difference between communism and religion

[akshay]

i have read a defination of religion in a perticular book.
accordind to book religion is a set of people having some common beliefs.
both communism and religion fits equally.
further more there was a one more definations according to which religion is a perticular way to live our life.
again communism and religion both fits.
now if we take a look on there effect on human history we can see that if both of this two theories are used in a right way than they will help mankind.
but if this theories are misused then they will create a lot of troubles(facism,cast system in case of religion and we can also see polpot in combodia in case of communism)
all religion tries to make a end for each other and communism also tries to end religion.
and if we talk about economical structer, i have read a book on buddhism and i feel that there are some common point between buddhism and communism.
and there was also nothing like god and cast system in buddhism.
but still buddhism is a religion and communism not.
so what is exact difference between them (for a moment if we forget that majority of religion believes on god and communism not ,in short here i want to find out differences between there effects,and why communism is better).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Not all communists believe in ending religion. In fact there are quite a few Marxists who believe it should just be organized religion.

[La Comédie Noire]

We want to free people from the institution of religion created by private property.

[Aurora]

Religion is based on idealism while marxist communism is materialist,they cannot be reconciled.Delusion and reality as such.

In fact there are quite a few Marxists who believe it should just be organized religion.
No there arent,all marxists believe religion is a negative force.We support peoples right to have a religion but we do not support religion.

[Tatarin]

accordind to book religion is a set of people having some common beliefs.

That can be said about almost anything these days.


but if this theories are misused then they will create a lot of troubles(facism,cast system in case of religion and we can also see polpot in combodia in case of communism)

This is where most books somehow have it wrong (hmm, why is that). Communism has never existed. Communism is a system with no government and no "economy" as we know it. People do work according to the needs of their community.

And I'm not aware that Pol Pot ever used "communism" in his regime, only certain aspects of it (or so he claimed).

I think the main reason why communism never was, was not because the theory was used in the wrong way, but that the people themselves never had any power. It would be like saying that if you use patriotism wrong you can turn into a nazi.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

No there arent,all marxists believe religion is a negative force.We support peoples right to have a religion but we do not support religion.


I meant organized religion would be destroyed.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 08:55 pm

No there arent,all marxists believe religion is a negative force.We support peoples right to have a religion but we do not support religion.


I meant organized religion would be destroyed.
I'm thinking that the exploitive part of any religion that grants it's priests wealth and privileges as a token of their 'heavenly duties' would be repressed, but that it's places of worship would not be tampered with. The Catholic Church, for example, would probably have a special tax placed on them by the revolutionary worker's government, but we wouldn't 'destroy' them.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:43 pm
Religion is based on idealism while marxist communism is materialist,they cannot be reconciled.
Sure they can; it is possible to believe that idealism applies to certain aspects of the universe and materialism applies to others. As long as one believes that materialism applies to human history and large-scale social phenomena, one can be a Marxist.

But in any case, what you are talking about is a purely philosophical disagreement. It is in fact possible to support class struggle, workers' emancipation, the abolition of private property, gender equality and so forth without being a materialist.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Edric O+September 30, 2007 09:26 pm--> (Edric O @ September 30, 2007 09:26 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 06:43 pm
Religion is based on idealism while marxist communism is materialist,they cannot be reconciled.
Sure they can; it is possible to believe that idealism applies to certain aspects of the universe and materialism applies to others. As long as one believes that materialism applies to human history and large-scale social phenomena, one can be a Marxist.

But in any case, what you are talking about is a purely philosophical disagreement. It is in fact possible to support class struggle, workers' emancipation, the abolition of private property, gender equality and so forth without being a materialist. [/b]
I concur.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Labor Shall Rule+September 30, 2007 11:24 pm--> (Labor Shall Rule @ September 30, 2007 11:24 pm) I'm thinking that the exploitive part of any religion that grants it's priests wealth and privileges as a token of their 'heavenly duties' would be repressed, but that it's places of worship would not be tampered with. [/b]
That is pretty much the way I see it.


Labor Shall Rule
The Catholic Church, for example, would probably have a special tax placed on them by the revolutionary worker's government, but we wouldn't 'destroy' them.
Well, not quite. We should not tax the property of the Church - we should nationalize the property of the Church like we nationalize all other means of production (land and buildings count as means of production). Churches should be controlled by the congregations of believers who pray in them, just like factories should be controlled by the workers.

I am not at all opposed to the existence of the Catholic Church - I just think it should not be allowed to own any kind of property. And the same applies to all other organized religions.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by Labor Shall Rule+September 30, 2007 09:24 pm--> (Labor Shall Rule @ September 30, 2007 09:24 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 08:55 pm

No there arent,all marxists believe religion is a negative force.We support peoples right to have a religion but we do not support religion.


I meant organized religion would be destroyed.
I'm thinking that the exploitive part of any religion that grants it's priests wealth and privileges as a token of their 'heavenly duties' would be repressed, but that it's places of worship would not be tampered with. The Catholic Church, for example, would probably have a special tax placed on them by the revolutionary worker's government, but we wouldn't 'destroy' them. [/b]
I agree. I think we're debating the same point. :D

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 30, 2007 09:57 pm
Well, not quite. We should not tax the property of the Church - we should nationalize the property of the Church like we nationalize all other means of production (land and buildings count as means of production). Churches should be controlled by the congregations of believers who pray in them, just like factories should be controlled by the workers.

