Bourgeois atheism

[synthesis]

"Imagine, sang John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Kashmir dispute, no Indo/Pakistan partition, no Israel/Palestine wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern Ireland 'troubles'. Imagine no Taliban blowing up ancient statues, lashing women for showing an inch of skin, or publicly beheading blasphemers and apostates."

-Richard Dawkins

I believe this quote aptly illustrates the problems posed by the phenomenon of bourgeois atheism, which we must be careful to distance ourselves from as Marxists and materialists. Bourgeois atheism has thoroughly permeated the modern Leftist movement in advanced capitalist countries.

What bourgeois atheism proposes is that the evils perpetrated by religious historical actors can be solely reduced to religious origins without regard for materialist analysis; bourgeois atheism, in and of itself, is a product of the conflicts between the emerging bourgeois and the clerical institutions in the Enlightenment era.

Bourgeois atheism denies material conditions in its obsessive need to invalidate religion. Bourgeois atheists, for example, deny that the attack on the World Trade Center had a material basis in indirect Western imperialism in the region through support for Israel, various military dictatorships, and corrupt capitalist democracies.

Bourgeois atheists deny that the Crusades had a material basis in the desire of the European ruling class to seize land and eliminate trade rivals. They deny that the Israel-Palestine conflict has a basis in Zionist colonialism in the 19th century. They deny the role of British imperialism in the Irish troubles.

What bourgeois atheists propose is that these destructive events can be wholly eliminated through the abolition of religion, completely denying the role of conditions in engendering conflict.

As Marxists, we should know better. It's time to abandon the irrational, bourgeois obsession with assaulting religion at all levels that has become such an obstacle to facilitating progress in Western society, and replace it with legitimate materialist analysis.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You bring up some good points. However, I do think that the epic scale of some conquests of the past would not have been made possible without the aid of irrational religious fervor, obviously.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 09, 2007 01:36 am
What bourgeois atheists propose is that these destructive events can be wholly eliminated through the abolition of religion, completely denying the role of conditions in engendering conflict.

As Marxists, we should know better. It's time to abandon the irrational, bourgeois obsession with assaulting religion at all levels that has become such an obstacle to facilitating progress in Western society, and replace it with legitimate materialist analysis.
I agree completely. In fact, I am beginning to worry that liberal bourgeois politicians will begin to use anti-religious idealism as a means to draw support away from the revolutionary left. "Don't listen to those silly Marxists," they will say, "there is no imperialism; wars are not caused by capitalist class relations; it is all religion's fault! Religion, not capitalism or objective economic conditions, is to blame for all the world's ills and all the world's violence."

Bourgeois atheism is an attempt to divert the attention of the working class away from the real enemy and towards an idealist interpretation of the world.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Edric O+December 08, 2007 04:24 pm--> (Edric O @ December 08, 2007 04:24 pm)
Kun Fanâ@December 09, 2007 01:36 am
What bourgeois atheists propose is that these destructive events can be wholly eliminated through the abolition of religion, completely denying the role of conditions in engendering conflict.

As Marxists, we should know better. It's time to abandon the irrational, bourgeois obsession with assaulting religion at all levels that has become such an obstacle to facilitating progress in Western society, and replace it with legitimate materialist analysis.
I agree completely. In fact, I am beginning to worry that liberal bourgeois politicians will begin to use anti-religious idealism as a means to draw support away from the revolutionary left. "Don't listen to those silly Marxists," they will say, "there is no imperialism; wars are not caused by capitalist class relations; it is all religion's fault! Religion, not capitalism or objective economic conditions, is to blame for all the world's ills and all the world's violence."

Bourgeois atheism is an attempt to divert the attention of the working class away from the real enemy and towards an idealist interpretation of the world.[/b]
Where in the world is this happening?

Seriously, if you actually look at U$ bourgeois politicians, they trumpet themselves as the most religious candidate.

In the U$, 97.5% of the population are Christians, and 75% believe that Jesus is the son of "God". So where in the hell are these "atheistic workers"? More importantly, where are these "atheistic" bourgeois politicians?

Perhaps you could provide some evidence from reality rather than your imagination?

Further, Edric O's assertion that an "anti-religious" stance is idealistic confuses the very meaning of materialism with idealism. Religion is idealistic. That's the plain fact of the matter.

Whenever supernatural reasoning is used, it's idealism.

Religion always uses the supernatural. (Ahem, the afterlife anyone?)

So it only makes "perfectly logical sense" to assert opposing this idealism is...idealistic... :rolleyes:

Just ignore the entire concept of scientific materialism, you know all phenomena can be explained through natural causes alone...never with supernatural ones.

Perhaps you could exercise empiricism instead of sophistry to back up your defense of idealistic supernatural nonsense? I'm sure "God" could help if you prayed hard enough :lol:

[synthesis]

Further, Edric O's assertion that an "anti-religious" stance is idealistic confuses the very meaning of materialism with idealism. Religion is idealistic. That's the plain fact of the matter.


I think you might have misunderstood what he was saying.

The idealist perspective views religion as a distinct idea with inherent characteristics devoid of external influence; the materialist perspective recognizes that the origin of religion is in material conditions.

Atheism is one facet of materialism; unfortunately much of the Left has adopted an idealist perspective of religion, ignoring its origins in material conditions.

"Bourgeois atheism" is idealist atheism, positing religion in and of itself as an inherent source of human suffering, while proletarian atheism is materialist and recognizes that both religion and human suffering are a product of external conditions.

Of course, you are right about the U.S.; most of the population is religious and therefore politicians adopt religious rhetoric and policies in order to garner votes.

In Europe, it is quite different. Historically, in Europe there was far more conflict between the bourgeoisie and the clerical ruling class, such as the First Estate in France.

Thus, in France, we see a great deal of bourgeois atheism/secularism in political rhetoric and policy-making. It is far more acceptable to openly assault the irrationality of religion; thus, in the instance where Islamic headdress was banned in schools, we saw Islam itself posited as the source of wrongdoing, rather than cultural practices that predated Islam and were themselves originated by material conditions.

[synthesis]

Bourgeois atheism at its finest:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=74086

"Let there be no doubt of it- at all times, in every century religions have been cradles of despotism. Massacres and expulsions, however, have no place in the enlightened mind. Let us condemn the charlatans to be jeered at. Let the most insulting blasphemy, the most atheistic works, be openly authorised, and, in six months, your infamous god will be as naught."

Though de Sade was aristocratic, his views were largely sympathetic with the Enlightenment and the French Revolution up until the Reign of Terror, both bourgeois phenomena.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 09, 2007 11:26 am
Bourgeois atheism at its finest:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=74086

"Let there be no doubt of it- at all times, in every century religions have been cradles of despotism. Massacres and expulsions, however, have no place in the enlightened mind. Let us condemn the charlatans to be jeered at. Let the most insulting blasphemy, the most atheistic works, be openly authorised, and, in six months, your infamous god will be as naught."


That quote does have some truth to it - though, I've only read it once, and thought about it for about 10 seconds, so meh.
Doesn't it merely outline that religion is a total farce - and the cause for so much injustice and murder, and that when the truth is spread, god is dead (zing!).

And that is true. For example, many of the schools here in Australia back in early days of colonization were about "civilizing" Indigenous folk into Christianity, and abandoning their "inferior" traditional cultures. The cultural genocide that followed was a religious action, not necessarily a capitalist one.

What needs to be recognized is that it's not solely a result of capitalism or imperialism, but a combination of various reactionary tendencies, and economic policies (and the general economic organization of various nation states - namely, imperialist states), which are the cause.
To blame it solely on capitalism or religion is incorrect, for both, and more, are to blame.

[black magick hustla]

Historically, working class anarchists like Durruti and Flores Magon had this thing you called "bourgeois atheism".

Idealism is completely ruling class, because it demands the subjugation of the data we can collect through our senses to a "world" that can only be accessed through either "spirituality" or ultra-rationalization.

When the ruling class argues that the idea of god or the nation are too complex for us normal people to understand, they can abuse it to safeguard their position. This has been always the case.


Fuck the clerical "vermin", as Vaneigem would call them.

[synthesis]

Historically, working class anarchists like Durruti and Flores Magon had this thing you called "bourgeois atheism".

No, it was not bourgeois atheism, because they were proletarian and recognized that class conflict was a more pressing issue than the abolition of religion. If they seemed particularly militant in their atheism, recognize that Mexico and Spain were still very religious societies where the clergy itself still had a strong hand in the ruling class.



Idealism is completely ruling class, because it demands the subjugation of the data we can collect through our senses to a "world" that can only be accessed through either "spirituality" or ultra-rationalization.

An inherently ludicrous argument; not all idealism originates from the ruling class, nor does all idealism benefit the ruling class. Not all idealism is consciously idealist; that's partially why I am trying to expose this tendency towards bourgeois atheism amongst the left, so it can be identified and eliminated.


When the ruling class argues that the idea of god or the nation are too complex for us normal people to understand, they can abuse it to safeguard their position. This has been always the case.

