Workers of the world unite?

[Fiskpure]

I've been thinking about this for sometime now, now it's clear that every third worker (Just guessing, don't have any exact numbers) is a religious man, that's a large part of the workers in the world.

Since we all (most of us) agree that religion is just an illusion, I'm sure we all agree that it must go.

But forcing an atheistic society only makes these religious groups fight stronger against us, and creates arguments and bad blood within the workers movement, which we can't have.

Now how did Marx handle this issue? I know that Lenin stood for religion freedom, but in the USSR hundreads of priests were killed (Not sure if this was during his reign).


I'm sure there's already a thread dealing with this issue, but I have failed to find one yet so far :o.


Cheers,
Fiskpure.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

No, religious people should be free to practice their religion.

Lenin for example allowed the Muslim regions in the eastern part of the empire to choose between Islamic law or secular law, in order so they would be free in this respect.

Trotsky, who was the Leader of the Red Army, made it so that religious pacifists would be allowed to not fight if they were conscripted.

When the workers had lost power, and the Stalinist bureaucracy had taken over, the priesthood could not be relied on not to be critical of the State and might distract from the elaborate personality cults that were used effectively to turn people into symbols of worship.

Marx, when he was young, in Bonn, was much more militantly atheistic than in his later life. But, that might have been due to Prussia being a dictatorship and everyone having Christianity forced down their throats.

I think he really saw religion as a symptom of alienation and ignorance.

[VukBZ2005]

Religion must be forcibly suppressed, for it runs counter to the further cultural development of humanity. By allowing religion to perpetuate itself, in all of its forms, not only do you stunt human cultural development, you are keeping a foundation of the old world within the new, and thus, will serve as a base for the re-manifestation of reactionary tendencies in a real Communist society, tendencies that will eventually destroy it.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

CommunistFireFox, how old were you when you developed the ability to read the future?

I would argue a more likely tendency to destroy communism is suppression of basic liberties for ideological reasons.

[VukBZ2005]

CommunistFireFox, how old were you when you developed the ability to read the future?*sighs*

You are missing the fundamental point that I am making here; religion is counter-revolutionary, because it is fundamentally superstitious, and, because, it is fundamentally hierarchical. If we do not suppress religion and all of its tendencies in the days after a working class revolution has become successful, the superstitious and hierarchical nature of religion, and, its institutions, would be nothing more than a lightning rod for counter-revolutionary and reactionary forces that oppose the working class revolution and the gains that it will grant to humanity. Moreover, it will drag normal people who were working class before the working class revolution and that are supportive of the working class revolution, to the side of counter-revolution and reaction, simply because of the fact that religion and its institutions have this magnificent clout that would not be disturbed by a successful working class revolution, due to the fact that this revolution has not been willing to suppress it.

I can say this with absolute certainty, because I understand that religion is contradictory with both science and Communism as they truly are, and it will always be so.


I would argue a more likely tendency to destroy communism is suppression of basic liberties for ideological reasons.All this proves to me is that you are too attached to this concept of "free speech". However, you will have to come to the realization, at some point, that "free speech" has not ever existed and can not ever exist. True, in a real Communist society, there may be a higher degree of speech freedoms,but, it will never be totally based on the concept of "free speech", because, certain types of speech are psychologically harmful to the existence of a successful working class revolution, and may result in such physical harm that it would be able to prevent the working class revolution that has been successful from perpetuating itself.

[INDK]

You are missing the fundamental point that I am making here; religion is counter-revolutionary, because it is fundamentally superstitious, and, because, it is fundamentally hierarchical. If we do not suppress religion and all of its tendencies in the days after a working class revolution has become successful, the superstitious and hierarchical nature of religion, and, its institutions, would be nothing more than a lightening rod for counter-revolutionary and reactionary forces that oppose the working class revolution and the gains that it will grant to humanity. Moreover, it will drag normal people who were working class before the working class revolution and that are supportive of the working class revolution, to the side of counter-revolution and reaction, simply because of the fact that religion and its institutions have this magnificent clout that would not be disturbed by a successful working class revolution, due to the fact that this revolution has not been willing to suppress it.

I can say this with absolute certainty, because I understand that religion is contradictory with both science and Communism as they truly are, and it will always be so.

Okay, you have proven with sufficiency religion's counter-progressiveness, and I personally wholeheartedly agree. However, what do you suppose we do? Eradicate religion? Eradicate religious people? Destroy religious institutions and drain religion of all its resources, until it fades away? How do you suppose we go about detoxing society of its Theism; it seems like an unrealistic goal to do away with religion without forcing Atheism, something which would be injustice at its greatest. I see here at RevLeft many "Anti-Theist" members that wish to completely eradicate religious faiths because they are detrimental to Communism, but how are you going to do away with such a largely believed in movement? I will agree with the original poster when he approximates 1 of 3 workers is religious, though I will simply say there must be a large portion of Theistic proletariat.

[VukBZ2005]

Okay, you have proven with sufficiency religion's counter-progressiveness, and I personally wholeheartedly agree. However, what do you suppose we do? Eradicate religion? Eradicate religious people? Destroy religious institutions and drain religion of all its resources, until it fades away? How do you suppose we go about detoxing society of its Theism?The way to destroy religion is through the destruction of their structures, and, through the destruction or precise deconstruction of their texts. If you destroy their structures, and, destroy and/or de-construct their texts, there would be no way for religion to effectively manifest itself, because, first of all, there would be no place of worship, and, because, second of all, there would either be no text available for religious articulation, or, the texts would be so precisely de-constructed, that the person who reads it will see through the bullshit that those texts express, automatically. There is no need to kill the majority of those that are religious; if everything is done correctly, most of them will end up being apart of the revolution itself. Only those who pose a immediate and profound threat should be suppressed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Religion should only be suppressed after a revolution if it is openly and directly counter-revolutionary; Neo-Nazi pagan or Christian groups for example.

People must be allowed to believe ridiculous things if they are then to come to more rational ideas. Of course, eliminating the material base for the belief of irrational things - poverty and poor education and racism and many other ills related to modern capitalism - will go a long way towards making these beliefs irrelevant to people's every day lives.

Banning religion will ultimately not create a stronger worker society because workers will not have come to "rational beliefs" through their own reasoning. Instead, banning beliefs will only help create a passive working class that can not determine its own political or ideological future.

To address the original post: I think that there are a lot of religious people who will end up siding with revolution because in a revolutionary time, the possibility of earthly and immediate change for the better will become more compelling than the idea that change is not possible and you have to wait for a savior or for heaven or something.

Again and again in revolutions, regular people have separated themselves from the old ideologies designed to retard revolution and self-organization. I don't think revolutionaries should spend too much energy arguing against religion in the abstract, but should spend their energies arguing for why a worker society would be a much better system and is the only way to solve most of our earthy problems of war and poverty and inequality and racism and nationalism.

