish Capitalism.

cormacobear

16th January 2007, 17:07

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+January 16, 2007 02:39 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ January 16, 2007 02:39 am)
Young Stupid [email protected] 16, 2007 07:18 am
As LSD aptly pointed out (and you pointedly ignored), few communists would recommend that religious leftists not be considered leftists. Okay? So calm down.
Leftists they maybe, but communists they are not. [/b]

Just because YOU say it doesn't make it true. Apperantly religion doesn't have a monopoly on ignorance.

By the very nature of thought, experience, and interpretation no two people can see eye to eye on all issues. Sectarianism has more to do with Manners (or their lack) than Matter.

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 17:54

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 16, 2007 05:03 pm
Whats makes communism so irrational? Its not like we believe that a mythical being is going to come down from the sky and abolish Capitalism.
It's irrational because it doesn't work.

Your rapture doesn't involve a mythical being, it involves a revolution.

Pow R. Toc H.

16th January 2007, 18:06

So your comparing the belief in a mythical being to a revolution. Your right I mean its not like a revolution has ever happened in the past. Like I always say the revolution is right around the corner.

Note the extreme use of fucking sarcasm.

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 18:16

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 16, 2007 06:06 pm
So your comparing the belief in a mythical being to a revolution. Your right I mean its not like a revolution has ever happened in the past. Like I always say the revolution is right around the corner.

Note the extreme use of fucking sarcasm.
Yes, frankly. Perhaps not yours personally, but even you've seen the references to anticipation for the soon-to-come glorious workers' revolution, no?

:lol:

Pow R. Toc H.

16th January 2007, 18:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:16 pm
Yes, frankly. Perhaps not yours personally, but even you've seen the references to anticipation for the soon-to-come glorious workers' revolution, no?

:lol:
Ok, ok you've got me there. But surely your not going to impose the ignorance of a few on an entire group, right?

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 18:42

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc H.+January 16, 2007 06:20 pm--> (Pow R. Toc H. @ January 16, 2007 06:20 pm)
t[email protected] 16, 2007 06:16 pm
Yes, frankly. Perhaps not yours personally, but even you've seen the references to anticipation for the soon-to-come glorious workers' revolution, no?

:lol:
Ok, ok you've got me there. But surely your not going to impose the ignorance of a few on an entire group, right? [/b]
I will if it saves time.

;)

Faceless

16th January 2007, 19:09

Oooh scary!
First off TAT, I wasn't addressing this to you and I'm surprised you felt the need to put your or in.

Those things have material consequences. Fear maybe irrational, but it's a biological construct designed to protect the body. Sometimes that goes wrong, sometimes people don't eat food because of social constructs or become alcoholics because of objective factors.

It's a totally different kind of rationality than believing a sky wizard created us through his finger tips and it is totally contradictory to the materialist concept of history which communism finds its fundamental basis.

Someone may get over their fear of spiders or their need to turn a light on and off ten times but you can never be a materialist and a non-materialist equally and at the same time.
Of course they are differnet. They have different consequences and different causes. However, the one thing that binds them all together is they involve an irrational belief in something. Im not sure what you mean by "Those things have material consequences". Having a fear of God has very material consequences and even more material causes. Anyway, it was against the generalisation that communists can't be religious because they are all-rational that i directed my original post.

QUOTE (Faceless @ January 14, 2007 07:49 pm)
The fact is that you painted communists as being by necessity all-rational people.

Well, politically and philosophically they must be, otherwise they're not communists.
The original poster did not go beyond making this generalisation, that communists couldn't be religious because they had to be rational IN GENERAL. If you want to add on this proviso then fine (though I do not agree with it). The fact that I drew the above comparisons was to illustrate the very absurditty of Monika's generalisation. If you then go on to read the replys she/he gave; you will see that Monika tried to then justify that infact you can't be both a communist and OCD/alcoholic.

Now I will take issue with the idea that they must be politically and philosophically all rational and with the other stuff you brought up...

None of those things are inherently reactionary or oppressive, where religion is. None of those things conflict with a materialist conception of history, where as religion does.
First of all, why is a person oppressive because they are religious? You is a religious worker oppressing? You aren't the first person to be unable to distinguish between the religiousity of the masses and organised religion. The question of whether or not a materialist conception of history is possible from the point of view of a religious person is a better one. However, this depends entirely on the subjective interpretation of the individual in question of their religion. I have given conrete examples such as connolly, who refused to budge an inch just because catholic authorities tell them to. There are some people who interpret their religion in a materialist way, and there are others who use it as some "spiritual guide" whilst in matters of real life they look to marxism as a guide. I am not saying it is rational, and does not entail a certain degree of mental confusion, but that is different to saying they are inherently reactionary, oppressive nor incapable of understanding scientific concepts.

Indeed, we would consider both the anarchists here and the marxists to be "communists" in general, but I would personally suggest that we can't both be right. One way or another, one of us is suffering from political confusion. If this confusion translates itself into reactionary actions, then it is a confusion worse that a revolutionary who happens to be religious.

