Religion, Enemy of the Working Class?

[Dean]

The most exciting moment, though, came inside the shareholders meeting. Ten workers from the Tar Heel plant and ten prominent clergy and community leaders went to the shareholders meeting. During the meeting, Reverend Nelson Johnson from the Southern Faith Labor Community Alliance gave an impassioned message of support for the workers cause on behalf of the millions of members represented by the prominent leaders. Terry Slaughter, a livestock worker at the Tar Heel plant, showed CEO C. Larry Pope petitions signed by thousands of Tar Heel employees—representing a strong majority of workers in the plant. The petitions demanded a free and fair choice for selecting a union and called for “A union and a union contract...like unionized Smithfield workers have in other plants...and for Smithfield to remain neutral and let people choose a union without the company interfering” Terry showed thousands of supporting petitions from Smithfield workers around the world-from Poland, Spain and France to Iowa and Nebraska.

Read the rest here (http://www.smithfieldjustice.com/2007shareholdersupdate.php)

This is a campaign I've been working on; I missed the rally because I had forgotten to check my email (I live 60 miles from Williamsburg, so I am pissed at myself that I missed it).

Anyways, the point is that the reverend is here coming out with a pro-labor stance. And yet he would still be considered an enemy by many here.

[The Feral Underclass]

You have to make a choice between who you decide to side with in your struggles and what the reasons for siding with them are? Many communists/socialists side with reactionary institutions and individuals in order to forward some concession or political campaign, but does that mean it's right?

For me, as a bit of purist and an advocate of oppositionism, unless this reverend accepted workers liberation as a consequence of revolution that will smash the state, destroy capitalism and begin a transition to a communist society, free from religious institutions and all hierarchy then I am happy to support him.

If he does not, then it doesn't matter whether I personally regard him as an enemy, he just doesn't believe the same as me and I do not think it's beneficial to side with him nevertheless.

If you spend your whole political life fighting for concessions with anyone who will fight with you, you'll be left with nothing but concessions, a re-invented capitalist class along side a bunch of people you don't agree with.

[al8]

Well, if a perticular religion can be seen as one body - it speaks out of both sides of it's mouth. It tries to make so many friends that in the end it is friends to no one. I would consider that labor-friendly cleric to be an agent meant to soft-pedal this particular social niche, as they do in so many others. They always want to be in the middle of things - to make their presence felt. I mean, they have hospital-priests(!), kindergarden-priests, elementaryschool-priests, priests for the hard of hearing, handicapped and foreigners and so on and on... Their literally everywhere spewing their lies.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by al8+September 12, 2007 03:53 am--> (al8 @ September 12, 2007 03:53 am) Well, if a perticular religion can be seen as one body - it speaks out of both sides of it's mouth. It tries to make so many friends that in the end it is friends to no one. I would consider that labor-friendly cleric to be an agent meant to soft-pedal this particular social niche, as they do in so many others. They always want to be in the middle of things - to make their presence felt. I mean, they have hospital-priests(!), kindergarden-priests, elementaryschool-priests, priests for the hard of hearing, handicapped and foreigners and so on and on... Their literally everywhere spewing their lies. [/b]
Oh please.

First of all, there is no monolithic institution representing all of Christianity. The Catholic Church might come close (if I remember correctly, between half and two-thirds of Christians are Catholic), but there are many opposing factions within the Catholic Church itself, and the Pope's word doesn't carry nearly as much weight as it used to.


The Anarchist Tension
For me, as a bit of purist and an advocate of oppositionism, unless this reverend accepted workers liberation as a consequence of revolution that will smash the state, destroy capitalism and begin a transition to a communist society, free from religious institutions and all hierarchy then I am happy to support him.
I'm actually very happy to hear that. So, you object to religious institutions and hierarchy but not to religious faith as such. In that case, I fully agree with you.