[INDK]

Well, I believe that a secular society can be reached; it's just that purging the Church is 1.) stupid 2.) may turn that large percent of Theistic workers mentioned far, far away from accepting Communism; I mean, religious freedom is a freedom. I view religion as a moral crutch and I believe that people should exclude spiritual aspects in decision-making and everyday thought; however, a forceful eradication of spiritual aspects seems unrealistic and irrational. Now, I said a secular society can be reached; all we have to do is remove the need for moral crutches. Solidarity between people and democratic decision-making based on worldly, humanistic values would ultimately drain religion of its need for existence. The forceful suppression Communist FireFox speaks of is irrational.


Religion should only be suppressed after a revolution if it is openly and directly counter-revolutionary; Neo-Nazi pagan or Christian groups for example.

Of course. We should fight against (and expose the evils of, to the proletariat we fight for) any counter-revolutionary forces; but only those that act in a counter-revolutionary manner. I really think the workers should be fighting Fascists and Bourgeoisie, not taking down religious institutions; religion can fade away post-revolution.


Banning religion will ultimately not create a stronger worker society because workers will not have come to "rational beliefs" through their own reasoning. Instead, banning beliefs will only help create a passive working class that can not determine its own political or ideological future.

Exactly. If the proletariat can develop its own beliefs and decide on what it does with solidarity and democracy, religion will dissolve without us Commies needing to break out AK47's on nuns and burn down Churches. All in all, "Every revolution requires revolutionists...." [-Isabel Meredith, A Girl Among the Anarchists] and taking down religion with forceful suppression will turn away or revolutionists.


I don't really have further things to add from your post, I simply added input. And now I wait for further reply.

[INDK]

Didn't see you replied before Gravedigger, here you are...


The way to destroy religion is through the destruction of their structures, and, through the destruction or precise deconstruction of their texts. If you destroy their structures, and, destroy and/or de-construct their texts, there would be no way for religion to effectively manifest itself, because, first of all, there would be no place of worship, and, because, second of all, there would either be no text available for religious articulation, or, the texts would be so precisely de-constructed, that the person who reads it will see through the bullshit that those texts express, automatically. There is no need to kill the majority of those that are religious; if everything is done correctly, most of them will end up being apart of the revolution itself. Only those who pose a immediate and profound threat should be suppressed.

Of course, you made it sound before like we should go and kill 'em all, just smash religious institutions and burn churches like it's no tomorrow; you did say it requires forceful suppression, but you never mentioned that that suppression should be applied to immediate threats, and thus I quote myself:


Of course. We should fight against (and expose the evils of, to the proletariat we fight for) any counter-revolutionary forces; but only those that act in a counter-revolutionary manner. I really think the workers should be fighting Fascists and Bourgeoisie, not taking down religious institutions; religion can fade away post-revolution.

In this case, then, I believe I agree with you. Religion can fall apart after revolution; religious nuts that fight against us can fall apart right now, as a matter of fact we'll help 'em do it. I understand and agree. However, I do have small disputes with the changing of scripture; that seems to be a forceful suppression, though bloodless; would religion not fade away upon the rise of people self-management? Religion is nothing more than something that manages morals for you, after all.

[VukBZ2005]

The forceful suppression Communist FireFox speaks of is irrational.No, it is not. What is irrational is thinking that you could just use the economic, social, and, cultural advancement that would come from the development of a real Communist society to chase people away from religion. Although that will help, it will not get rid of the fact that these places would still exist, and, that there would be people that would believe in the ideas that those places profess. If you agreed with me on the premise that religion is counter-revolutionary, then, why do you wish to be soft on them?

Now, look, I agree with you that working class revolutionaries should not spend their energies in just getting rid of religion, but, this is something that has to be taken care of, nonetheless.

[Fiskpure]

I think all the possibilites should be estimated and carefully calculated. If we're to succeed the next time with a perfect, world-wide revolution we shouldn't ignore anything that could suppress us.

Take the muslims as an example, look at Iran. You can clearly see the anti-american stylish propaganda and hatred. The young people in the middle-east grow in a very intense religious enviroment, which I personally find scary (Great example is the female that got raped and had an abortion, which resulted into people stoning her dead. Shows us how serious they really are). Imagine this kind of hatred towards us, the revolutionary leftists.

Take a look at Asia as another example, what are you gonna do there? Force atheism?

I consider myself as a religious anti-semitist for personal experience. But the best for the revolution and the buid-up of future socialism comes first.


Thanks for anwsering,
Fiskpure.

[VukBZ2005]

Of course, you made it sound before like we should go and kill 'em all, just smash religious institutions and burn churches like it's no tomorrow; you did say it requires forceful suppression, but you never mentioned that that suppression should be applied to immediate threats..The reason why I said what I said, in such a dramatic fashion, is because I want to make the message clear that, again, this is something that needs to be taken care of, in the event that a working class revolution is successful, as with other threats that operate on different spectrums.

[INDK]

What is irrational is thinking that you could just use the economic, social, and, cultural advancement that would come from the development of real Communist society to chase people away from religion.

Why do you think so? It seems religion could easily fade away. I'll expound when you delve deeper into this, I don't quite understand your basis for these claims...


Although that will help, it will not get rid of the fact that these places would still exist, and, that there would be people that would believe in the ideas that those places profess.

Is the church-worker professing these ideas not a member of the cultural diffusion of which I speak? The most dedicated Christian is still a slave to the moral "guidance" I mentioned, it makes them no different than the Theistic worker. Even those of religious institutions would give up the institutions over time. Just as Engels says the State-apparatus will "wither away," as the worker's culture allows it to, so will the Church.


If you agreed with me on the premise that religion is counter-revolutionary, then, why do you wish to be so soft on them?

It is not that I wish to be soft on them, it is that I see it unnecessary to simply eradicate them and all their resources, when there could be a bloodless transition from Theistic society to Secular society. Why should the Communists have unnecessary blood on their hands? It is not that I believe blood should never be drawn, especially from Fascist and Bourgeoisie resistance, it is that I believe the right blood should be drawn, and in this case a religious institution that provides no counter-revolutionary action has no reason to be burned down. Fight who you need to, that's what I think is a necessary thought in this context.


Now, look, I agree with you that working class revolutionaries should not spend their energies in just getting rid of religion, but, this is something that has to be taken care of, nonetheless.

It does, I agree with you, but as bloodlessly as possible; we take what we have to and let cultural transitions take the rest. Communists do not need to be bloodthirsty, simply ready to fight for their revolution.

[INDK]

The reason why I said what I said, in such a dramatic fashion, is because I want to make the message clear that, again, this is something that needs to be taken care of, in the event that a working class revolution is successful, as with other threats that operate on different spectrums.

Of course, I don't object to that, our dispute here is in methods.