This proves my point more than it does yours, because as you noted, once "God" is eliminated as a source of justification, it can be replaced with the "nation," the "race," or "tradition." "God" in and of itself means nothing out of context.


Fuck the clerical "vermin", as Vaneigem would call them.

Yes, abolish the clergy; that is the materialist perspective. To focus on the abolition of religion in and of itself is an idealist perspective.


Doesn't it merely outline that religion is a total farce

No, it posits that religion is more of a source of conflict and suffering than material conditions.



And that is true. For example, many of the schools here in Australia back in early days of colonization were about "civilizing" Indigenous folk into Christianity, and abandoning their "inferior" traditional cultures. The cultural genocide that followed was a religious action, not necessarily a capitalist one.

Consider the benefits of assimilating the indigenous people into the conquering religion and culture in terms of removing a source of conflict that could create dissent.

Let me put it very simply: If you believe that the source of these conflicts was in ideas and perceptions ("civilization", "inferior peoples") rather than in conditions (imperialism, colonialism, etc) then you are an idealist.

Make sense?

[Bilan]

No, it posits that religion is more of a source of conflict and suffering than material conditions.

Contextually, that has an element of truth, and also elements of inaccuracy. Religion, historically, has been a large source of conflict. To deny that is to be ignorant. To argue it's the sole purpose is incorrect, too.
I'm not saying the quote is perfect or "right", but it's not as inaccurate as you're portraying it to be.



Consider the benefits of assimilating the indigenous people into the conquering religion and culture in terms of removing a source of conflict that could create dissent.

I'll consider it, and spit on bullshit reasoning to rob people of culture.
There's a difference between rejecting idealism and mysticism, and forcing people to adopt yours.
Indigenous "religion" in Australia is a completely different thing to European religion, and was hardly a source of conflict - unlike many other reasons here.

And as history shows us, there clearly have been no benefits totaking away indigenous culture - infact, it's done a fuckload of damage to those people.



Let me put it very simply: If you believe that the source of these conflicts was in ideas and perceptions ("civilization", "inferior peoples") rather than in conditions (imperialism, colonialism, etc) then you are an idealist.

You paint as if it's one or the other.
It's not. It's both.

[synthesis]

Here are the plain facts.

Bourgeois atheism posits that religion is an evil in and of itself with a total disregard for material conditions. This is idealism.

It is also not in line with Marxist materialism. Marx recognized the material origins of religion and did not share the irrational, idealist conception that the left should view religion as a force independent of class analysis.


Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

[synthesis]

I'll consider it, and spit on bullshit reasoning to rob people of culture.
There's a difference between rejecting idealism and mysticism, and forcing people to adopt yours.
Indigenous "religion" in Australia is a completely different thing to European religion, and was hardly a source of conflict - unlike many other reasons here.

And as history shows us, there clearly have been no benefits totaking away indigenous culture - infact, it's done a fuckload of damage to those people.

My use of "benefit" was clearly referring to the benefit of the ruling class, not society as a whole. And as for the quote, I argue that its obsessive focus on religious conflict is bourgeois, as it ignores the superlative role of conditions in creating religious conflict.

[Bilan]

It is also not in line with Marxist materialism. Marx recognized the material origins of religion and did not share the irrational, idealist conception that the left should view religion as a force independent of class analysis.

Dogmatism rots your brain.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 09, 2007 12:26 pm


My use of "benefit" was clearly referring to the benefit of the ruling class, not society as a whole. And as for the quote, I argue that its obsessive focus on religious conflict is bourgeois, as it ignores the superlative role of conditions in creating religious conflict.
That only holds elements of truth, and is a blatant assumption on what the colonization of Australia was like, and it's motivations.
It has truth, but is not the truth.

The theft and destruction of Indigenous culture and religion had as much to do with ethnocentrism and religious arrogance as it did to with serving the interests of the ruling class.
Just because it's done by the ruling class doesn't mean it is only to serve class ends. That is void of all relation to reality, and the interests of the ruling class itself.

[black magick hustla]

Actually, left wing anarchism has always had as its maxim "no gods, no masters". They always understood that class struggle is extremely important, but to them, class struggle was not something just in the concrete, it was a struggle against all sorts of masters, including "spiritual" ones.

All idealism is inherently ruling class--regardless of how "consciously" it is idealism. It doesn't matter that workers or peasants embrace idealism, because that idealism has been generally, manufactured and processed by different ruling classes.


Natioanlism is idealist, because it demands the submission of the material to an "idea" of the nation.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 08, 2007 07:29 pm

It is also not in line with Marxist materialism. Marx recognized the material origins of religion and did not share the irrational, idealist conception that the left should view religion as a force independent of class analysis.

Dogmatism rots your brain.
An excellent counter-argument.

I actually considered adding a parenthetical statement stating that it's not true just because Marx said it, as I disagree with many of Marx's opinions; the point was that Marx is materialist and that he, too, would find fault with these tendencies towards anti-religious idealism.

[synthesis]

The theft and destruction of Indigenous culture and religion had as much to do with ethnocentrism and religious arrogance as it did to with serving the interests of the ruling class.

Yet without colonialism and imperialism, ethnocentrism and religious arrogance would have never been able to have those effects.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ+December 09, 2007 01:04 pm--> (Kun Fanâ @ December 09, 2007 01:04 pm)
Proper Tea is [email protected] 08, 2007 07:29 pm

It is also not in line with Marxist materialism. Marx recognized the material origins of religion and did not share the irrational, idealist conception that the left should view religion as a force independent of class analysis.

Dogmatism rots your brain.
An excellent counter-argument.

I actually considered adding a parenthetical statement stating that it's not true just because Marx said it, as I disagree with many of Marx's opinions; the point was that Marx is materialist and that he, too, would find fault with these tendencies towards anti-religious idealism. [/b]
It wasn't a counter argument to your point, it was a point about your - or what appeared to be - dogmatic tendencies, which, as I said, rot ones brain.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 09, 2007 01:05 pm


The theft and destruction of Indigenous culture and religion had as much to do with ethnocentrism and religious arrogance as it did to with serving the interests of the ruling class.

Yet without colonialism and imperialism, ethnocentrism and religious arrogance would have never been able to have those effects.
Yep.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What bourgeois atheism proposes is that the evils perpetrated by religious historical actors can be solely reduced to religious origins without regard for materialist analysis; bourgeois atheism, in and of itself, is a product of the conflicts between the emerging bourgeois and the clerical institutions in the Enlightenment era.

Religious fundamentalists would not kill homosexuals if their holy books didn't either A) tell them to or B) describe them as an evil abomination. they would not kill people of other religions if their holy books did not do as stated before.

Why else would they do such things?


Bourgeois atheism denies material conditions in its obsessive need to invalidate religion. Bourgeois atheists, for example, deny that the attack on the World Trade Center had a material basis in indirect Western imperialism in the region through support for Israel, various military dictatorships, and corrupt capitalist democracies.

Do you seriously believe that a non-religious terrorist group would hijack two planes and divert them into a major landmark, taking themselves and the passengers with them?

The causes of terrorist acts may or may not be religious (debatable - the whole Israel/Palestine issue is heavily intermixed with religion), but the methodology of the terrorist acts is certainly motivated by religion. Does the word "martyrdom" mean anything to you?

How many atheist suicide bombers can you count?


Bourgeois atheists deny that the Crusades had a material basis in the desire of the European ruling class to seize land and eliminate trade rivals. They deny that the Israel-Palestine conflict has a basis in Zionist colonialism in the 19th century. They deny the role of British imperialism in the Irish troubles.

"Bourgeouis" atheists are not the monolithic group you seem to painting them as. Which atheists are saying that the world's evils come wholly from religion? Certainly not Dawkins, as he freely admits that religion is not the only cause of evil in the world.


What bourgeois atheists propose is that these destructive events can be wholly eliminated through the abolition of religion, completely denying the role of conditions in engendering conflict.

Wrong. What "bourgeouis" (nice little ad hominem you have there) propose is that the abolishment of religion will lead to the complete elimination of religion-based problems.


As Marxists, we should know better. It's time to abandon the irrational, bourgeois obsession with assaulting religion at all levels that has become such an obstacle to facilitating progress in Western society, and replace it with legitimate materialist analysis.

In other words, let's forget about taking human irrationality head-on and instead sit around in little Marxist cliques that nobody otuside of them gives a fuck about and masturbate furiously to Marx and Lenin. Or failing that, make like the SWP and accept donations from rich Islamic fundies.

OPs like thone above are recipes for circle jerks and capitulation. Fuck that noise.

[synthesis]

Wrong. What "bourgeouis" (nice little ad hominem you have there) propose is that the abolishment of religion will lead to the complete elimination of religion-based problems.

And what bourgeois atheists fail to recognize is that religious problems can be perpetuated if the conditions persist even if religion is abolished.

9/11 used religion as a vehicle to protest Western imperialism, despite the atrocious nature of the protest. It only took the form of religious conflict; its substance was something else entirely. To propose that it was caused by the rift between Islam and Christianity is idealist and indicative of bourgeois atheism.