[guerilla E]

Private belief and faith are all as defined; private. A reverand can support a pro-labor struggle, there are no restrictions on that. We cannot even begin to alienate and isolate people just because they are connected to religious institutions, as we advocate the difference of state and religion, as must we with belief and political stance.
Faith based organizations are tricky because they present generally a hierachy based structure, their leaders having powers over their followers. However if the leader of that particular community supports the struggle of state matter, for non-religious reasons, then I think they are expressing their own opinion rather than that of their church.

The division of Church and State must be respected and defended, however that division cannot mean that a religious man cannot be from the left wing. If we see that members of organized religion are of a political alignment by default, then we are mixing state and religion.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Edric O+September 12, 2007 05:39 am--> (Edric O @ September 12, 2007 05:39 am)
The Anarchist Tension
For me, as a bit of purist and an advocate of oppositionism, unless this reverend accepted workers liberation as a consequence of revolution that will smash the state, destroy capitalism and begin a transition to a communist society, free from religious institutions and all hierarchy then I am happy to support him.
I'm actually very happy to hear that. So, you object to religious institutions and hierarchy but not to religious faith as such. In that case, I fully agree with you. [/b]
This tends to be where I stand. Though I think TAT's wording was a bit off in that statement.

[Angry Young Man]

Yup. Always the enemy.

Mind you, it's just the way it's been grossly perverted over time. I always wonder how pro-capitalists can actually call themselves christians, you know, with their complete lack of compassion and opulence of bigotry.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Edric O+September 12, 2007 06:39 am--> (Edric O @ September 12, 2007 06:39 am)
The Anarchist Tension
For me, as a bit of purist and an advocate of oppositionism, unless this reverend accepted workers liberation as a consequence of revolution that will smash the state, destroy capitalism and begin a transition to a communist society, free from religious institutions and all hierarchy then I am happy to support him.
I'm actually very happy to hear that. So, you object to religious institutions and hierarchy but not to religious faith as such. In that case, I fully agree with you. [/b]
I don't give a shit whether you individually believe that fairies guide your bowel movements and worship them accordingly - that's your problem. What I object to is constructing those opinions into institutions and proselytising them as truth.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Dean+September 12, 2007 09:04 pm--> (Dean @ September 12, 2007 09:04 pm)
Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 12, 2007 05:39 am

The Anarchist Tension
For me, as a bit of purist and an advocate of oppositionism, unless this reverend accepted workers liberation as a consequence of revolution that will smash the state, destroy capitalism and begin a transition to a communist society, free from religious institutions and all hierarchy then I am happy to support him.
I'm actually very happy to hear that. So, you object to religious institutions and hierarchy but not to religious faith as such. In that case, I fully agree with you.
...I think TAT's wording was a bit off in that statement. [/b]
What do you mean?

[Dean]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 09:50 am
What do you mean?
You say unless the reverend supports workers liberation you are happy to support him. I am sure you mean the opposite.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Dean+September 13, 2007 03:55 pm--> (Dean @ September 13, 2007 03:55 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 09:50 am
What do you mean?
You say unless the reverend supports workers liberation you are happy to support him. I am sure you mean the opposite. [/b]
Not as far as I can tell...

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Romantic [email protected] 13, 2007 09:29 am
Yup. Always the enemy.

Mind you, it's just the way it's been grossly perverted over time. I always wonder how pro-capitalists can actually call themselves christians, you know, with their complete lack of compassion and opulence of bigotry.
...you also forgot their promiscious sexual attitudes and appetite for military bloodletting!

[BorisTheBlade]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+September 13, 2007 08:43 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ September 13, 2007 08:43 pm)
Romantic [email protected] 13, 2007 09:29 am
Yup. Always the enemy.