[VukBZ2005]

Just as Engels says the State-apparatus will "wither away," as the worker's culture allows it to, so will the Church.Well, to some extent, the social, cultural and economical development of human societies that are in the stages of both Socialism and Communism will wither religion away. But, if we do not destroy the institutions that profess religion, and, if we do not do something that will effectively destroy religious text and/or discredit religious texts in the eyes of the people, a part of the old society, as I said before, will exist within this new one, and will be a symbol of counter-revolution. Again, just to make things clear, I do not believe that the majority of the religious should be murdered, just those that will threaten the lives of many human beings.

[INDK]

But, if we do not destroy the institutions that profess religion, and, if we do not do something that will effectively religious text in the eyes of the people, a part of the old society, as I said before, will exist within this new one, and will be a symbol of counter-revolution. Again, just to make things clear, I do not believe that the majority of the religious should be murdered, just those that will threaten the lives of many human beings in a real Communist society.

So you believe a passive Church that is only counter-revolutionary in principle and not practice should be eliminated because of these principles? Rather than let it be passive until the workers realize it is not needed? You have to understand the passive Church won't be brainwashing post-revolution, people would by then know better... but the Church itself doesn't know that it needs to take aggression; the Churches that do should be fought against. I ultimately think we should fight religion selectively and let history judge our fate. I am strongly against the spilling of innocent, or at least passive blood, especially passive blood that will fade from the necessity of being spilled. I just think Anti-Theist tirades are a bit unnecessary.


I do not believe that the majority of the religious should be murdered, just those that will threaten the lives of many human beings in a real Communist society.

A passive Church that unknowingly lets its members slip from its grasp does not pose much of a threat. An aggressive Church of conservative counter-revolutionaries deserves the bullet.

= my 2 cents.

[peaccenicked]

The most fundamental point in Marx's writings on religion is that is a product of alienated material conditions. He suggests to us that social conditions will overcome religion not suppression. Indeed one of the biggest anti-communist arguements is that it suppresses religion. That idea about communism is simply not true and alienates workers from communism. While we insist on the primacy of science over ideology, it is our task to win the battle of democracy. It looks like we have not even started yet.

[INDK]

I commend you on an agreeable post, I have no objections; society will triumph over religion through conditioning itself and removing alienated material conditions-- the only point I need to make is that there will be religious institutions that will need to be fought against, though the majority perhaps will fade from necessity.

[Fiskpure]

An aggressive Church of conservative counter-revolutionaries deserves the bullet.

I totally agree with you. Currently the religions in europe and other parts where the church has influence, seems to be fading away. But when we make a go for it and start eradicating them, they're gonna unite and stand together. Allowing them to fade away slowly (maybe 2-4 generations, as it seems now) would be the most liberal and peaceful way.

But an aggressive church of conservative counter-revolutinaries deserves nothing less then you said, a bullet in the face.

[INDK]

Another point-- are religions such as Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism (Eastern Religion, I suppose I will say) as bad as the Catholic conservatives we most diligently combat? Would these Theisms also be forced to bite the bullet? Or, if I had it my way :cool:, be socio-economically vaporized?

[Random Precision]

I know that Lenin stood for religion freedom, but in the USSR hundreads of priests were killed (Not sure if this was during his reign).

Lenin actively encouraged the recruitment of religious workers to the Bolshevik Party, especially those from minorities, such as Catholics, Jews, Old Believers. He had this to say after the 1905 Revolution:


To be sure, those workers who remain Christians, who believe in God, and those intellectuals who defend mysticism (fie upon them!), are inconsistent too; but we shall not expel them from the Soviet or even the party, for it is our firm conviction that the actual struggle, and work within the ranks will convince all elements possessing vitality that Marxism is the truth, and will cast aside all those who lack vitality. And we do not for one moment doubt our strength, the overwhelming strength of Marxists, in the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party.
- From Our Tasks and the Soviet of Workers' Deputies (http://marx.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/nov/04b.htm)

As for the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church, I think it is helpful to remember that it was very much a part of the tsarist state before the revolution and thus it presented a very concrete threat to the revolution.

I also do not think it's particularly helpful to alienate workers who are otherwise quite receptive to our revolutionary goals by being over-the-top anti religion. We actually have a couple of religious comrades here on RevLeft.

[INDK]

So do you think Lenin believed in Marx's theory that society would simply grow out of religion as alienated material conditions dissolved?

[Random Precision]

So do you think Lenin believed in Marx's theory that society would simply grow out of religion as alienated material conditions dissolved?

Yes, that seems reasonable to say.

[Dros]

Of course religion must be suppressed. The way to do that is not the immediate and violent suppression of all organized religions. The Socialist society should create an environment where religion can die by a.) educating people and b.) setting up a socio-economic system where people don't need to resort to dilussion to provide themselves with fullfillment.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Communist FireFox



religion is counter-revolutionary, because it is fundamentally superstitious, and, because, it is fundamentally hierarchical. If we do not suppress religion and all of its tendencies in the days after a working class revolution has become successful, the superstitious and hierarchical nature of religion, and, its institutions, would be nothing more than a lightening rod for counter-revolutionary and reactionary forces that oppose the working class revolution and the gains that it will grant to humanity.

You just want to have a personality cult, and you need to suppress religion so it doesn't detract from your ideal state religion.

Also, counter-revolutions happen despite of religion, not because of it.


Moreover, it will drag normal people who were working class before the working class revolution and that are supportive of the working class revolution, to the side of counter-revolution and reaction, simply because of the fact that religion and its institutions have this magnificent clout that would not be disturbed by a successful working class revolution, due to the fact that this revolution has not been willing to suppress it.

So you think you are the one to tell how the ruling class of a socialist society must run their society are you?

"You are the ruling class now! but im banning your religions and gods!"



I can say this with absolute certainty, because I understand that religion is contradictory with both science and Communism as they truly are, and it will always be so.

So, we all know this. It does not mean you can tell others what religion they can or cannot follow. Proletarian revolution is not a mandate to control all individual choices and subject the individual to the will of the class; it is about economic reorganisation and economic democracy combined with the political democracy we already enjoy.


All this proves to me is that you are too attached to this concept of "free speech". However, you will have to come to the realization, at some point, that "free speech" has not ever existed and can not ever exist. True, in a real Communist society, there may be a higher degree of speech freedoms,but, it will never be totally based on the concept of "free speech", because, certain types of speech are psychologically harmful to the existence of a successful working class revolution, and may result in such physical harm that it would be able to prevent the working class revolution that has been successful from perpetuating itself.

Well, this is an assertion. You haven't backed this up at all. You are merely stating that some forms of religious practice pose a threat to a communist society.

Did you know, Marx emigrated from Prussia to be able to get "free speech". Millions fled from Stalinism to get "free speech". It was one way traffic when the Berlin wall collapsed. But, yeah maybe i and the rest of humanity are "too attached to free speech".