The Crusades used religion as a vehicle to seize territory and eliminate trade rivals. It only took the form of religious conflict; its substance was something else entirely. To propose that the Irish troubles were solely caused by the rift between Catholicism and Protestantism is idealist and indicative of bourgeois atheism.


Which atheists are saying that the world's evils come wholly from religion? Certainly not Dawkins, as he freely admits that religion is not the only cause of evil in the world.

LOL, well, that's definitely not what you're going to get from the quote above. According to Dawkins, things like 9/11, the Crusades, and the Israel/Palestine conflict would never happen if it were not for religion - idealist, as it places the blame on an idea or series of ideas, and bourgeois, as it denies the central role of ruling classes in perpetrating imperialism.



In other words, let's forget about taking wage slavery head-on and instead sit around in little cliques that nobody otuside of them gives a fuck about and talk about how bad the Inquisitions were. Or failing that, make like Christopher Hitchens and abandon the leftist movement entirely to focus more properly on shaking your fist against religion.


I totally agree with you ;)

[manic expression]

The bourgeoisie has always been areligious for the most part. Protestantism was so loose in terms of economics it didn't matter, so that sort of identity could be sustained without trouble.

When James Connolly wrote about socialism and religion, he noted that basically all of the "freethinker" philosophers of the 19th Century were incredibly reactionary and pro-capitalist.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+December 08, 2007 08:08 pm--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ December 08, 2007 08:08 pm)
Kun Fanâ@December 09, 2007 01:05 pm


The theft and destruction of Indigenous culture and religion had as much to do with ethnocentrism and religious arrogance as it did to with serving the interests of the ruling class.

Yet without colonialism and imperialism, ethnocentrism and religious arrogance would have never been able to have those effects.
Yep. [/b]
There could certainly be a legitimate synthesis between the two, because people's views definitely influence their actions. But the focus is key, Bourgeois atheism is idealist and positions religion as an equal or greater enemy than class conflict, whereas proletarian atheism should examine the conditions first.

I argue that it is a bourgeois distraction to promote form over substance. Nowhere is this more evident than with the case of Christopher Hitchens, whose upbringing was as bourgeois as it gets. He was a Trot until relatively recently, when he split with the movement over the issue of Islam.

In 1976, he praised the "revolutionary ideology" of Saddam Hussein's party in Iraq; in 2004, after the split, he argued in favor of the American war on Iraq and was claiming that George W. Bush had "objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled."

This is bourgeois atheism. And it's a problem in the Left that must be addressed.

[synthesis]

Do you seriously believe that a non-religious terrorist group would hijack two planes and divert them into a major landmark, taking themselves and the passengers with them?

The causes of terrorist acts may or may not be religious (debatable - the whole Israel/Palestine issue is heavily intermixed with religion), but the methodology of the terrorist acts is certainly motivated by religion. Does the word "martyrdom" mean anything to you?

How many atheist suicide bombers can you count?

Well, there's the Tamil Tigers, who are a secular nationalist organization, and actually originated the terrorist technique of the suicide belt in 1991. There's also the Japanese Red Army, who killed about two dozen civilians in an Israeli airport in 1975.

But I think you might be missing the point. Suicide attacks only caught on after 1983, when the Beirut suicide bombings drove international forces from the city. There were approximately a hundred times more bombings in 2005 than the average for the 1980's (460 vs. 4.7)

In other words, they only caught on when their efficiency was proven.


Pape's Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005) controverts many widely held beliefs about suicide terrorism. Based on an analysis of every known case of suicide terrorism from 1980 to 2005, he concludes that there is "little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions... . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland" (p. 4). "The taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism," he argues; it is "an extreme strategy for national liberation" (pp. 79-80). Pape's work examines groups as diverse as the Basque ETA to the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0901425_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/09/AR2005070901425_pf.html)

[RedStarOverChina]

There is no such a thing called "Bourgeoisie atheism" or "Proletariat atheism". Atheism is atheism. And opposition against religion is always welcomed, even if it comes from the Bourgeoisie.

Calling them "bourgeoisie" is merely a pathetic attempt to divert attention away from the "God" issue.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 08, 2007 06:36 pm
As Marxists, we should know better. It's time to abandon the irrational, bourgeois obsession with assaulting religion at all levels that has become such an obstacle to facilitating progress in Western society, and replace it with legitimate materialist analysis.
What an absurd assertion.

Since when is criticizing religion "Bourgeoisie"? "Legitimate materialist analysis" suggests that religion is and always has been enemies of the oppressed and enemies of us.

In fact, we are still "at war" with religion. They are mounting waves after waves of attack against the movement, and you just come out of nowhere and suggest we lay down and die??? Ask them for forgiveness??? Renounce our "sinful" past???

What kind of a "leftist" are you? :angry:

[synthesis]

Well, here's the fundamental contradiction in plain view.

I believe that you are diverting attention from class conflict by focusing primarily on religion.

You believe that I am diverting attention from religion by focusing on the class conflict, as evinced by your advocation of collusion with the bourgeoisie against religion - not religious institutions, mind you, but religion.

To assert that the ANC should have allied with the white ruling class in South Africa against Desmond Tutu and the Anglican Church, which opposed apartheid, would be inherently ridiculous, and I would argue it to be a clear case of bourgeois atheism.

Yet you disagree. You argue that I am trying to divide atheists by questioning their focus on class conflict. The clear indication is that you advocate bourgeois atheism yet resent the application of the name to yourself. Do you have a better label for someone who places the struggle against religion - again, not religious institutions, just religion - above the struggle against capitalism?

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 09, 2007 10:19 pm
I believe that you are diverting attention from class conflict by focusing primarily on religion.
Bollocks.

The struggle against religion is an integral and essential part of the struggle against capitalism.


You believe that I am diverting attention from religion by focusing on the class conflict, as evinced by your advocation of collusion with the bourgeoisie against religion - not religious institutions, mind you, but religion.

So you have officially concluded that purporting atheism is "colluding with the Bourgeoisie". :lol:

This is a mockery of logic.

You reached this ludicrous conclusion because you assumed atheism or any kind of challenge against religion is "Bourgeois"--Therefore anyone who denounces religion is "colluding with the Bourgeoisie".

If Atheism is "Bourgeois", is Christianity or Islam "Proletarian"? :wacko:

I wouldn't be surprised if you have already reached that conclusion.

But we all know that’s preposterous.

Like I said before, atheism is not a "class-related phenomenon", at least not today. It is merely the rejection of reactionary superstition. You invented the phrase "Bourgeoisie atheism" to confuse people and unfortunately, many fell for it.

The Bourgeoisie as a whole is no longer hostile towards religion...Religion live in almost perfect harmony with the capitalist ruling class under modern capitalism. In fact, in most countries religion is considered a "pillar" to the capitalist rule...Because religion fundamentally supports free-market capitalism, where "religious freedom" is permitted. It's considered the "second best thing" next to theocracy.

In a very clear and very real sense, modern religion is Bourgeoisie with a hint of feudalism.

It is a false dilemma you have presented. You tried to antagonize the struggle against religion with the struggle against capitalism, whereas in reality they are one and the same movement.

In fact, I would argue atheism and the struggle against religion is the most important and fundamental part to the Proletariat movement. Marx refused to participate in the “League of the Just” until it trashes Christianity for that exact reason.

99% of the religionists support the status quo and opposes the left, and the rest push for feudal theocracy. For every Desmond Tutu (one of the "better ones" who, as expected, is fervently anti-communist) there are 1,000 pro-Pinochet priests--and they have been and will always be the enemies genuine leftists face.

There is no way a communist revolution will ever happen as long as these people have an influence. In other words, it is a struggle to the death in which leftists must prevail. I see any attempts to defend these fuckers as an assault against the left.

[RevSkeptic]

"Our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name"

People need a father figure.

Which means establishing a chairman or general secretary to be "our father"

And have the "children" hallow his name.

"It will be done on Earth as it will be in Heaven"

Which means after doing everything you can on Earth and teaching the "children" the basic ways of survival, the worthy chosen few will fly away into heaven in their sky chariots. :lol:

[synthesis]

So you have officially concluded that purporting atheism is "colluding with the Bourgeoisie".

No, YOU concluded that colluding with the bourgeoisie was preferable to colluding with religion - obviously an anti-proletarian position in places like South Africa.

This is bourgeois atheism - siding with the bourgeoisie against religion.



If Atheism is "Bourgeois", is Christianity or Islam "Proletarian"?

No, atheism is not inherently bourgeois, and I never claimed this to be the case. If you are not stubbornly ignorant then this is a laughable attempt to distort my critique of the bourgeois atheism that you share with many other posters on this board.

Rather, I divided atheism into several categories, one of which is bourgeois atheism. This stands in contrast to proletarian atheism, which is atheist insofar as it attempts to challenge religious institutions which aid the bourgeoisie in class conflict.



Like I said before, atheism is not a "class-related phenomenon", at least not today. It is merely the rejection of reactionary superstition.

It is most certainly a class-related phenomenon when you seek to place the struggle against religion above the struggle against capitalism, which is clearly what you are doing here.