Mind you, it's just the way it's been grossly perverted over time. I always wonder how pro-capitalists can actually call themselves christians, you know, with their complete lack of compassion and opulence of bigotry.
...you also forgot their promiscious sexual attitudes and appetite for military bloodletting![/b]
Promiscuous sex? I thought that Christians weren't for that

[RNK]

Originally posted by BorisTheBlade+September 13, 2007 10:37 pm--> (BorisTheBlade @ September 13, 2007 10:37 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 08:43 pm

Romantic [email protected] 13, 2007 09:29 am
Yup. Always the enemy.

Mind you, it's just the way it's been grossly perverted over time. I always wonder how pro-capitalists can actually call themselves christians, you know, with their complete lack of compassion and opulence of bigotry.
...you also forgot their promiscious sexual attitudes and appetite for military bloodletting!
Promiscuous sex? I thought that Christians weren't for that [/b]
I think he's saying that Capitalists also engage in promiscuous sexual activities and military bloodletting, thus adding to the arguement that it makes absolutely no fucking sense for capitalists to call themselves Christian.

Like that Pastor dude that got caught getting BJ's from some boytoy, all the while arguing that homosexuality is a sin and all of that colourful idiocy.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by BorisTheBlade+September 13, 2007 10:37 pm--> (BorisTheBlade @ September 13, 2007 10:37 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 08:43 pm

Romantic Revolutio[email protected] 13, 2007 09:29 am
Yup. Always the enemy.

Mind you, it's just the way it's been grossly perverted over time. I always wonder how pro-capitalists can actually call themselves christians, you know, with their complete lack of compassion and opulence of bigotry.
...you also forgot their promiscious sexual attitudes and appetite for military bloodletting!
Promiscuous sex? I thought that Christians weren't for that [/b]
precisely, i was contributing to romantic revolutionary&#39;s point about capitalists and their innappropriate allegiance to the church. <_<

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Then perhaps we should rename the sub-forum to "Organized Religion?" It&#39;s counter-productive, and I&#39;d argue unwanted, to attack religion. Some of the greatest labor and peace leaders have been convinced Christians/Hindus/Muslims/Taoists.

[black magick hustla]

Generally, religion, as a tendency, has been shown to be enemy of the working class.

There can be some few religious figures/leaders that can be brought to our cause, but generally, as a tendency, they are reactionary.

Even if somehow, some leaders went to our side, still the ideas they preach are ultimately against total liberation, for the communist project against hierarchy demands the abolition of god.

We demand the abolition of morality as we know it; we demand a world where we can slack off, drink excessively and fuck excessively. The "clerical vermin" as vaneigem puts it, are the sworn enemies of this kind of unrestrained freedom we demand--and in this sense, they are also enemies of life.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:45 pm
We demand the abolition of morality as we know it; we demand a world where we can slack off, drink excessively and fuck excessively. The "clerical vermin" as vaneigem puts it, are the sworn enemies of this kind of unrestrained freedom we demand--and in this sense, they are also enemies of life.
You&#39;re not talking about communism, you&#39;re talking about hedonism. And I certainly rather live in a rational, social - oriented world than one of hedonistic immorality. Communism is especially not about slacking off; it is exactly the opposite - the harnessing of our creative powers to produce a society, including all it&#39;s products, which act in general to bring people together and break down barriers. Focusing on our base &#39;instincts&#39; of lust and laziness (laziness is more a creation of capitalism) is more a reflection of capitalist virtues than communist ones.

EDIT: I will note, however, that the moral crusades against sexuality and for mindless work ethic have marked many religions and are certainly anti-life. However, I think the spiritualism in religion accounts for something missing from your description; it is not through random spontaneity that a progressive society will or can develop, but very deliberate, socially oriented productive spontaneity. I think the society - or at least the virtues you ascribe to a society "we demand" - are a hedonistic form of social barbarism.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Dean+September 17, 2007 02:20 am--> (Dean @ September 17, 2007 02:20 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 06:45 pm
We demand the abolition of morality as we know it; we demand a world where we can slack off, drink excessively and fuck excessively. The "clerical vermin" as vaneigem puts it, are the sworn enemies of this kind of unrestrained freedom we demand--and in this sense, they are also enemies of life.
You&#39;re not talking about communism, you&#39;re talking about hedonism. And I certainly rather live in a rational, social - oriented world than one of hedonistic immorality. Communism is especially not about slacking off; it is exactly the opposite - the harnessing of our creative powers to produce a society, including all it&#39;s products, which act in general to bring people together and break down barriers. Focusing on our base &#39;instincts&#39; of lust and laziness (laziness is more a creation of capitalism) is more a reflection of capitalist virtues than communist ones.