[comandante_p-nut15]

in my opinion i do not believe religion should be oppressed. i am in fact religious. now before you go off slamming me and what not, i firmly believe that religion and politics should not mix whatsoever. i know it seems like all christians are conmservative pricks, but i am not one of those. i am most certainly a leftist, a revolutionary socialist, and some even consider me a communist. there are religious people out therelike me who support the revolution and find themselves disagreeing with the conservatives you see on tv. i believe a persons spiritual beliefs should be of no concern to the party and i also agree that suppressing the religious conservatives will only unite them. just wanted to be heard thanks.

hasta la victoria siempre.

[comandante_p-nut15]

in my opinion i do not believe religion should be oppressed. i am in fact religious. now before you go off slamming me and what not, i firmly believe that religion and politics should not mix whatsoever. i know it seems like all christians are conservative pricks, but i am not one of those. i am most certainly a leftist, a revolutionary socialist, and some even consider me a communist yet i am a believer at the same time. there are religious people out therelike me who support the revolution and find themselves disagreeing with the conservatives you see on tv. i believe a persons spiritual beliefs should be of no concern to the party and i also agree that suppressing the religious conservatives will only unite them. just wanted to be heard thanks.

hasta la victoria siempre.

[La Comédie Noire]

Going with what others said:

I don't think it matters whether we supress religion or not anyways. It's already dying everywhere you look. I can tell you this myself, coming from the United States, where 85% of people are supposedly religious. The younger generations are more scientific, skeptical, and atheistic.

For instance, if I were to approach people from my father's generation, people in their 50's, I guarantee a majority of them would say "yes, I believe in God." Now if I were to approach people from my generation, people in their late teens, I would get one of two possible answers.

a. "I believe in something..." Ambiguous. :confused:
b. "I'm an atheist." Right on the money!:)

Even if religion was still around after the revolution it wouldn't matter. They would no longer have the institution of private property to control or mislead people.

But to add:

Capitalism no longer needs religion as an opiate anyways. Why do that when they can provide the first world proleteriat with cheap cable tv, sex, and video games?

What's that quote? "If religion is the opiate of the people, then tv is the people's crack pipe."

Note: I'm not a crazy ass puritan. I think people should still be able to enjoy these things.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

If you believe it is naturally dying, why speed up the process and risk harming personal freedoms?

[La Comédie Noire]

If you believe it is naturally dying, why speed up the process and risk harming personal freedoms?

Moi? I don't want to speed up the process.

[VukBZ2005]

You just want to have a personality cult, and you need to suppress religion so it doesn't detract from your ideal state religion.Your accusation is absolutely ridiculous. If I believe in a society that has an anti-authoritarian or bottom-up form of organization, in which everyone would be in control of every major aspect of human existence, as opposed to an authoritarian or top-down form of organization, in which a dictator and his group of friends and associates would be in control of every major aspect of human existence, then, why would I want to have a cult of personality, and, why do I want suppress religion, so that the "state religion" that I supposedly believe in would be able to take its place? Does that make sense? Maybe it does to you, but, it does not make sense to me.
Also, counter-revolutions happen despite of religion, not because of it.How a situation of counter-revolution develops will have a lot to do with the material conditions that would exist in the immediate aftermath of a successful working class revolution.

For instance, if the working class does what it is supposed to do, during the process of a successful working class revolution, then, a situation of counter-revolution will manifest itself, but, it will not manifest itself off of a pre-established and authoritarian structure that naturally inhibits counter-revolution; it will manifest itself off of the resentment of the people who used to belong to the two higher classes that existed before the revolution, and, naturally, their desire to be in power once more.

However, if the working class does not do what it is supposed to do, during the process of a successful working class revolution, then, not only will a situation of counter-revolution manifest itself off of the resentment of the people who used to belong to the two higher classes that existed before the revolution, and, naturally, their desire to be in power once more, but, it will manifest itself off of a pre-established and authoritarian structure that naturally inhibits its development. Even though the first case is dangerous, the second case would be much more so, because there would be too many factors involved that could pose a very significant threat to the continued perpetuation of a successful working class revolution.

That is why I say that these things should be taken of, albeit, in a manner that is both rational and objective, during the process of a working class revolution, and, immediately after it, in the event that this process is ultimately successful, so that we do not have to deal with these threats thereafter.


So you think you are the one to tell how the ruling class of a socialist society must run their society are you?

"You are the ruling class now! but im banning your religions and gods!"Firstly, you fail to understand that in a society that is truly in transition to the overabundant economic state of being that is Communism, there will be no ruling class, because the successful process of the working class revolution that came before it would have annihilated all classes, including the working class, through the generalized expropriation of all private and state property, the transformation of those properties into social property, and the subsequent institution of Workers' Self-Management.

And secondly, what I am saying has to happen, because, again, religion is incompatible with Workers' Self-Management, social property, and, with the anti-authoritarian structure that they will both necessitate. I am not directly telling them what and what not to believe.


So, we all know this. It does not mean you can tell others what religion they can or cannot follow. Proletarian revolution is not a mandate to control all individual choices and subject the individual to the will of the class; it is about economic reorganisation and economic democracy combined with the political democracy we already enjoy.Again, I am not directly telling them what to believe and what not to believe. I am saying that religion, in and of itself, will be made incompatible by the development of institutions that will cater to both Workers' Self-Management and social property, and, must be destroyed, due to that incompatibility, in a manner that is both rational and objective. But, I am indirectly telling them, because I am calling for the destruction of their physical structures and the destruction and/or deconstruction of their texts.

Also, your statement about democracy proves to me that your conception of democracy is concurrent with the Capitalist conception of democracy, because you basically said that we already enjoy "political democracy" and that the purpose of working class revolution is combine this "political democracy" with the functioning of the economy, of society, and, of culture.

*laughs*

The truth of the matter is that we do not enjoy any kind of democracy at all. If we did, it is possible that Communism would have been peacefully established by now. The purpose of working class revolution is to put into place, in all major sectors of human existence, the only kind of democracy that is compatible with it; Workers' Self-Management, which is a far departure from the Capitalist conception of democracy.


Did you know, Marx emigrated from Prussia to be able to get "free speech". Millions fled from Stalinism to get "free speech". It was one way traffic when the Berlin wall collapsed. But, yeah maybe i and the rest of humanity are "too attached to free speech".Firstly, I know of these things, and secondly, you fail to understand that every society has either had restrictions on what one is able to speak of, or, has a limit of tolerance to what one is able to speak of; simply because, again, certain types of speech are psychologically threatening to a society's ability to perpetuate itself. The examples that you have shown me has only proven that, and, if you wish to ignore what I am saying, then, you will continue to possess this belief that "free speech" is possible.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

If I believe in a society that has an anti-authoritarian or bottom-up form of organizationSo, you claim to be anti-authoritarian, yet you advocate the suppression of religion.