I am not at all opposed to the existence of the Catholic Church - I just think it should not be allowed to own any kind of property. And the same applies to all other organized religions.
I am not debating your point, but I am curious.

How would the mass be structured? I am a former Catholic, and I would go to church weekly (I still do), and I am interested in what you are talking about.

[La Comédie Noire]

How would the mass be structured? I am a former Catholic, and I would go to church weekly (I still do), and I am interested in what you are talking about.

A group of automonous(sp?) would decide to meet in a public meeting hall on sunday where they would carry out their respective rituals.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 01, 2007 03:10 am
I am not debating your point, but I am curious.

How would the mass be structured? I am a former Catholic, and I would go to church weekly (I still do), and I am interested in what you are talking about.
I propose that all churches should be the people's property, and their administration should be delegated to the groups of religious believers (laymen and clergy alike) who attend them on a regular basis. The precise definition of "regular basis" can be worked out by every community separately. Thus, one community could say that if you attend church - and presumably sign your name on some kind of logbook - X times out of a month (or a year), you officially become part of the congregation and have a vote in matters of church administration. I expect that the requirements for joining a congregation will be quite lax in places with low church attendance and more strict in places with high church attendance.

The priest or clergy will be seen as rendering a service to the congregation, and, since the congregation controls all the physical assets required for religious worship, they will have a great deal of power to influence the clergy. In Catholic communities, it is likely that there will be negotiations and power sharing between the local congregation and the Catholic Church; if the priest goes against the wishes of the local community in some way, and the Catholic Church refuses to replace him, the community can deny him access to the physical church building.

It is likely that such an arrangement will greatly diminish the centralized power of the Pope, as local priests will find it more prudent to cater to the wishes of their local community than to follow the orders of a distant Pope whose powers will be largely ceremonial. With local communities being able to decide who gets to perform mass and under what conditions, the Catholic Church will have no choice but to bow to the democratic will of the people.

The mass itself could be structured exactly the same way it is now - unless the local community would like to change it, in which case they will have the power to tell the priest "we'd like you to do things a bit differently; and if you refuse, we can always have you replaced."

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Edric O+October 01, 2007 05:09 am--> (Edric O @ October 01, 2007 05:09 am)
Labor Shall [email protected] 01, 2007 03:10 am
I am not debating your point, but I am curious.

How would the mass be structured? I am a former Catholic, and I would go to church weekly (I still do), and I am interested in what you are talking about.
I propose that all churches should be the people's property, and their administration should be delegated to the groups of religious believers (laymen and clergy alike) who attend them on a regular basis. The precise definition of "regular basis" can be worked out by every community separately. Thus, one community could say that if you attend church - and presumably sign your name on some kind of logbook - X times out of a month (or a year), you officially become part of the congregation and have a vote in matters of church administration. I expect that the requirements for joining a congregation will be quite lax in places with low church attendance and more strict in places with high church attendance.

The priest or clergy will be seen as rendering a service to the congregation, and, since the congregation controls all the physical assets required for religious worship, they will have a great deal of power to influence the clergy. In Catholic communities, it is likely that there will be negotiations and power sharing between the local congregation and the Catholic Church; if the priest goes against the wishes of the local community in some way, and the Catholic Church refuses to replace him, the community can deny him access to the physical church building.

It is likely that such an arrangement will greatly diminish the centralized power of the Pope, as local priests will find it more prudent to cater to the wishes of their local community than to follow the orders of a distant Pope whose powers will be largely ceremonial. With local communities being able to decide who gets to perform mass and under what conditions, the Catholic Church will have no choice but to bow to the democratic will of the people.

The mass itself could be structured exactly the same way it is now - unless the local community would like to change it, in which case they will have the power to tell the priest "we'd like you to do things a bit differently; and if you refuse, we can always have you replaced." [/b]
Yeah, Catholicism is a little tricky to work out in a communist society due to its centralized power of the Pope. In religions, where there is no head figure, such as Islam or Christianity, I can see your ideas working much better.

[Random Precision]

It is likely that such an arrangement will greatly diminish the centralized power of the Pope, as local priests will find it more prudent to cater to the wishes of their local community than to follow the orders of a distant Pope whose powers will be largely ceremonial. With local communities being able to decide who gets to perform mass and under what conditions, the Catholic Church will have no choice but to bow to the democratic will of the people.

See, there's the rub. The main reason for the RCC's survival for 1500+ years, in my view, is its rigid structure and the central authority emenating from Rome, essentially its inheritance from the Roman Empire. I do not know if the Church would survive in its current form if authority was decentralized as you propose. I doubt that the Papacy would bow to the faithful without a very long and drawn-out struggle. Furthermore, the authority of bishops and cardinals comes from Rome, so I doubt they would go along with such measures. The most likely scenario if that were to happen in a revolutionary situation is that they would start excommunicating whole parishes left and right until the others toe the line. Furthermore, I think Catholic parishoners are so used to the idea of Roman supremacy that they would have trouble with the idea of taking power for themselves, which many of the more ardently faithful would view as contrary to Catholicism in general.

This is not to say that I have a solution to the problem of the Catholic Church in a revolutionary society myself...