The Bourgeoisie as a whole is no longer hostile towards religion

They are no longer quite as hostile towards Christianity as they once were; they still openly promote Islam as the sole source of Europe's problems.

This is bourgeois atheism/secularism and functions to divide the working class on a basis of religion.



The struggle against religion is an integral and essential part of the struggle against capitalism.

It is not "integral and essential" until religious institutions come into play. As Marx put it, the struggle against religion is the struggle against "that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."



In a very clear and very real sense, modern religion is Bourgeoisie with a hint of feudalism.

No, modern religious institutions are bourgeois. There is a difference which you refuse to accept.


You invented the phrase "Bourgeoisie atheism" to confuse people and unfortunately, many fell for it.

I did not invent this phrase; you can google it if you wish to learn the history of the Marxist critique of bourgeois atheism.

I wanted to bring attention to the concept because I see very real bourgeois-atheistic tendencies amongst the left today, which has the very real consequence of dividing the movement.

One can plainly see the role of bourgeois atheism in Christopher Hitchens' conversion from Trotskyite to neo-conservative on the basis of Islam. He openly views collusion with the bourgeoisie as a necessity in combating the greater evil of Islam; this is bourgeois atheism.

It posits that we should side with the bourgeoisie at the expense of the Muslim working classes; this is bourgeois atheism.

And it is a threat to the leftist movement in a time of Western imperialism in the Islamic world.

[apathy maybe]

I do intend to respond to this thread in more depth, but not just now.

Anyway, didn't Marx say that Religion was on the side of the ruling class? You know? In other words, that the opiate was simply a method of keeping the workers down? Or is that a misrememberence of that quote...


Anyway, fuck religion. I agree with those who have said that religion is an enemy of any revolution. (Or at the least, organised religion.)

[synthesis]

My central argument is not that atheism is inherently bourgeois, as the ignorant would have you believe, but merely that atheism has the capacity to be bourgeois when it supersedes anti-capitalism.

This is rapidly becoming an issue in the left today, when people must choose whether it is more important to oppose capitalism or Islam. I argue that for a leftist to posit Islam, or religion in general, as a greater enemy than capitalism is purely bourgeois atheism/secularism and serves to divert attention from class conflict.


I agree with those who have said that religion is an enemy of any revolution.

Then historically, you are wrong. More right than wrong, but still wrong. Sorry.

[KC]

You paint as if it's one or the other.
It's not. It's both.

Ideology manifests itself from the environment in which one lives and develops.


The theft and destruction of Indigenous culture and religion had as much to do with ethnocentrism and religious arrogance as it did to with serving the interests of the ruling class.

All forms of colonialist domination during the early imperialist period had their real roots in material conditions and their rationalization in ideology.


It wasn't a counter argument to your point, it was a point about your - or what appeared to be - dogmatic tendencies, which, as I said, rot ones brain.

How was it dogmatic?


Religious fundamentalists would not kill homosexuals if their holy books didn't either A) tell them to or B) describe them as an evil abomination. they would not kill people of other religions if their holy books did not do as stated before.

Why else would they do such things?

Homophobia is a further division of the working class that pits worker against worker and helps maintain subservience to the capitalist class.


Do you seriously believe that a non-religious terrorist group would hijack two planes and divert them into a major landmark, taking themselves and the passengers with them?

The causes of terrorist acts may or may not be religious (debatable - the whole Israel/Palestine issue is heavily intermixed with religion), but the methodology of the terrorist acts is certainly motivated by religion. Does the word "martyrdom" mean anything to you?

You are looking at this from an individualist point of view and not viewing the picture in its entirety. Religion inevitably manifests itself because of the material conditions in which these people live and develop. Because of that, one cannot divorce religion from the class struggle, as religion has its basis in the class struggle and is reproduced and maintained through that struggle and not the other way around.


Wrong. What "bourgeouis" (nice little ad hominem you have there) propose is that the abolishment of religion will lead to the complete elimination of religion-based problems.

Which, of course, is impossible, and is the same argument used by feminists (that the "problem of sexism" in itself (i.e. divorced from the class struggle)should be focused on and fought against as to eliminate all problems caused by it), those combatting racism, and all other groups involved in identity politics. None of these issues can be divorced from the class struggle, as they all have their roots in the class struggle.


There is no such a thing called "Bourgeoisie atheism" or "Proletariat atheism". Atheism is atheism. And opposition against religion is always welcomed, even if it comes from the Bourgeoisie.

You certainly didn't read this, and if you did you completely failed to comprehend the arguments contained therein. And then you go on to make such an outrageous claim that "atheism is atheism, and should be welcomed even if it comes from the bourgeoisie".

The same logic has been used in the past in the proletarian movement with numerous other subjects with disastrous results. Your position reeks of conciliation.


What an absurd assertion.

Since when is criticizing religion "Bourgeoisie"? "Legitimate materialist analysis" suggests that religion is and always has been enemies of the oppressed and enemies of us.

What an immature thing to say. Religion isn't any different than any other ideology that manifests itself in capitalist society; religion is a bourgeois ideology that is created and perpetuated through the reproduction of capitalist relations and bourgeois class dominance. Attacking such an ideology in itself does nothing but alienate those which adhere to that ideology.

The argument for attacking religion, of course, is that religious ideology has a stranglehold on the working class, which will be "liberated" from its material conditions through revolution only once this ideology is dismantled. It is an ultimately idealist analysis.

Does this suggest the other extreme, as NoXion mentioned? Of course not! He has merely constructed a straw man of the Marxist analysis of religion using the "Socialist" "Workers" Party alliance with anti-working class individuals and organizations.

Thus, the question, as always, boils down to what is in the class interests of the proletariat, and what is the best method in dealing with ideological issues such as religion in educating and organizing the proletariat? It is quite obvious that a workers' party shouldn't ally itself with anti-working class organizations or individuals except in such circumstances where it is strategically advantageous, but it should also be obvious that a religious organization that is supportive of working class interests should be considered an ally (and certainly shouldn't be rejected simply on the basis that they are religious).

The same obviously applies on the individual level; workers should not be turned away because they are religious (the movement would get nowhere with such intellectual purism) but at the same time those that are anti-working class should, regardless of whether or not they are religious.

Marxists should critique religion, but they should do so based on a materialist analysis.


Like I said before, atheism is not a "class-related phenomenon", at least not today.

It most certainly is; you just can't recognize it because you are supportive of an idealist notion of atheism, which you obviously don't want to realize.


In a very clear and very real sense, modern religion is Bourgeoisie with a hint of feudalism.

You say this as if religion is a "special" ideology separate from bourgeois ideology as a whole.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+December 09, 2007 02:49 am--> (ComradeRed @ December 09, 2007 02:49 am)
Originally posted by Edric O+December 08, 2007 04:24 pm--> (Edric O @ December 08, 2007 04:24 pm)I agree completely. In fact, I am beginning to worry that liberal bourgeois politicians will begin to use anti-religious idealism as a means to draw support away from the revolutionary left. "Don't listen to those silly Marxists," they will say, "there is no imperialism; wars are not caused by capitalist class relations; it is all religion's fault! Religion, not capitalism or objective economic conditions, is to blame for all the world's ills and all the world's violence."

Bourgeois atheism is an attempt to divert the attention of the working class away from the real enemy and towards an idealist interpretation of the world.[/b]
Where in the world is this happening?

Seriously, if you actually look at U$ bourgeois politicians, they trumpet themselves as the most religious candidate. [/b]
Notice how I opened my statement with "I am beginning to worry that..." I was speculating on what might happen in the near future if present trends continue.


Originally posted by ComradeRed
In the U$, 97.5% of the population are Christians, and 75% believe that Jesus is the son of "God". So where in the hell are these "atheistic workers"?
In Europe. Only about 50% of EU citizens say they believe in a god. In some countries it's as low as 20-30%. Yet I don't see European capitalism collapsing any time soon.


Originally posted by ComradeRed
More importantly, where are these "atheistic" bourgeois politicians?
In Europe. Read these statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_European_Union#Religiosity), for example.


Originally posted by ComradeRed
Further, Edric O's assertion that an "anti-religious" stance is idealistic confuses the very meaning of materialism with idealism.
I did not say that any anti-religious stance is idealistic. I said that one particular anti-religious stance - the one prevalent among atheists today - is idealistic. I am talking about the view that religion and religion alone, with no help from material conditions or class interests, is supposedly responsible for such things as imperialism, discrimination and war.


Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft
The theft and destruction of Indigenous culture and religion had as much to do with ethnocentrism and religious arrogance as it did to with serving the interests of the ruling class.
Are you suggesting that imperialists would have been more gentle and considerate towards the people they enslaved in the absence of religion?


[email protected]
It is a false dilemma you have presented. You tried to antagonize the struggle against religion with the struggle against capitalism, whereas in reality they are one and the same movement.
Really? So what happens when you have anti-capitalist religious people or anti-religious capitalists? (Ayn Rand, Richard Dawkins) Do you just pretend they don't exist?