What you mean is, you are an authoritarian who dislikes hierarchical structures and religious structures pose a threat to your authoritarianism and so you must suppress it.

How can you be anti-authoritarian AND put forth a decree that people are no longer allowed to practice religion. You are talking utter nonsense.


why would I want to have a cult of personality, and, why do I want suppress religion, so that the "state religion" that I supposedly believe in would be able to take its place?Because you realise the proletariat has a diverse set of views, and your anti-theism will need to be enforced by a religious police force. And your state religion will probably be something secular and atheistic, but no less religious and unquestioning. Like "official Marxism-Leninism" or something.



And secondly, what I am saying has to happen, because, again, religion is incompatible with Workers' Self-Management, social property, and, with the anti-authoritarian structure that they will both necessitate. but how can you actually suppress religion (requires an authoritarian structure) and have an anti-authoritarian structure for workers self management? ?? ? ?

Basically, banning religion puts you against some parts of the proletariat. A large part, and it has been shown to not work as people are intensely hostile to it.

The working class is not one group of zombies who all think the same, want the same, vote the same etc. They are different and many different tendencies exist within the proletariat.

It is authoritarian and Stalinst to claim you know what it best, and to claim that "we must ban religion or the revolution will be defeated"

I really cant reply to much of the rest of your post, since it seems to need me to follow your ideas about, i assume anarchism or left communism. and i dont know enough about it.

however.



The truth of the matter is that we do not enjoy any kind of democracy at allWell, i sympathise with this opinion, but its just not true. I live in the UK and it is a liberal democracy, all parties are allowed to take part in elections, parties control who they nominate to positions, we elect local councillors, we elect members of parliament, we all get and equal vote, we can say what we like, we can join trade unions, we can be tried by our peers in the form of a jury, we can have a referendum, we can demonstrate and protest, we can petition, we can almost anything we want in public, we can jeer and mock our politicians, we can believe in a religion.

Basically, we can participate in liberal democracies as much as we choose.

It's just that reformist politics wont bring about a change in the mode of production.

But, we do have an imperfect form of democracy.



The only kind of democracy that is compatible with it; Workers' Self-Management,I Like the phrase, Workers self management, but it hardly means anything, so it might not be a far conception of capitalist democracy.

Economic democracy, is allowing the proletariat to distribute the wealth it creates in a manner of their own choosing. Through soviets or whatever means. But, when you take away the corporations, and put them under public ownership or workers control (same thing really), the liberal democracy is not a bad place to start, though it goes without saying can be made much better.


Firstly, I know of these things, and secondly, you fail to understand that every society has either had restrictions on what one is able to speak of, or, has a limit of tolerance to what one is able to speak of; simply because, again, certain types of speech are psychologically threatening to a society's ability to perpetuate itself. The examples that you have shown me has only proven that, and, if you wish to ignore what I am saying, then, you will continue to possess this belief that "free speech" is possible.what can't you say in your society, that you want to say, but are unable because you will be suppressed if you do???

[kromando33]

Whenever I read 'Worker's self-management' I invariably think of the Tito experience. Now we see clearly where "local control" of the economy leads. Each ethnicity retained its own economic interests and never learned what centralized cooperation should be. Workers of each ethnicity never understood concretely how they were damaging each others' interests if at all. In fact, in Yugoslavia's case, the lack of centralized contact bred suspicions and illusions of damage from other ethnicities when it was really imperialism robbing Yugoslavia with Tito's blessings. Hence, without centrally coordinated economic contact among workers, real damages and illusions of damages may accrue in relations among nations.

[Kitskits]

Religion is idealism and other nonsense, communism is materialism. Either we destroy them or they destroy us. The war will be long and like in each war we don't necessarily win if we launch full scale assault at the beginning. The way to terminate religion is to ban all organized religion immediately and launch full-scale propaganda against personal religion.

I admit that I AM politically authoritarian (a bit more than Lenin) and I want the communist authoritarianism to be free from religious authoritarianism. Of course, not to be confusing political authoritarianism with social reaction (like political compass does and like a lot of stalinists do, i.e. Communist Party of the Russian Federation).

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Lenin and the Bolsheviks were not against religion in practice, only in their theory they were.

Banning religion is stalinist & anarchist NOT Bolshevik.

Free open society with ration discourse and debate and an ever rising amount of social wealth will naturally secularise society.

Don't go Ultra-left :cool:

[INDK]

Bloody_Capitalist_Sham:

While I disagree with Communist FireFox's specific beliefs on how to tackle the problem of Theistic society, his beliefs do not actually make him an authoritarian on default. What do you think the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is, a State that's there just because it's there? No, it is a Marxist theory that states there must be a Socialist State to suppress counter-revolutionary and bourgeois interests. I do not think Communist FireFox should be accused of most things you have accused him of, he is simply Militantly Atheist, and believes that is one of the counter-revolutionary forces to be suppressed. Of course, social structure and economic autonomy will dissolve religion on it's own, and thus Militant Atheism is irrational and unnecessary, but all the same it is a matter of who ya think the class-dictatorship needs to fight...


Banning religion is stalinist & anarchist NOT Bolshevik.

How would an Anarchists ban anything? These people believe in the dissolution of religion, either through militant suppression or socio-economic dissolution. I'm sure there are plenty of Leninists (I mean, check out Hope Lies in the Prole's posts in this thread) that believe in the Marxist idea of dissolving religion; I mean, it is a Marxist idea.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

No, it is a Marxist theory that states there must be a Socialist State to suppress counter-revolutionary and bourgeois interests.

yes but, if the proletariat set up a state which acts in their own interests, and a number of those workers are religious, then the religion they follow, in its existing form, is not counter-revolutionary.


I do not think Communist FireFox should be accused of most things you have accused him of, he is simply Militantly Atheist, and believes that is one of the counter-revolutionary forces to be suppressed.

Right, so what is a militant Atheist doing being involved in the class struggle politics?

The Bolsheviks and Marx advocated unity between all the different parts of the proletariat.

Militant Atheists, or anti-theists, oppose such a unity. The expression of that, is the suppression of the freedoms of some members of the socialist society.

He is saying these people can carry out a revolution, determine the distribution of wealth, but cannot go to church or synagogue once a week!

It is precisely authoritarian in the real sense, taking charge over areas of others people lives, without systematic justification.



How would an Anarchists ban anything? These people believe in the dissolution of religion, either through militant suppression or socio-economic dissolution. I'm sure there are plenty of Leninists (I mean, check out Hope Lies in the Prole's posts in this thread) that believe in the Marxist idea of dissolving religion; I mean, it is a Marxist idea.

I don't think Marx argued for the physical suppression of religion ever. "Dissolving" is the incorrect term. For marxists, religions form is based on the prevailing economic system. That's why religion varies so much from region to region.