EDIT: I will note, however, that the moral crusades against sexuality and for mindless work ethic have marked many religions and are certainly anti-life. However, I think the spiritualism in religion accounts for something missing from your description; it is not through random spontaneity that a progressive society will or can develop, but very deliberate, socially oriented productive spontaneity. I think the society - or at least the virtues you ascribe to a society "we demand" - are a hedonistic form of social barbarism. [/b]
Well.

Most communists want a revolution because they don&#39;t want to be exploited to work excessive hours.

the fundamental impulse behind the movement is the believe that capitalism exploits us, makes us unnecessarily work more.

I was using "slacking off" more as a hyperbole. But the truth is, that it is "lazyiess", in a way, that impulses class struggle.

Laziness is not a creation of capitalism. If anything, work ethic, and other anti-life ideas, are a creation of class society. It is through mindless self-mutilation, like work-ethic, that the ruling class manages to cloud the mind of its exploited.

What is wrong with hedonism? Obviously there cannot be total hedonism, but still certainly can be maximized much more so that people enjoy more their stance in earth.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:13 pm
Well.

Most communists want a revolution because they don&#39;t want to be exploited to work excessive hours.

the fundamental impulse behind the movement is the believe that capitalism exploits us, makes us unnecessarily work more.

I was using "slacking off" more as a hyperbole. But the truth is, that it is "lazyiess", in a way, that impulses class struggle.
I agree with what you say thus far, except for the idea that laziness impulses class struggle. I think it is quite the contrary; it is quite an unlazy, unhedonistic act to commit revolution; in fact, it is one of the least lazy actions I can think of. One thrusts themselves into a totally unknown territory, in which they are constantly at risk of dying, and constantly work -- towards the goal of revolution and classlessness, social justice, whatever ideals guide the revolt.


Laziness is not a creation of capitalism. If anything, work ethic, and other anti-life ideas, are a creation of class society. It is through mindless self-mutilation, like work-ethic, that the ruling class manages to cloud the mind of its exploited.
Laziness is an aversion to labor in general - this includes all productive activities of man. If you mean simply an aversion to labor in regards to alienated factory work, I don&#39;t disagree, but you seem to be saying that "lounging around" is a productive response to class struggle, or a good thing in itself. It has merits, and can be productive, but it is not productive in the manner in which most people do it, and certainly not in excess.

As far as it being a creation of capitalism... I think that is clear. Man, alienated from his labor, finds little joy and association with that labor. Why should I care about work unless it means something truly productive to me?


What is wrong with hedonism? Obviously there cannot be total hedonism, but still certainly can be maximized much more so that people enjoy more their stance in earth.
I&#39;m not against leisure. I am against an orientation of society less interested in society and people and more interested in base, physical pleasure. I don&#39;t see how focusing on our base desires - besides our social nature - can do anything but harm society. It makes the highest goal pleasure, and as a selfish enterprise it is a capitalist virtue - one of the most essential - and certain to cause quite the opposite effect from what we want.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

We demand the abolition of morality as we know it; we demand a world where we can slack off, drink excessively and fuck excessively.

You can do those things.

Slack off? I don&#39;t care as long as it doesn&#39;t involve hurting others.

Drink excessively? Just don&#39;t go driving.

Fuck excessively? Don&#39;t get your partner(s) pregnant unless you&#39;re ready to raise a child.


You can do those things, but you must accept the consequences.