To say that the struggle against religion and the struggle against capitalism are "one and the same" is idiotic, given that:

1. If religion vanished tomorrow, the means of production would still be in the exact same capitalist hands where they are today.
2. If capitalism vanished tomorrow, people wouldn't spontaneously stop believing in God.

It is possible to have capitalism without religion (see the secular countries of Northwest Europe) and religion without capitalism (see every pre-capitalist society that ever existed, including primitive communism).


RedStarOverChina
Like I said before, atheism is not a "class-related phenomenon", at least not today.
AND THAT IS PRECISELY THE POINT.

Since atheism is not class-related; since atheism is neither inherently proletarian nor inherently bourgeois; since atheism can and has been embraced by revolutionaries and reactionaries alike, it follows that the promotion of atheism can bring no tangible benefit to the working class. Atheism is neutral with regards to class interests. Why should you spend so much energy promoting something that is neither inherently good nor inherently bad for the working class?

There are more atheists in the world today than at any time in the past 2000 years at least - possibly more atheists than ever before in history. Yet the revolutionary left is experiencing one of its lowest points since the early 20th century. Clearly the advance of atheism has done NOTHING to help the revolutionary cause; therefore all those comrades who still imagine that atheism helps the working class are very sadly mistaken.

[Bilan]

Ideology manifests itself from the environment in which one lives and develops.

Yes.


All forms of colonialist domination during the early imperialist period had their real roots in material conditions and their rationalization in ideology.

Yes.



How was it dogmatic?

Did you even read it?


Are you suggesting that imperialists would have been more gentle and considerate towards the people they enslaved in the absence of religion?

No, I'm suggesting it would've been different, and it's legitimacy would've decreased in the eyes of the 'general public', for it could no longer be 'gods will', but theirs.

[KC]

Did you even read it?

Of course I did, and what he said was completely true.


No, I'm suggesting it would've been different, and it's legitimacy would've decreased in the eyes of the 'general public', for it could no longer be 'gods will', but theirs.

Fantasizing about class society absent of religion is as productive as fantasizing about capitalism without capitalists.

[Dean]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+December 10, 2007 03:15 am--> (RedStarOverChina @ December 10, 2007 03:15 am)
Kun Fanâ@December 08, 2007 06:36 pm
As Marxists, we should know better. It's time to abandon the irrational, bourgeois obsession with assaulting religion at all levels that has become such an obstacle to facilitating progress in Western society, and replace it with legitimate materialist analysis.
What an absurd assertion.

Since when is criticizing religion "Bourgeoisie"? "Legitimate materialist analysis" suggests that religion is and always has been enemies of the oppressed and enemies of us. [/b]
He's not talking about criticism, but of "assault." And I think he's right; there is a difference between criticising religion and mocking people who are religious.




In fact, we are still "at war" with religion. They are mounting waves after waves of attack against the movement, and you just come out of nowhere and suggest we lay down and die??? Ask them for forgiveness??? Renounce our "sinful" past???

What kind of a "leftist" are you? :angry:

I don't care how immoral people want to think I am. So long as I can be a commnist and build said society, the other things lose meaning. Some religious people have problems with that idea, and some don't; why assume they do just because they're relgious? To make more enemies? We're already atheists; we can't do anythign else for the religious people but show them they're wrong, unless we want to be just as bad as all the tyrants in history.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And what bourgeois atheists fail to recognize is that religious problems can be perpetuated if the conditions persist even if religion is abolished.


Without religion, what is the motivation for homophobia? I hardly think religious bigots hate homosexuals and those of other religions because of their dress sense.


9/11 used religion as a vehicle to protest Western imperialism, despite the atrocious nature of the protest. It only took the form of religious conflict; its substance was something else entirely. To propose that it was caused by the rift between Islam and Christianity is idealist and indicative of bourgeois atheism.

Israel is the Promised Land - without religion telling people that, more options would be on the table, and people would be more willing to acommodate. But because God almighty said that land was theirs, there is absolutely no room for discussion or compromise.


To propose that the Irish troubles were solely caused by the rift between Catholicism and Protestantism is idealist and indicative of bourgeois atheism.

The people of Northern Ireland are of the same ethnicity, speak the same language, and hold similar cultural values. The only thing that really differentiates them is their religion. Mere difference of political opinion (loyalist and republican etc) do not produce the deep hatreds spanning generations that we get in NI. Schooling in NI is not segregated along political lines (since children can hardly be said to have developed sophisticated political opinions), but along religious ones. Such segregated schooling only serves to maintain the divide between Protestant and Catholic.

Because religion is involved, compromise is difficult if not impossible, as in the case of Israel v Palestine. Religion is far from incidental in both cases.


LOL, well, that's definitely not what you're going to get from the quote above. According to Dawkins, things like 9/11, the Crusades, and the Israel/Palestine conflict would never happen if it were not for religion - idealist, as it places the blame on an idea or series of ideas, and bourgeois, as it denies the central role of ruling classes in perpetrating imperialism.

No, 9/11 happened because the US supports Israel. Why does the US support Israel? Because there is a popular train of thought in the US that believes once the Kingdom of Heaven is restored, Jesus will return to Earth.

You say imperialism, but tell me what exactly does the US stand to gain in real terms from supporting Israel? It would be much easier and cheaper for the US to directly colonise the Middle East instead of subsiding some Zionist's wet dream.
No, they are doing it the way they are doing it because God tells them so.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:52 pm
You bring up some good points. However, I do think that the epic scale of some conquests of the past would not have been made possible without the aid of irrational religious fervor, obviously.
it was irrational religous fervour which caused great impedance to mankind's progress. Had the catholic church has its way, it would continue to have us believe that the bubonic plague was 'caused by witches' and that the Sun orbits the Earth. Arguably, it also set the way for international economic disparity, what with the crusades which decimated the progresses made by the islamic world.
Sorry if these points have been brought up, but i couldnt be arsed to check first.
:P

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I argue that it is a bourgeois distraction to promote form over substance. Nowhere is this more evident than with the case of Christopher Hitchens, whose upbringing was as bourgeois as it gets. He was a Trot until relatively recently, when he split with the movement over the issue of Islam.

In 1976, he praised the "revolutionary ideology" of Saddam Hussein's party in Iraq; in 2004, after the split, he argued in favor of the American war on Iraq and was claiming that George W. Bush had "objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled."

This is bourgeois atheism. And it's a problem in the Left that must be addressed.

Christopher Hitchens is one atheist among many. Criticising all atheists on the basis of his actions is entirely unreasonable.

Kinda like tarring the entire leftist movement with the same one used on Stalin ;)


Originally posted by Zampano+--> (Zampano)Homophobia is a further division of the working class that pits worker against worker and helps maintain subservience to the capitalist class.[/b]

It may serve that function, but it is down to you to prove that homophobia is/was encouraged for that purpose. All I've seen is that homophobia is condemned by bigots as "unnatural" or "an abomination in the eyes of the Lord" or some other religious/quasi-religious absurdity.

You must remember that not everyone thinks in terms of class war.


You are looking at this from an individualist point of view and not viewing the picture in its entirety. Religion inevitably manifests itself because of the material conditions in which these people live and develop. Because of that, one cannot divorce religion from the class struggle, as religion has its basis in the class struggle and is reproduced and maintained through that struggle and not the other way around.

And you are talking bollocks. People are overwhelmingly the same religion as their parents. People raised in the same material conditions have different religions. Generally people are religious because they're taught as children to be religious.


Which, of course, is impossible, and is the same argument used by feminists (that the "problem of sexism" in itself (i.e. divorced from the class struggle)should be focused on and fought against as to eliminate all problems caused by it), those combatting racism, and all other groups involved in identity politics. None of these issues can be divorced from the class struggle, as they all have their roots in the class struggle.

Tell me, what exactly is the "class struggle" occurring in the Creationism v Evolution controversy? Class struggle, while important, is not the be all and end all of everything - some things transcend even class.

Universalising a single aspect of life is a classic symptom of a fundamentalist mindset. For religious fundamentalists, it's devotion to God. For Marxist fundamentalists, it's trying to fit every single social phenomenon under that aegis of Marxist theory.


Dean
He's not talking about criticism, but of "assault." And I think he's right; there is a difference between criticising religion and mocking people who are religious.

And to most religious people, criticism and mockery of their pet delusion are one and the same.


I don't care how immoral people want to think I am. So long as I can be a commnist and build said society, the other things lose meaning. Some religious people have problems with that idea, and some don't; why assume they do just because they're relgious? To make more enemies? We're already atheists; we can't do anythign else for the religious people but show them they're wrong, unless we want to be just as bad as all the tyrants in history.

There's no point in breaking the chains on our ankles if some of us refuse to break the chains in their head.

[pusher robot]

Without religion, what is the motivation for homophobia? I hardly think religious bigots hate homosexuals and those of other religions because of their dress sense.

I find it hard to believe you think most anti-homosexual sentiment is caused by religious motivation. First of all, rare is the church that preaches hatred, not pity, of homosexuals. Second, how do you account for all the secular anti-homosexual sentiment? You mean to tell me that non-religious straight young males never harbor anti-homosexual attitudes? That's plainly ridiculous.