Marx says that under communism, where the level of social wealth is extremely high, religion is very unlikely to be very prevalent.

Marx's argument is confirmed when we see higher levels of social wealth in some societies than others, and a correlation showing increased rates of disbelief, or very lacklustre religious worship.

For example, in England, church attendance in minuscule, yet millions still claim to be Christians, and millions believe in God. But, most will live their lives without reading a bible, attending church more than a dozen times in their adult life.

Developing productive forces secularises people. No need for religious banning, or any half witted sensationalised ideas that there will be a counter-revolution because of all the religious people.

[INDK]

yes but, if the proletariat set up a state which acts in their own interests, and a number of those workers are religious, then the religion they follow, in its existing form, is not counter-revolutionary.

Then you'd have yourself a Theocratic Workers' State, and who the fuck wants that? Religion, once alienated material condition (see peaccenicked and if you don't believe him, Karl Marx) is removed from society and workers' self-management and autonomy is encouraged, the moral crutch and entire use for religion will dissolve and Theistic workers will become Secular workers. That is an observation of the nature of religion itself, made by Karl Marx himself. Moreover, just because the workers follow it doesn't mean it isn't counter-revolutionary; the proletariat can be fooled, ya know, like that thing Capitalism too; their asses got duped.


Right, so what is a militant Atheist doing being involved in the class struggle politics?

It doesn't make him incompatible with Communism, it makes him militant Atheist. Do I agree with it? No. Is he Authoritarian, however? Also a no.


The Bolsheviks and Marx advocated unity between all the different parts of the proletariat.

Yeah, because they knew the Theistic proletariat would not be Theistic throughout socialism and definitely not Communism.


Militant Atheists, or anti-theists, oppose such a unity. The expression of that, is the suppression of the freedoms of some members of the socialist society.

No, they advocate taking out religion en route of revolution, instead of letting it fade from society in the people's dictatorship. What makes them militant-atheist is simply their belief that Theistic institutions and Churches are an immediate threat and need to be attacked. Moreover, never once did Communist FireFox dismiss uniting the proletariat.


He is saying these people can carry out a revolution, determine the distribution of wealth, but cannot go to church or synagogue once a week!

I do think it would be irrational to ban actually participating in religion, as I believe soon enough workers will not want or need to go to church or synagogue or mosque or whatever. Because his method of tackling religion is one of detox and not of socio-economic theory does not make him an Authoritarian. The only point I am expressing here is he has not shown Authoritarianism. There is a difference between Authoritarianism and class-dictatorship (and its main priorities), something you should especially know as a Leninist.


It is precisely authoritarian in the real sense, taking charge over areas of others people lives, without systematic justification.


But the justification lies within religion's counter-revolutionary character, and a proletarian state's objectives of suppressing counter-revolutionary force. I'm not trying to defend his views, simply debunk they are examples of Authoritarianism.


I don't think Marx argued for the physical suppression of religion ever. "Dissolving" is the incorrect term. For marxists, religions form is based on the prevailing economic system. That's why religion varies so much from region to region.

He didn't advocate the suppression, but he did advocate Communist society's being prevailingly Secular. He believed this could be achieved simply by instating that Communist society-- material conditions would be totally different. Religion would disappear.


Marx says that under communism, where the level of social wealth is extremely high, religion is very unlikely to be very prevalent.

When did I ever dispute that? I actually believe that's the entire point I'm stressing here. Remember, I'm not a militant-atheist like Communist FireFox, I am simply defending that it is not an Authoritarian way of thinking, due to the actual nature of class-dictatorships and what they need to do.


Marx's argument is confirmed when we see higher levels of social wealth in some societies than others, and a correlation showing increased rates of disbelief, or very lacklustre religious worship.

Again, I agree!


For example, in England, church attendance in minuscule, yet millions still claim to be Christians, and millions believe in God. But, most will live their lives without reading a bible, attending church more than a dozen times in their adult life.

Because the alienated Capitalist societies have made it so. We all agree on this, there's no reason to have a dispute.


Developing productive forces secularises people. No need for religious banning, or any half witted sensationalised ideas that there will be a counter-revolution because of all the religious people.

Bottom line: I agree Communist FireFox's theory on suppression is irrational; but I do defend that it is not Authoritarian.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

1. No, it wouldn't be a theocratic workers state, because capitalism and liberal democracy already provide a degree of secularism, which I'm sure most religious workers support as they wont all be the same religion.

2. People don't abandon belief systems on mass over night. Religion just becomes less and less relevant. Socialist revolution will likely be the killing blow, but not because it suppresses religion, but because it removes the requirements for religion to foster.

3. Militant Atheism if your a liberal, is not authoritarian. Militant Atheism if your a communist and you want to ban religion is authoritarian.


What makes them militant-atheist is simply their belief that Theistic institutions and Churches are an immediate threat and need to be attacked.

this is only right, if you are an idealist and not a materialist. I'm a materialist, so i think it is plain wrong.


But the justification lies within religion's counter-revolutionary character, and a proletarian state's objectives of suppressing counter-revolutionary force. I'm not trying to defend his views, simply debunk they are examples of Authoritarianism.

Religion, cannot be counter-revolutionary. Classes are only counter-revolutionary or revolutionary.

religion, is selective based on the current events. If the proletariat is fighting for socialism, then those religious proles will be justifying socialism to each other in religious terms. Just like in Nicaragua.

[INDK]

1. No, it wouldn't be a theocratic workers state, because capitalism and liberal democracy already provide a degree of secularism, which I'm sure most religious workers support as they wont all be the same religion.

You said yourself religious workers would pursue their interests through their new State; would this not include, at least in part, religious interests? Thus, would the State not be at least Theocratic, if not a Theocracy? It wouldn't end nicely, if religion and socialism became intertwined, especially in a period of Socialism. When justifying religion's counter-revolutionary principles, you ignore that something must be done or Socialism is doomed to fail.


2. People don't abandon belief systems on mass over night. Religion just becomes less and less relevant. Socialist revolution will likely be the killing blow, but not because it suppresses religion, but because it removes the requirements for religion to foster.

Of course they don't, so to avoid the socialist proletariat turning to theocratic principles (think of it this way; we have agreed religion is a product of alienated conditions, and a product of workers not thinking for themselves: if the workers still don't think for themselves, in control of the State, they will turn to one person for guidance, and that is their hypothetical God.) there must already be a spirit of tackling religion in their society when socialists take over. Remember, aside from the improvement of social conditions to combat religion, there will be at least a few religious institutions that would have to be subdued forcefully, because of militant resistance by the followers of that institution. Not every religious person will turn from it quietly. Religion won't be able to foster resources or strength if the proletariat goes into socialism already with some form of priority of combating religious institutions.



3. Militant Atheism if your a liberal, is not authoritarian. Militant Atheism if your a communist and you want to ban religion is authoritarian.