Johnny Anarcho

16th January 2007, 21:28

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc H.+January 16, 2007 01:19 am--> (Pow R. Toc H. @ January 16, 2007 01:19 am)
Johnny [email protected] 15, 2007 11:24 pm
Marx is nothing without Hegel and Hegel was a Theist. Dialect is a Theist idea and because Communism cannot function without Dialect, I deduce that Communism and religion go hand in hand. Also, the Venezuelan president called Jesus the worlds greatest Socialist. Just saying :mellow: I may be Muslim but that doesnt make me reactionary or counter-revolutionary. A revolutionary should be judged by his politics and how he acts on them, nothing more or less. Otherwise the Left becomes a place for persecution and we become no better than the extreme-Right.
You deduce wrong. Communism is materialist. Religion and Communism cannot walk hand in hand just like Science and Religion cannot walk hand in hand. [/b]
Not entirely, early Christian communities were very Socialist as were early Islamic communities. The idea of Communal living pre-dates Marx by centuries but only when reading Bakunin does Communism become Atheistic.

Johnny Anarcho

16th January 2007, 21:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:38 pm

Malcom X was a Muslim and without him there would be no Black Panther Party.

That's a bit of a stretch.

In October of 1966, in Oakland California, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale founded the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. The Panthers practiced militant self-defense of minority communities against the U.S. government, and fought to establish revolutionary socialism through mass organizing and community based programs. The party was one of the first organizations in U.S. history to militantly struggle for ethnic minority and working class emancipation — a party whose agenda was the revolutionary establishment of real economic, social, and political equality across gender and color lines.

Link (http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/)
The point I was making is that Malcolm inspired Newton and Seale with the ideas of self-defense, self-determination, and community-empowerment. Other religious revolutionaries were Martin Luther King, Michael Collin, and Yasir Arafat.

The Feral Underclass

16th January 2007, 21:53

Originally posted by cormacobear+January 16, 2007 06:07 pm--> (cormacobear @ January 16, 2007 06:07 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 02:39 am

Young Stupid [email protected] 16, 2007 07:18 am
As LSD aptly pointed out (and you pointedly ignored), few communists would recommend that religious leftists not be considered leftists. Okay? So calm down.
Leftists they maybe, but communists they are not.

Just because YOU say it doesn't make it true. [/b]
I never said it did. It's simply fact that someone who is a non-materialist cannot be a materialist at the same time.

By the very nature of thought, experience, and interpretation no two people can see eye to eye on all issues.

I'm not claiming otherwise.

Sectarianism has more to do with Manners (or their lack) than Matter.

That makes no sense.

The Feral Underclass

16th January 2007, 22:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:09 pm
Of course they are differnet.
Well there you go then.

They have different consequences and different causes. However, the one thing that binds them all together is they involve an irrational belief in something.

Believing in god negates a materialist conception of history. Having an irrational fear of spiders does not.

Having an irrational behvioural problem, something caused biologically or psychologically as a consequence of being alive is by no means the same as accepting that history was created by something that is unprovable and that contains overwhelmingly illogical justifications for it's existance.

Anyway, it was against the generalisation that communists can't be religious because they are all-rational that i directed my original post.

Well, they can't.

None of those things are inherently reactionary or oppressive, where religion is. None of those things conflict with a materialist conception of history, where as religion does.
First of all, why is a person oppressive because they are religious

Unless they actively propagate and organise those ideas, then they aren't.

You aren't the first person to be unable to distinguish between the religiousity of the masses and organised religion.

Have I done that? I'm quite happy to accept that individuals are religious, but if they believe in god, they cannot believe in a materialist conception of history and thus cannot be a communist.

Organised religion is reactionary and oppressive.

The question of whether or not a materialist conception of history is possible from the point of view of a religious person is a better one. However, this depends entirely on the subjective interpretation of the individual in question of their religion

Not unless someone believes that God created evolution, which I believe those people exist. Even so, the belief in a non-material being negates materialism, which in all respects is absolute.

Materialism is the basis of truth. As a communist, you cannot deny that.

have given conrete examples such as connolly, who refused to budge an inch just because catholic authorities tell them to. There are some people who interpret their religion in a materialist way, and there are others who use it as some "spiritual guide" whilst in matters of real life they look to marxism as a guide.

Connolly wasn't a communist.

Of course there are religious people who believe in class struggle abstractly through social issues, but that does not mean they are a communist.

I am not saying it is rational, and does not entail a certain degree of mental confusion, but that is different to saying they are inherently reactionary, oppressive nor incapable of understanding scientific concepts.

Someone who propagates the belief in god as truth and who espouses to organised religions dogma is reactionary and oppressive. Other than that, I don't care what someone does in their own home or in their own head.

Indeed, we would consider both the anarchists here and the marxists to be "communists" in general, but I would personally suggest that we can't both be right. One way or another, one of us is suffering from political confusion. If this confusion translates itself into reactionary actions, then it is a confusion worse that a revolutionary who happens to be religious.

Rationalism requires reason to understand human concepts and beliefs and as we all know Marxists consistently fail to use reason in understanding theirs.