People hate homosexuality for the same reasons they hate corpses, spiders, and halitosis: they find it disgusting.

[Vanguard1917]

Without religion, what is the motivation for homophobia?

There are forces in society which promote homophobia other than religion. Religion plays a role in reinforcing conservative attitudes in society, but not the only role, and in many societies perhaps not even the main role. In Stalinist Russia, for example, where homosexuality was outlawed in the 1930s. This had less to do with the ideological influence of organised religion, and more to do with the Stalinist social and political reaction against the gains of the revolution. Some reactionaries choose religious justifications for their actions, but by no means all.


The people of Northern Ireland are of the same ethnicity, speak the same language, and hold similar cultural values. The only thing that really differentiates them is their religion.

In a superficial sense, yes. During the Troubles Northern Irish society did indeed seem to be divided along religious lines. But underlying these divisions, and perpetuating these divisions, were very concrete political and social forces. The decisive factor in the conflict was the British state's imperialist domination and manipulation of Irish society.

There are many multi-religious societies in the world. But only under certain circumstances does this state of affairs produce conflict. We need to look beneath the surface and examine the underlying causes.

------

There seems to be this idea here that Marxism is somehow too 'soft' on religion. This is certainly not the position of Lenin, who emphasised that Marxists are hostile opponents of religion.

The Bolsheviks did not reject religious people, but they did reject religion. This was based on their correct, dialectical materialist understanding of religion, which separated them from both the bourgeois idealist radicals (who saw religion as a product of the masses' ignorance and stupidity) and the opportunists in the workers' movement (who refused to combat religion by declaring it 'a private matter').

In his very important essay The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm), Lenin argued that the struggle against religion needs to be connected with the wider class struggle :


Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the eighteenth-century Encyclopaedists or the materialism of Feuerbach. This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further than the Encyclopaedists and Feuerbach, for it applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences. We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion. Why does religion retain its hold on the backward sections of the town proletariat, on broad sections of the semi-proletariat, and on the mass of the peasantry? Because of the ignorance of the people, replies the bourgeois progressist, the radical or the bourgeois materialist. And so: “Down with religion and long live atheism; the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!” The Marxist says that this is not true, that it is a superficial view, the view of narrow bourgeois uplifters. It does not explain the roots of religion profoundly enough; it explains them, not in a materialist but in an idealist way. In modern capitalist countries these roots are mainly social. The deepest root of religion today is the socially downtrodden condition of the working masses and their apparently complete helplessness in face of the blind forces of capitalism, which every day and every hour inflicts upon ordinary working people the most horrible suffering and the most savage torment, a thousand times more severe than those inflicted by extra-ordinary events, such as wars, earthquakes, etc. “Fear made the gods.” Fear of the blind force of capital—blind because it cannot be foreseen by the masses of the people—a force which at every step in the life of the proletarian and small proprietor threatens to inflict, and does inflict “sudden”, “unexpected”, “accidental” ruin, destruction, pauperism, prostitution, death from starvation—such is the root of modern religion which the materialist must bear in mind first and foremost, if he does not want to remain an infant-school materialist. No educational book can eradicate religion from the minds of masses who are crushed by capitalist hard labour, and who are at the mercy of the blind destructive forces of capitalism, until those masses themselves learn to fight this root of religion, fight the rule of capital in all its forms, in a united, organised, planned and conscious way.

Does this mean that educational books against religion are harmful or unnecessary? No, nothing of the kind. It means that Social-Democracy’s atheist propaganda must be subordinated to its basic task—the development of the class struggle of the exploited masses against the exploiters.
...

A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could.

Lenin also attacked the opportunists' attitude towards religion - their 'interpretation of the thesis: “religion is a private matter”':


The party of the proletariat demands that the state should declare religion a private matter, but does not regard the fight against the opium of the people, the fight against religious superstitions, etc., as a “private matter”. The opportunists distort the question to mean that the Social-Democratic Party [the communist party] regards religion as a private matter!

In his article Religion and Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm), Lenin explained that the communist party must not be must not be 'indifferent to lack of class-consciousness, ignorance or obscurantism in the shape of religious beliefs'. He called for an ideological struggle against religion:


So far as the party of the socialist proletariat is concerned, religion is not a private affair. Our Party is an association of class-conscious, advanced fighters for the emancipation of the working class. Such an association cannot and must not be indifferent to lack of class-consciousness, ignorance or obscurantism in the shape of religious beliefs. We demand complete disestablishment of the Church so as to be able to combat the religious fog with purely ideo logical and solely ideological weapons, by means of our press and by word of mouth. But we founded our association, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, precisely for such a struggle against every religious bamboozling of the workers. And to us the ideological struggle is not a private affair, but the affair of the whole Party, of the whole proletariat.

Communist class consciousness is necessarily non-religious . This is in the sense that you can't have communist class consciousness while still holding religious beliefs. Religion necessarily entails non-communist consciousness. Like Lenin said, it's the 'lack of class-consciousness...in the shape of religious beliefs' (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm)).

Bolsheviks may have recruited religious members - but Bolshevism was atheistic and 'relentlessly hostile to religion'. Religious members were essentially seen as raw recruits - subject to communist education and 'the propaganda of atheism', as Lenin put it. And if a recruit started 'actively to propagate religious views in the Party, it [the party] would unquestionably have to expel him from its ranks.' The Bolsheviks 'recruit them in order to educate them in the spirit of our [Bolshevik] programme' (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm)). The Bolshevik programme is based on Marxism, which is 'an enemy of religion' (ibid).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by NoXion+December 10, 2007 05:16 pm--> (NoXion @ December 10, 2007 05:16 pm) You must remember that not everyone thinks in terms of class war.

[...]

Tell me, what exactly is the "class struggle" occurring in the Creationism v Evolution controversy? Class struggle, while important, is not the be all and end all of everything - some things transcend even class. [/b]
You are confusing a normative statement with a positive one. We Marxists do not imagine that everyone does think in terms of class war. However, we argue that members of the working class should think in terms of class war; that class interests should be one's primary political concern. (notice, by the way, that I said "primary," not "only")


Originally posted by [email protected]
Christopher Hitchens is one atheist among many. Criticising all atheists on the basis of his actions is entirely unreasonable.
No one was criticizing all atheists. No one said that all atheism was bourgeois atheism. Rather, we were criticizing some atheists, who happen to be the most influential ones at the moment.


NoXion
There's no point in breaking the chains on our ankles if some of us refuse to break the chains in their head.
Perhaps so, but the point is that the chains on our ankles and "the chains in their heads" are two very different sets of chains, and two very different processes are required in order to break them. And most of all, the point is that rather than trying to break them both at once, which requires double the effort, you should instead try to break them one at a time - starting with the more immediate problem of the chains on our ankles.

I'd also argue that your chain metaphor is very revealing indeed. "Chains in their heads" are by definition imaginary chains, and why you think it is so important to break imaginary chains is beyond me. Consider the absurdity of approaching a slave in chains and spending time to debate religion and philosophy with him instead of trying to help him escape his master: "I see that you've been beaten and chained to this wall; now let me tell you why there is no god."

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 06:31 pm
Communist class consciousness is necessarily non-religious. This is in the sense that you can't have communist class consciousness while still holding religious beliefs. Religion necessarily entails non-communist consciousness. Like Lenin said, it's the 'lack of class-consciousness...in the shape of religious beliefs'.

The Bolshevik programme is based on Marxism, which is 'an enemy of religion'.
Those are great quotes and all, but Lenin never gives an adequate reason for such statements beyond the fact that religion is idealistic and Marxism is materialistic at the philosophical level. I believe that it is possible to have a synthesis of religious idealism and Marxist materialism, but that's beside the point.

The point is, why on Earth should you imagine that people must hold the correct philosophical position in order to struggle for working class interests? There are plenty of workers who couldn't care less about philosophy but can still see their interests very clearly. Bourgeois ideology can appeal to a wide variety of philosophical justifications to support the same political policies - why can't proletarian ideology appeal to more than one philosophical justification?

While I am a Marxist, I see no reason to believe that only Marxists (or worse, only Leninists or only Maoists or whatever) can struggle for communism. We should focus more on goals and less on differences of opinion as to why we want to achieve those goals.

[KC]

Christopher Hitchens is one atheist among many. Criticising all atheists on the basis of his actions is entirely unreasonable.

He wasn't criticizing all atheists; he was criticizing those that maintain an idealist outlook on religion. You are simply constructing a straw man.


It may serve that function, but it is down to you to prove that homophobia is/was encouraged for that purpose. All I've seen is that homophobia is condemned by bigots as "unnatural" or "an abomination in the eyes of the Lord" or some other religious/quasi-religious absurdity.

You must remember that not everyone thinks in terms of class war.

It doesn't have to be directly "thought of" in terms of class war. Capitalists aren't devising these elaborate cultural conspiracies to convince everyone of homophobia, racism, sexism, etc... It is just a natural development of bourgeois society and class society in general.