It is not Authoritarianism because it is not unique to the objectives of Communists in a people's State; to subdue all forces against the socialist cause, so as to provide a path to unhindered Communism.


this is only right, if you are an idealist and not a materialist. I'm a materialist, so i think it is plain wrong.

I don't think you grasp this: I am not militant-atheist and I do not believe in the theory! My only argument is that it is not an Authoritarian way of thinking. I'm alongside you debunking Anti-Theism, you have to understand that. But I hold strongly it is not Authoritarian. This is getting hopelessly off-topic, I would like to continue debating the subject of religious suppression; not religious suppression's ideology.


Religion, cannot be counter-revolutionary. Classes are only counter-revolutionary or revolutionary.


So Fascism is not counter-revolutionary because it lies in ideology and not in class? Think about it.


religion, is selective based on the current events. If the proletariat is fighting for socialism, then those religious proles will be justifying socialism to each other in religious terms. Just like in Nicaragua.

They can't, if socialism is to succeed. The proletariat will already be in secular transitions when the spirit of socialism is put within them; Communism and religion will prove incompatible.

[VukBZ2005]

Whenever I read 'Worker's self-management' I invariably think of the Tito experience. Now we see clearly where "local control" of the economy leads. Each ethnicity retained its own economic interests and never learned what centralized cooperation should be. Workers of each ethnicity never understood concretely how they were damaging each others' interests if at all. In fact, in Yugoslavia's case, the lack of centralized contact bred suspicions and illusions of damage from other ethnicities when it was really imperialism robbing Yugoslavia with Tito's blessings. Hence, without centrally coordinated economic contact among workers, real damages and illusions of damages may accrue in relations among nations.The Workers' Self-Management that I speak of is in no way similar or identical to the "Workers' Self-Management" that existed in the "Socialist" Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, between the years of 1950 to 1990. The Workers' Self-Management that I speak of is neither subjugated to a "Communist" Party, nor is it limited to the dimension of the economy. But, it is a part of the institutions that will form the basis of popular power, and, it is something that will be a fundamental part of society, culture and politics, not just the economy.

[drunkenproletariat]

You said yourself religious workers would pursue their interests through their new State; would this not include, at least in part, religious interests? Thus, would the State not be at least Theocratic, if not a Theocracy? It wouldn't end nicely, if religion and socialism became intertwined, especially in a period of Socialism. When justifying religion's counter-revolutionary principles, you ignore that something must be done or Socialism is doomed to fail.

the religious interests of the workers are contrary to the creation of a workers self-management. as the hierarchial function of religion, doesn't materialize the interest of their followers, it conceptualizes these interests for them from a devine source, from a higher order. to defend the religious interests of the workers is to allow the law to be established as decending from this devine source, like the ten commandments were handed to moses by god... so long as the law defends the interests of the religious, they will seek to utilize the state to defend the interest of the highest source. of hierarchial society.


Religion, cannot be counter-revolutionary. Classes are only counter-revolutionary or revolutionary.

religion is the language of the counter-revolutionary, as it is the language of class domination and antagonism. as it is the historic idealissm and material superstructure of the nation state. because the interests of the working class are on one hand divided by the church and on the other hand contradictory to the unification of these desires, supports the exploitation of the workers and their conditions. fundementalists the world over fund wars, are leaders, and own labour, and their institutions were the historic foundations of the class society.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Drunken Proletariat.


the religious interests of the workers are contrary to the creation of a workers self-management. as the hierarchial function of religion, doesn't materialize the interest of their followers, it conceptualizes these interests for them from a devine source, from a higher order. to defend the religious interests of the workers is to allow the law to be established as decending from this devine source, like the ten commandments were handed to moses by god... so long as the law defends the interests of the religious, they will seek to utilize the state to defend the interest of the highest source. of hierarchial society

They didn't do this in the Russian Revolution, nor in Venezuela today, nor in Nicaragua.

Most religious workers are secular in their day to day action, and secular in that they accept that it is wrong to ban other religions.

Don't you understand that? you are making a false claim that does not meet reality.


religion is the language of the counter-revolutionary, as it is the language of class domination and antagonism. as it is the historic idealissm and material superstructure of the nation state. because the interests of the working class are on one hand divided by the church and on the other hand contradictory to the unification of these desires, supports the exploitation of the workers and their conditions. fundementalists the world over fund wars, are leaders, and own labour, and their institutions were the historic foundations of the class society.

Erm, fundamentalists are very small, even tiny in number. This is about the average worker who has a religious belief and your willingness to suppress it.

YET YOU THEN CALL OTHERS FUNDAMENTALISTS! That's how your behaving.

Violent Proletarian


You said yourself religious workers would pursue their interests through their new State; would this not include, at least in part, religious interests?


No, as most religious people are secular and limit their religious practice to a small area in their lives.

Have you ever talked to religious people? I'm willing to bet 99% would oppose any sort of 'theocracy'.
but i ask you, how can workers (some of whom will be religious undoubtedly), have a revolution, but then lose some of their freedoms, despite now being the ruling class?



Not every religious person will turn from it quietly. Religion won't be able to foster resources or strength if the proletariat goes into socialism already with some form of priority of combating religious institutions.

so capitalism is strong enough to survive a plurality of religions, yet socialism, is so weak, the workers are so stupid, that socialism cannot tolerate any dissent. It must suppress all modes of suppression.

The problem for you is, the proletariat are not homogeneous, they are diverse and pluralistic.

Why ban religion and religious institutions and accept multiple parties, multiples of soviets and centres of power or authority?


It is not Authoritarianism because it is not unique to the objectives of Communists in a people's State; to subdue all forces against the socialist cause, so as to provide a path to unhindered Communism.

right so, you know what is hindering the path to communism do you? how do you know this???

And how can you make people less free and use it to justify making everyone totally free?



So Fascism is not counter-revolutionary because it lies in ideology and not in class? Think about it.

Fascism is a bourgeois response to a militant workers movement. In Chile, Allende was 'ousted' in a coup and the fascists took control of the country. The bourgeoisie become very rich and workers organisations and rights were crushed.

Fascism is not an idea, but a desperate response to the workers movement. (proletarian) Revolution and (bourgeois) Counter-revolution.

[drunkenproletariat]

They didn't do this in the Russian Revolution, nor in Venezuela today, nor in Nicaragua.

Most religious workers are secular in their day to day action, and secular in that they accept that it is wrong to ban other religions.

Don't you understand that? you are making a false claim that does not meet reality.

nice point of origin.. the religious tendencies of the russian revolution, funded the establishment of the lumpen-proletariat in russia, which actually materially formulated the law to russian workers.. which wasn't the aparatus of the communist party within their factories, but the willingness of this aparatus to yeild to existing parts of the old order.


Erm, fundamentalists are very small, even tiny in number. This is about the average worker who has a religious belief and your willingness to suppress it.

