lenin on religion - he says it better than me.

[peaccenicked]

"Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party. We shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential for us to combat the inconsistency of various "Christians". But that does not mean in the least that the religious question ought to be advanced to first place, where it does not belong at all; nor does it mean that we should allow the forces of the really revolutionary economic and political struggle to be split up on account of third-rate opinions or senseless ideas, rapidly losing all political importance, rapidly being swept out as rubbish by the very course of economic development.

Everywhere the reactionary bourgeoisie has concerned itself, and is now beginning to concern itself in Russia, with the fomenting of religious strife -- in order thereby to divert the attention of the masses from the really important and fundamental economic and political problems, now being solved in practice by the all-Russian proletariat uniting in revolutionary struggle. This reactionary policy of splitting up the proletarian forces, which today manifests itself mainly in Black-Hundred pogroms, may tomorrow conceive some more subtle forms. We, at any rate, shall oppose it by calmly, consistently and patiently preaching proletarian solidarity and the scientific world-outlook -- a preaching alien to any stirring up of secondary differences.

The revolutionary proletariat will succeed in making religion a really private affair, so far as the state is concerned. And in this political system, cleansed of medieval mildew, the proletariat will wage a broad and open struggle for the elimination of economic slavery, the true source of the religious humbugging of mankind. "
This thesis seems to be the underlying concern
I have detected in the project of militant atheism.
I was wondering what the Derminator thinks.
Or any other comrades.

[Kez]

didnt marx say religion was the opium of the people?

if so, he was damned right

comrade kamo

[TheDerminator]

Lenin, only really saw Russia, and that was a weakness in his political approach, thus John MacLean of Scotland, and Rosa Luxemburg saw his approach to the International Socialist movement as mechanical adaptation of Bolshevism.

It has to be recognised that although Lenin critisicised bourgeois democracy for not really representing the interests of the working class, in his writings on the "infantile disorder" Lenin, took a hard line revolutionary approach to Western Socalism, something that Karl Marx did not do. Marx recognised that a revolution might not be necessary in a place such as England, and for Lenin to suggest that it is naive to believe you can win over the majority, shows a lack of understanding of how the socialist movement should develop in advanced bourgeois countries.
The days of the revolutionary socialist conspiracy are over, and if this is your creed, you are living in another time warp.
The unity which Lenin sought was the unity behind a revolution, and that is the final objective of the unity. It might seem what we should all want, but it is a simplistic solution in advanced bourgeois countries.
Quite simply if your world movement cannot carry the majority with it, your movement is a weak movement, and the first revolution in an advanced country is going to be stamped out in the name of democracy!
You are leading the lambs to the slaughter to go down such a path, and you cannot give the bastards any moral ground for their atrocities. To do so, is to let the bastards off the hook, and to court disaster in your approach.
You see, my friend, we have to get real, we are not in a land of a huge peasantry, the world knows socialism is essentially an atheistical doctrine, and who are we trying to kid? The cat was let of the bag by Karl Marx: Religion is the opium of the people.
We cannot unite behind revolution against oppressors in advanced bourgeois countries the same way unity can be sought in backward countries, it is a very different ball game, and such unity is a fundamental error in strategy.
We have to be consistent, every inconsistency is going to be siezed upon, by the enemy. We can tolerate religious beliefs in a socialist society, but let's not kid anyone, a large part of our socialist theory is to leave religion for dead, and who are we trying to kid if we pretend otherwise?
Lenin, in one of his other articles on unity, says you have to ask what you are uniting behind. We can have tactical compromises, yes, but never a sell out of socialist long-term strategy, and that is complete Leninism from On Compromises.
You see, my friend there is a huge difference between the tactical compromises which can be employed in a backward country to unite behind a revolution and the strategy to leave the bourgeios epoch behind within advanced bourgeois countries.
Our strategy, can only be one of absolute consistency of purpose against that which creates the genocide of wanton neglect. There can be no tactical compromise on fundamental ground, and if you read the position by Lenin carefully, you can see all it is about is tactical compromise.
Some compromises you have to make, but if something is an intrinsic part of bourgoise ideology you cannot shirk the task, and this is the most important of all points, something lost on Lenin, and something socialist everywhere have to grasp, religion is essential to the bourgeois epoch, and without it, the epoch will crumble.
It is the basis of ethos, and the basis for the bourgeios conception of spiritual being. It is fundamental to bourgeois orthodoxy.
Not to see the connection is what the bourgoisie want you to do. There is a complete interconnection, and it is enshrined in a subjective approach to understanding history.
Religion cannot really be a "private affair" since once you see it only as an individualistic choice you lose sight of the opium of the people you lose sight of the genocide of wanton neglect, and my friend we do wish to wash the dirty linen in public.

derminated.

[peaccenicked]

the 'private affair' is only mentioned in connection with the State.

[TheDerminator]

Fair dinkums

[El Che]

It has to be recognised that although Lenin critisicised bourgeois democracy for not really representing the interests of the working class, in his writings on the "infantile disorder" Lenin, took a hard line revolutionary approach to Western Socalism, something that Karl Marx did not do. Marx recognised that a revolution might not be necessary in a place such as England, and for Lenin to suggest that it is naive to believe you can win over the majority, shows a lack of understanding of how the socialist movement should develop in advanced bourgeois countries.
The days of the revolutionary socialist conspiracy are over, and if this is your creed, you are living in another time warp.
The unity which Lenin sought was the unity behind a revolution, and that is the final objective of the unity. It might seem what we should all want, but it is a simplistic solution in advanced bourgeois countries.
Quite simply if your world movement cannot carry the majority with it, your movement is a weak movement, and the first revolution in an advanced country is going to be stamped out in the name of democracy!
You are leading the lambs to the slaughter to go down such a path, and you cannot give the bastards any moral ground for their atrocities. To do so, is to let the bastards off the hook, and to court disaster in your approach.