And you are missing the entire point of my argument. You claim that religion in itself is the cause of such outlooks. What I am stating is that religion is the superficial cause of these outlooks and viewpoints, but the underlying forces that create and perpetuate such an ideology as religion and ultimately homophobia, sexism, etc... Are the result of class society, and in this particular epoch bourgeois society specifically.

One cannot "fight religion" without also fighting the class struggle, as they are one and the same, much in the same way that one cannot "fight imperialism" without fighting capitalism. The two are inseparable, and attempting to separate them is to detract from the real root of what creates and perpetuates these ideologies. It is reducing the class struggle to identity politics and ultimately serves the interests of the capitalists. That is why it is bourgeois atheism.


And you are talking bollocks. People are overwhelmingly the same religion as their parents. People raised in the same material conditions have different religions. Generally people are religious because they're taught as children to be religious.

Material conditions contains objective as well as subjective factors, and in denying the subjective factors as an influential force you are vulgarizing the materialist outlook. You are again creating a straw man.

Ideology manifests itself from the environment in which one develops. This obviously includes social relations with others, but certainly isn't limited to them.


Tell me, what exactly is the "class struggle" occurring in the Creationism v Evolution controversy? Class struggle, while important, is not the be all and end all of everything - some things transcend even class.

This is again an arbitrary question. The creationism vs. evolution debate has its roots in religious ideology.

[synthesis]

Religion is far from incidental in both cases.

In all cases, "religion" can be replaced with the "nation", the "race", and any other number of idealist concepts. To then focus exclusively on the idealist paradigm which the ruling class created would be parallel to bourgeois atheism.



Christopher Hitchens is one atheist among many. Criticising all atheists on the basis of his actions is entirely unreasonable.

Already addressed:

"My central argument is not that atheism is inherently bourgeois, but merely that atheism has the capacity to be bourgeois when it supersedes anti-capitalism."

Atheism is a necessary condition of materialism and of socialism; yet it can also be bourgeois in that it can be idealist and divide the working class.

I ask, why is it so much more important for the Left to alienate religious people than it is for us to abolish wage slavery?

[KC]

In all cases, "religion" can be replaced with the "nation", the "race", and any other number of idealist concepts. To then focus exclusively on the idealist paradigm which the ruling class created would be parallel to bourgeois atheism.

Actually, comrade, ideology isn't created by the ruling class but by the conditions brought about through the perpetuation of class domination. Ideology manifests itself based on the environment in which one lives. This is as true of the bourgeoisie as well as the proletariat. In other words "bourgeois ideology" isn't a conscious construct of the bourgeoisie but a natural and inevitable development of bourgeois society.

[synthesis]

I was more referring to the use of these concepts for bourgeois purposes; I didn't mean to imply that all manifestations of these ideas were inherently bourgeois.

[KC]

Alright, that's what I thought. I just wanted to clarify it.

[Dean]

Originally posted by NoXion+December 10, 2007 03:16 pm--> (NoXion @ December 10, 2007 03:16 pm)
Dean
He's not talking about criticism, but of "assault." And I think he's right; there is a difference between criticising religion and mocking people who are religious.

And to most religious people, criticism and mockery of their pet delusion are one and the same. [/b]
So we shouldn't make a distinction? If you enemy does it, do the same? Sounds pretty defeatist.



I don't care how immoral people want to think I am. So long as I can be a commnist and build said society, the other things lose meaning. Some religious people have problems with that idea, and some don't; why assume they do just because they're relgious? To make more enemies? We're already atheists; we can't do anythign else for the religious people but show them they're wrong, unless we want to be just as bad as all the tyrants in history.

There's no point in breaking the chains on our ankles if some of us refuse to break the chains in their head.
Whenever we break "chains on our ankels" we also break mental chains, and pave roads to break many more. Are you saying revolution is useless unless we can, in one fell swoop, destroy all religious belief at the same time? Is that really very reasonable?

[synthesis]

I believe it is also important to recognize that all revolutionaries who focused extensively on the need to abolish religion, such as Bolsheviks and Spanish anarchists, were products of extremely religious societies where the clergy was still a vital, repressive appendage of the ruling class.

On the other hand, to my knowledge, Mandela never openly advocated abolishing religion even when he was a committed socialist. The 10-Point Program of the Black Panthers does not contain a single mention of religion.

This is because these environments inspired progressive tendencies in the religious institutions catering to the oppressed. There was more room to associate with religious groups who wished to achieve the same purposes. Yet bourgeois atheists would have you believe that they were acquiescing to "irrationality" rather than promoting progressive unity among oppressed peoples.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 11, 2007 04:50 am
I believe it is also important to recognize that all revolutionaries who focused extensively on the need to abolish religion, such as Bolsheviks and Spanish anarchists, were products of extremely religious societies where the clergy was still a vital, repressive appendage of the ruling class.
This I why I think it's important to focus on institutional religious control, rather than religion itself. WE should let people banish their own faeries, but deal with the problems that the tale - weavers present for now.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 12:49 am
Whenever we break "chains on our ankels" we also break mental chains, and pave roads to break many more. Are you saying revolution is useless unless we can, in one fell swoop, destroy all religious belief at the same time? Is that really very reasonable?
Do you know why we don't wear literal chains on our ankles? It's because the chains that are in our brains are more powerful - they are harder to break, they are cheaper to produce (all you need is a copy of some bronze age book of myths) and even people who wish to liberate themselves and others become reticent to break them because we are conditioned to believe these chains are normal.

Fuck that.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ+December 10, 2007 02:33 am--> (Kun Fanâ @ December 10, 2007 02:33 am)

So you have officially concluded that purporting atheism is "colluding with the Bourgeoisie".

No, YOU concluded that colluding with the bourgeoisie was preferable to colluding with religion - obviously an anti-proletarian position in places like South Africa.
[/b]Wait, you are using the example of the "South African experience" to say that religion is "pro-proletariat"?

Seriously, dude, are you for real?

Any pro-religion scum with the slightest knowledge of history would avoid mentioning South Africa like the avoiding the plague.

Christianity was a major reactionary force opposing to the abolition of Apartheid until the 1970s, i think.

In the 60s, Apartheid was hailed as "the will of God" by Christian religious authorities--an uncontested view. Everyone who supported Apartheid back then was a White Christian. Of course, within about 20 years Christian churches "switched side" one by one due to outside pressure. Still, large churches such as the Dutch Reformed Church upheld Apartheid until the late 1980s.


So contrary to what you would like us to believe, religion was was not "pro-proletarian" in South Africa. It was actually one of the last pro-Apartheid domino piece to fall. Christianity was a bastion of reaction in South Africa as it is anywhere else.

And no, I did not conclude that "colluding with the bourgeoisie was preferable". YOU concluded that I concluded that "colluding with the Bourgeoisie was preferable". Criticizing/attacking religion is NOT colluding with the Bourgeoisie. Religion is colluding with the Bourgeoisie against us.



This is bourgeois atheism - siding with the bourgeoisie against religion.
Yeah, if you criticize slavery in the Confederate States of America you are siding with the United States.

Following that logic, aren't you siding with the religious against us communists?



This stands in contrast to proletarian atheism, which is atheist insofar as it attempts to challenge religious institutions which aid the bourgeoisie in class conflict.
So according to you, "proletariat atheism" only attacks religious institution and not religion itself? What kind of douchebagery is this? Religion is against homosexuality, against women's rights, and for slavery, and you are fine with all that?

That's not "proletariat atheism", that's not atheism at all. Atheism is the out-and-out rejection of religion AND its institutions.


It is most certainly a class-related phenomenon when you seek to place the struggle against religion above the struggle against capitalism, which is clearly what you are doing here.

You are just repeating old lies that I have already responded to.


This is bourgeois atheism/secularism and functions to divide the working class on a basis of religion.

Religion functions to divide the working class on a basis of religion.




Edric O
AND THAT IS PRECISELY THE POINT.

Since atheism is not class-related; since atheism is neither inherently proletarian nor inherently bourgeois; since atheism can and has been embraced by revolutionaries and reactionaries alike, it follows that the promotion of atheism can bring no tangible benefit to the working class.
Atheism isn't class-related, but religion is. And it's always pro-ruling class.

[KC]

Wait, you are using the example of the "South African experience" to say that religion is "pro-proletariat"?

Straw man. He didn't say nearly anything of the sort.


Religion functions to divide the working class on a basis of religion.

Atheist identity politics are just as reactionary as feminist or anti-racist identity politics.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 11, 2007 08:47 pm

Wait, you are using the example of the "South African experience" to say that religion is "pro-proletariat"?

Straw man. He didn't say nearly anything of the sort.

Oh yeah? Then what did he say?

He clearly implied that Christianity was "progressive" in South Africa.




Religion functions to divide the working class on a basis of religion.

Atheist identity politics are just as reactionary as feminist or anti-racist identity politics.
That's so vague and probably very incoherent if anyone could understand what you meant.

If I advocate women's rights or oppose racism, and I catering to "feminist or anti-racist identity politic" and therefore, reactionary?