YET YOU THEN CALL OTHERS FUNDAMENTALISTS! That's how your behaving.

i didn't think i would need to clarify this but... i meant RELIGIOUS fundementalism. i am definately a fundementalist and this is why i distinguish a real threat to my material conditions by religion. i am a materialist. i am a revolutionary. fundemental to revolution is the desire build the new world over the ruins of the old, and the church is older than capitalism.

[INDK]

No, as most religious people are secular and limit their religious practice to a small area in their lives.

I only say from personal observations, so I truly cannot be sure, but the working class culture in my area is almost complete Christian and heavily church-going. But who can blame them? Religion has become an organ of class rule, if you think about it... it has captivated the masses and yet bourgeois runs the show in that institution.


so capitalism is strong enough to survive a plurality of religions, yet socialism, is so weak, the workers are so stupid, that socialism cannot tolerate any dissent. It must suppress all modes of suppression.

The problem for you is, the proletariat are not homogeneous, they are diverse and pluralistic.

Why ban religion and religious institutions and accept multiple parties, multiples of soviets and centres of power or authority?

I never implied that the workers are "too stupid", or homogeneous, at that. Nor did I ever imply "banning" religion. You need to differentiate between suppression, the expression of authority over, and the disappearance of. It's not that religion should be banned, it's that counter-revolutionary institutions should be fought against and in a post-revolutionary society we are sure to watch religion disappear from necessity.

Capitalism is strong enough to survive a plurality of religions? Capitalism controls the religions! It is an organ of class rule, at least how it is used now; in truth, it is a product of Capitalism and the conditions it creates, but it is still manipulated by bourgeoisie of religious institutions.


right so, you know what is hindering the path to communism do you? how do you know this???

And how can you make people less free and use it to justify making everyone totally free?

Okay, you need to run this through your skull: I do not wish for religion to be suppressed in any form (unless it suppresses our movement), I simply point out religion will cease to exist upon the establishment of a Communism.


Fascism is a bourgeois response to a militant workers movement. In Chile, Allende was 'ousted' in a coup and the fascists took control of the country. The bourgeoisie become very rich and workers organisations and rights were crushed.

What I meant by my rebuttal was that you seem to think only class interests can be of revolution and counter-revolution, and though you have shown Fascism's relation to class, that does not make it any less an ideological persuasion... All ideological persuasions from Fascism to Bolshevism are theoretical philosophies with relations to class.


Fascism is not an idea, but a desperate response to the workers movement. (proletarian) Revolution and (bourgeois) Counter-revolution.

No, it must be identified as an ideology that responds to workers' victory.

[Fiskpure]

Let's assume that strong religious proletarian groups are permitted, what're you gonna do if they attempt to do a counter-revolution and crush the atheistic society?

[Comrade Rage]

Let's assume that strong religious proletarian groups are permitted, what're you gonna do if they attempt to do a counter-revolution and crush the atheistic society?Fight back, of course. Such a counter-revolution (jihad, really) would by it's very nature, have a small following.

[kromando33]

Well religion is by nature anti-Marxist, it draws it's inspiration for reality from supposed meta-psychical sources, but in reality from ancient bronze-age Judean myths which are very reactionary. Marxism is about looking only to reality for answers, historical materialism looks to material conditions, and what these material conditions create, proletarian socialism breeds communal material relations, while bourgeois states breed divisive individual atomization of society into completely alone individuals, which is truly terrifying.

[INDK]

Let's assume that strong religious proletarian groups are permitted, what're you gonna do if they attempt to do a counter-revolution and crush the atheistic society?

Counter-counter-revolt?


Well religion is by nature anti-Marxist, it draws it's inspiration for reality from supposed meta-psychical sources, but in reality from ancient bronze-age Judean myths which are very reactionary. Marxism is about looking only to reality for answers, historical materialism looks to material conditions, and what these material conditions create, proletarian socialism breeds communal material relations, while bourgeois states breed divisive individual atomization of society into completely alone individuals, which is truly terrifying.

This has been well established; means by which to dispose of this are currently in discussion.

[Fiskpure]

As an example, look at the Vatican states, they were publishing quite a lot of anti-communist material which promotes more anti-communism amongst the workers.

Yeah, counter-counter revolt, I don't see why that wouldn't be impossible, especially in the muslim states and other extremist groups.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Fiskpure


As an example, look at the Vatican states, they were publishing quite a lot of anti-communist material which promotes more anti-communism amongst the workers.

Yeah, counter-counter revolt, I don't see why that wouldn't be impossible, especially in the muslim states and other extremist groups.

Well, so were secularist liberals, anarchists, Trotskyists, anti-stalinist Marxists, most humanist atheists too.

On your second point, if the workers who are religious reject their class interest and choose religious reactionaries, then i would question the reality of the revolution in the first place.

People adapt their religion to reflect their society. Whether they are justifying their own poverty in capitalism, or the potential of socialism, the poles of religion will itself move to reflect the changing material conditions.

Religion is not outside of time/space. and it needs to be understood like that.

Anyone who is saying that all religious workers have a potential to be reactionary that their atheists fellows don't share, simply is overstating the effect of religion, especially religion inside revolutionary environments.

Lenin says -


At the same time Engels frequently condemned the efforts of people who desired to be “more left” or “more revolutionary” than the Social-Democrats, to introduce into the programme of the workers’ party an explicit proclamation of atheism, in the sense of declaring war on religion. Commenting in 1874 on the famous manifesto of the Blanquist fugitive Communards who were living in exile in London, Engels called their vociferous proclamation of war on religion a piece of stupidity, and stated that such a declaration of war was the best way to revive interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out.



Engels blamed the Blanquists for being unable to understand that only the class struggle of the working masses could, by comprehensively drawing the widest strata of the proletariat into conscious and revolutionary social practice, really free the oppressed masses from the yoke of religion, whereas to proclaim that war on religion was a political task of the workers’ party was just anarchistic phrase-mongering

Importantly



And in 1877, too, in his Anti-Dühring, while ruthlessly attacking the slightest concessions made by Dühring the philosopher to idealism and religion, Engels no less resolutely condemns Dühring’s pseudo-revolutionary idea that religion should be prohibited in socialist society.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm -
The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion

[INDK]

Anyone who is saying that all religious workers have a potential to be reactionary that their atheists fellows don't share, simply is overstating the effect of religion, especially religion inside revolutionary environments.

You with this only enforce the idea of religion's suppression or dissolution (whatever side is taken in this thread, I kind of stand in the middle of them as I grow more of an Anarchist over Marxist) is a necessity.

[Fiskpure]

Alright, thanks for clearing this up.

[INDK]

pseudo-revolutionary idea that religion should be prohibited in socialist society.

I must stress that there is a difference between suppression, disappearance, and prohibition by law.