I couldnt agree more with this analysis. However on the question of religion, I think its a touchy subject. If we frontaly oppose religion we incoure in the danger of shooting our own movement in the head. I mean its hard enough as it is getting suport for our cause, if we add religion to the mix we are making it that much harder, it will back fire. My father says something to me when we debate politics and I think he is right. He says "if those that want to change society are to far ahead of society its self, the people will not hear them". we have to walk with the people and maybe in due time things will change, but if you force the rope it will brake.

(Edited by El Che at 5:09 pm on Mar. 20, 2002)


(Edited by El Che at 5:11 pm on Mar. 20, 2002)

[TheDerminator]

El Che,

I know the argument. I respect it. I used to think it myself, but I have changed my view upon it, for two reasons. First of all we cannot hide our views on religion. We cannot hide our views on God. If we do so, we are making a deep error, and our enemies will rightly sieze on this "hidden agenda" as they will proclaim it.
We have to be open, about our strong beliefs about religion, and about God, are we essentially living a lie. We have to be true to ourselves. We have to be open.
Secondly, and this is extremely important. We have to be completely consistent in our approach, and if we drop the genocide of wanton neglect, we are weakening the consistency of that approach. The genocide is not just the hegemony of an elite, it is the maintainence of that hegemony, through the pacification of the people.
We have not international socialist movement so the people are not with us, and I have to say that the movement must come from the most advanced nations, not a peasant nation where religion is much more deeply engrained into the psyche.
Nor do we need to be afraid. Religion is not some unknow virus in the blood of the people. We know exactly why it exists, and we can confront it in an internationalist movement. It is not a matter of applying force, it is a matter of carrying people with the movement.
If the movement ignores the religious spiritual side of the struggle, it will only weaken itself in the long run, and is giving the enemy a large window of opportunity, which it will fully exploit.

May the Force with U!

derminated

[Michael De Panama]

A friend of mine proposed that all the conflicts of the world have come from religion. Although I think that all conflicts of the world have come from the division of classes, I can see his point.

I still think that religious freedom is very important. Any form of free thinking, even if it leads to the absense of thought, is very important. But I choose to not affiliate myself with any religion.

[TheDerminator]

Michael De Panama,
I am not against freedom of thought, or for providing places of worship for people in socialist societies, but at the same time:

"Any form of free thinking, even if it leads to the absense of thought, is very important."

How far do you take this extreme liberalism?
Naziism?
Dogma can lead to genocide.
Dogma can lead to the genocide of wanton neglect.

All in the name of "freedom of thought"? How nice of you!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[SA160]

Religion should not be a question of concern unless it is used as a mean of opposing our forces. All this talk about religion creates obstacles and endless futile rhetoric. If people want to believe, it's their choice as long as their belief does not oppose the establishment of socialism. If religious beliefs that are not opposed to us offends some comrades, tough luck, and look the other way. If the jimmy Swaggarts and 600 clubers want to play the game of the rich and attack us, let's Kick their Ass.
Again, religious liberty has always be a golden opportunity for the lovers of FREEDUMB to attack us on the suppose liberty of expression. Once and for all, let's get rid of this unnecessary polemic and deprive them of one of their favorite plaform.

[TheDerminator]

SA160,

Just because you ignore people, does not mean to say they go away, or that it has nothing to do with the establishment of socialism. U see religion is an obstacle initself, and it diverts people from becoming interested in the socialist cause. It is naive to believe we can establish socialism without tackling something which is a force against socialism.
" Again, religious liberty has always be a golden opportunity for the lovers of FREEDUMB to attack us on the suppose liberty of expression. Once and for all, let's get rid of this unnecessary polemic and deprive them of one of their favorite plaform"
Let's get rid of our own freedom of expression so we uphold the freedom of expression of the religious dogmatists! Sounds like that to me!
You are not going to deprive them of the favourite platform, simply by ignoring that platform. U only give them the platform to themselves, instead of challenging them on that platform. Still, it is not for U or any one individual to do in isolation. It is a task for a socialist movement, and any movement worthy of the name can step on the platform, and make the platform its own.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

The problem here is the uneven development of religion in different countries. Liberation theology is peripheral in advanced capitalist countries. The United States is different from the UK. 90% believers in the US.
10% in the UK. At least according some rag paper I read.
The problem of a ''fifth'' communist international would be to find similarities and differences throughout the world and promote a consistent policy which is not mechanical and can be applied to particular conditions.

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked, we cannot be inconsistent. The highest priority, is the industrialised world. That is where inroads must be made, and where an Internationalist Socialist movement must concentrate its efforts.
We must learn from the past, and realise that Socialism must occur in the advanced countries, if it is to become global socialism.
As regards liberation theology, I am not against tactical compromises, but at the same time, it does not mean the socialist movement should abandon its own principles. It is the same argument Lenin used On Compromises and he did not sacrifice self-consistency in the process.

May the Force be with U!

derminated