Principled opposition to superstition, sexism, racism and exploitation is what defines leftism. If you disagree with one or more of these leftist doctrines, then chances are you are at the wrong place.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 11, 2007 04:50 am
I believe it is also important to recognize that all revolutionaries who focused extensively on the need to abolish religion, such as Bolsheviks and Spanish anarchists, were products of extremely religious societies where the clergy was still a vital, repressive appendage of the ruling class.

On the other hand, to my knowledge, Mandela never openly advocated abolishing religion even when he was a committed socialist. The 10-Point Program of the Black Panthers does not contain a single mention of religion.

This is because these environments inspired progressive tendencies in the religious institutions catering to the oppressed. There was more room to associate with religious groups who wished to achieve the same purposes. Yet bourgeois atheists would have you believe that they were acquiescing to "irrationality" rather than promoting progressive unity among oppressed peoples.
The clergy in Latin America, is still a vital appendage of the ruling class.

Fuck the clerical vermin.


Atheist identity-politics are stupid--but atheism as a part of a grand project of liberation, is not. I will gladly embrace the anarchist anti-theistic traidition (I am not an anarchist though), because I understand that the demistification of things--whether morality or the state--can lead to to the creation of a community were individuals are "conscious" of their ability to destroy and create institutions and laws out of pure sheer creative will, rather than flopping our bellies under disgusting icons.

People who do not understand the psychological aspect of the socialist project for liberation, have a "corpse in their mouth", because, although it is our material reality that shapes our minds, the only thing that will matter at the end is our ability to feel happy and self-realized.

[KC]

If I advocate women's rights or oppose racism, and I catering to "feminist or anti-racist identity politic" and therefore, reactionary?

Principled opposition to superstition, sexism, racism and exploitation is what defines leftism. If you disagree with one or more of these leftist doctrines, then chances are you are at the wrong place.

"...organizing along lines of identity politics is a means of dividing the working class into struggling for recognition of their own self-proclaimed "identity" at the expense of struggling against capital. Because of it's anti-revolutionary nature, and because of the fact that it divides the working class by segmenting them into "movements of identities" it is serving the interests of capitalists.

...

In creating an identity and identifying with it, one forces the choice between fighting the class struggle or fighting for their identity. It forces a break from class struggle, it clouds the inseparable connection between class struggle and the issue at hand and ultimately distracts from a real solution to the problem.

The choice is only an illusion.

These issues have their basis in the class struggle, and because of that they must be used to unite the working class and not divide it.

Identity politics only serve to divide the working class, weaken its movement, and in doing so strengthen the capitalists."
-Me, here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=73751)

If you don't understand what I am saying then that is because you don't understand what identity politics are and what their effects are on the movement.

[RevSkeptic]

Socialists will never be able to abolish religion or even hinder it's growth until the find the actual

need for religion and the sacred in the human psyche (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99M04qZxiXQ)

And, it has very little to do with the proletariat finding consolation in the next life. It runs much deeper than that to the ultimate question of the purpose of existence and the final destiny for human beings as we know them today which people will find very uncomfortable to answer because the answer is uncomfortable.

[synthesis]

He clearly implied that Christianity was "progressive" in South Africa.


Absolutely one of the most ludicrous statements I have read on this board.

You said:

"And opposition against religion is always welcomed, even if it comes from the Bourgeoisie."

The clear implication of this is that it would have been more productive for South African revolutionaries to ally with the apartheid state against progressive churches such as that of Desmond Tutu, rather than the other way around.

Clearly if you were any kind of leftist you would not agree with this; this involves rejecting bourgeois atheism.

Religion is negative when it is a tool of the ruling class, yet we seem to find it easy enough to ignore when it is not.


The clergy in Latin America, is still a vital appendage of the ruling class.

Fuck the clerical vermin.

Very true. In rejecting bourgeois atheism, we must not reject socialist atheism either.


Principled opposition to superstition, sexism, racism and exploitation is what defines leftism. If you disagree with one or more of these leftist doctrines, then chances are you are at the wrong place.

It is quite telling that opposition to superstition is the very first item on your list of what defines a leftist instead of exploitation, racism, and sexism.

Really, it should be the very last on our list; superstition, though irrational, is only reactionary when it is used for reactionary purposes, such as to perpetuate oppression and exploitation.

I believe the lines have been fundamentally drawn between the bourgeois and the socialist atheist: one, who believes in opposition to religion at the expense of progress, and the other, who believes that the socialist struggle can encompass believers if they share similar goals.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:42 am
Socialists will never be able to abolish religion or even hinder it's growth until the find the actual

need for religion and the sacred in the human psyche (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99M04qZxiXQ)

And, it has very little to do with the proletariat finding consolation in the next life. It runs much deeper than that to the ultimate question of the purpose of existence and the final destiny for human beings as we know them today which people will find very uncomfortable to answer because the answer is uncomfortable.
I agree completely. For most people, it is very difficult to accept the fact that there is ultimately no purpose to human existence except that which humans themselves create. It's a very uncomfortable truth.

[MT5678]

The clergy in Latin America, is still a vital appendage of the ruling class.

What about liberation theology? The Sandinistas were a coalition of Marxists, leftist priests, and guerillas. In South America, quite a few clergymen have been for human rights and against bourgeois neoliberalism, by corollary.

The state uses religion as an opiate of the masses, but you have made a hasty generalization, my friend. Not all priests are fools.

[Marsella]

What about liberation theology? The Sandinistas were a coalition of Marxists, leftist priests, and guerillas. In South America, quite a few clergymen have been for human rights and against bourgeois neoliberalism, by corollary.

The state uses religion as an opiate of the masses, but you have made a hasty generalization, my friend. Not all priests are fools.

Well, using NoXion's useful summary of Christianity:

A cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father wants you to telepathically acknowledge him as your master so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that was put there when a talking snake convinced a rib-woman to eat the fruit of a magical tree that he put in a garden now guarded by an angel with a fiery sword.

Yes, I would say that all priests are fools.

Now, whether religion has acted as a progressive force is another matter.

But whether it is compatible with Marxism seems clear cut, at least to me.

Religion bases decisions on divine messages, whereas Marxism bases its explanations on evidence of a verifiable measurement. By the standards of Latin America - military dictatorships and land owners, liberation theology was a progressive force.

Let's not forget that 'true' Christians stand for the abolishment of private property.

But that doesn't say who really owns and controls it - a religious authority of some sort.

Not the workers.

The meek will not inherit the earth; the producers will.


Socialists will never be able to abolish religion or even hinder it's growth until the find the actual need for religion and the sacred in the human psyche

And, it has very little to do with the proletariat finding consolation in the next life. It runs much deeper than that to the ultimate question of the purpose of existence and the final destiny for human beings as we know them today which people will find very uncomfortable to answer because the answer is uncomfortable.

Your argument would sort of fail if, under socialism, the 'purpose of existence' was found. :o

But that whole argument depends on your opinion that there is a purpose for existence. That presupposes some sort of objective being that has 'created' a purpose. A bit of a circular argument; people worship because they want to know the purpose of their life which was given to them by a God. I don't think that there is any purpose to life. Yet all my questions of the 'human psyche' remain answered.

Humans may like to think, in the arrogance of their nature, that their existence must mean some sort of purpose. We should get over that individualist notion.

Our existence is not any more special to that of any other animal.

The fact that we question our existence merely proves that we are mentally superior to other animals.

And religions can be crushed be sheer force alone.

Ever wondered why we aren't worshiping Zeus?

Capitalism certainly has, before any epoch, crushed the supremacy of religion. Profit is king and anything that gets in its way - religious wankerage being one of them - is brushed aside.

Some maintain that religion will simply wither away as its need becomes irrelevant.

But that doesn't mean we should passively sit by and not attack religion.

We should actively attack it and attempt its complete suppression.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 11, 2007 05:41 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 11, 2007 05:41 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 12:49 am
Whenever we break "chains on our ankels" we also break mental chains, and pave roads to break many more. Are you saying revolution is useless unless we can, in one fell swoop, destroy all religious belief at the same time? Is that really very reasonable?
Do you know why we don't wear literal chains on our ankles? It's because the chains that are in our brains are more powerful - they are harder to break, they are cheaper to produce (all you need is a copy of some bronze age book of myths) and even people who wish to liberate themselves and others become reticent to break them because we are conditioned to believe these chains are normal.

Fuck that. [/b]
Right, but that doesn't address the issue. The issue is whether one specific chain - that is that of religion - must necessarily be comletely destroyerd in order to achieve communist society.

You will never have a purely mentally healthy society. and because of that inability to become what we potnetially are, those roadblocks which prevent this particular kind of growth must be judged in regards to their relevance. Is it more relevant to the restructuring of society that freakazoid believes in a god, or that pusher robot and robert the great are interested in directly opposing much of the material facts of what we believe in? The whole fixation on religion seems counter-productive, because it diverts our attention fromt the real enemy - capital fetishism - and forces people to worry about whether someone believes in some silly dogma which may, other than being a false mental archetype, be completely harmless.

In other words, is it more important to worry about a mild, schizophrenic mindset or a powerful social sickness which has molded the very foundation of our current society?