Communism and Religion - Do they exclude each other? Round #2 [Archive]

Kwisatz Haderach

12th March 2008, 00:51

Communism is a form of human social organization. The only kinds of beliefs incompatible with communism are those that explicitly advocate non-communist forms of human social organization. For example, if a religion unambiguously declared that exploitation is good or that the means of production are to remain private property, such a religion would be incompatible with communism. However, to my knowledge, no such religion exists. Most religions - perhaps all religions - have rather vague views about human social organization and could be used to justify capitalism, socialism, communism or a host of other modes of production, depending on your interpretation.

For each of the first three questions, I have the same answer: Yes, it is possible to be a revolutionary and hold any one of those beliefs. However, most organized religions, alternative faiths and supernatural beliefs have at least some sects or factions that are incompatible with communism. For example, it is possible to be a Muslim or Christian communist, but it is not possible to be a Muslim or Christian fundamentalist and still remain a communist. It is possible to believe in UFOs and be a communist, but it is not possible to be a communist while believing that the world is secretly run by an alien conspiracy.

All of the arguments used by the other side (those who argue that communism and religion exclude each other) are focused around the materialist basis of Marxism and the idealist basis of religion. First of all, that is not an issue between communism and religion, that is an issue between Marxism and religion. All Marxists are communists, but not all communists are Marxists. It is possible to be a communist for non-Marxist reasons. Yes, most of us here at revleft would argue that such people are communists for the wrong reasons, but that is irrelevant. It is possible to hold the correct political position for the wrong reasons.

But there is even a way to reconcile Marxist materialism with religious idealism. Marxism is concerned with the structure and evolution of human society. You can be a Marxist if you believe that materialism is an accurate way to explain the structure and evolution of human society. You are not required to believe that materialism is an accurate way to explain everything in the universe. Thus, there is room for religion.

JDHURF

12th March 2008, 01:15

I agree with Chomsky when he observes that religion “crosses the spectrum,” and “is very often mobilized for very ugly purposes,” yet, “sometimes for very human purposes, like liberation theology.” Organized religion can be reactionary, like the Catholic church in, say, revolutionary Spain, or it can be a force for liberation, like much of the Catholic clergy in Latin America. In fact, there are even biblical precedents in favor of communism. Take the book of Acts, which contains two explicit passages referring to communist practice:

“All that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” (Acts 2:44-45)
This is virtually indistinguishable to me from Marx’s dictum: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Acts continues:
“There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feed, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means ‘son of encouragement’). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.” (Acts 4:34-37)
Even many quotes attributed to Jesus emphasize working for the betterment of the poor – the famous quote about a camel passing through a needle’s eye being one of them - and the OT also suggests that the preferable society and way of living is communistic:
“This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat.” (Ex. 16:16-18)

I myself am a confirmed atheist, in no need of the illusory consolation of religious fancy, but, many of my comrades are religious and, in many cases, are revolutionaries due to the influence of their particular religion. In fact, Comrade Dave, a comrade of mine, is deeply religious; you can read up on his views, which differ from mine, at theredmantis(dot)blogspot(dot)com.

apathy maybe

8th April 2008, 11:36

Bump, well try and bump.

I think that this discussion is quite interesting and would be interested in various other opinions.

commiesinger

11th April 2008, 15:24

I have read the manifesto.:marx: I have studied the history of communism.
:hammersickle::cubaflag: :castro: :che:Why do many communists have something against religion. :unsure:People in my view have the right to believe in any God they wish. the main problem I would have about them is that they try to censor the media and involve themselves in government. I know i wouldn't want to life under religious law of a religion i don't follow.:mad:

I do not believe that their right to worship should not be taken away.

To take that right away is only going to produce religious extremists who will fight to the death for there right to say i believe in my God. because everyone has the right to believe what they believe.

What I want to know if communism is against religion or against religious involvement in government?:confused:

Holden Caulfield

11th April 2008, 15:41

i would say religion is certainly against communism, but faith isn't necessarily

spartan

11th April 2008, 15:50

Organised religion will be suppressed (Due to the reactionary nature of a hierarchal body) but people can still privately worship whatever they want as long as it doesnt effect anyone elses liberty.

Alternatively you could just leave religion alone (As attacking it will probably make enemies out of religious people whose beliefs will be reaffirmed due to them feeling persecuted) and let it wither away naturally as people will someday see the pointlessness in it (As shown by the growing amount of Atheists in the world today).

I personally dont have anything against religious people as long as they dont spread their beliefs and dont complain when the country that they live in has a Secular society.

Red_or_Dead

11th April 2008, 16:58

I voted the third option.

Imo, it is the only realistic option in a potential future communist society. We should by all means keep organized religion at bay (if not doing away with it alltogether), but as to what an individual believes in... Its not up to us, its up to the individual.

ComradeOm

11th April 2008, 20:46

We should by all means keep organized religion at bay (if not doing away with it alltogether), but as to what an individual believes in... Its not up to us, its up to the individual.And if they believe in organised religion?

Lensky1917

11th April 2008, 21:07

I voted or the third option. Religion should be considered an acceptable practice only when done by the individual. To this end, no religious people should have influence in government. Nor do I think that religious symbols should be viewed by the public.

Red_or_Dead

11th April 2008, 21:23

And if they believe in organised religion?

They cant have it.

ComradeOm

11th April 2008, 23:32

They cant have it.So what's happened to "as to what an individual believes in... Its not up to us, its up to the individual"?

Red_or_Dead

12th April 2008, 00:07

So what's happened to "as to what an individual believes in... Its not up to us, its up to the individual"?

If an individual decides to believe in something, thats up to the induvidual.

Organizing, and making religion institutional, that should be kept at bay, and ultimately dealt away with.

Clear?

NiccolÃ² Rossi

12th April 2008, 00:21

The above posters have severely overlooked important details.

Remember Marx's position of Religion is very much that of Feuerbach's, in that religion is a symptom of alienated man. Man projects his misery and distress into the heavens, finding for himself eternal bliss in the after life, a consolation to him and his earthly suffering at the hands of alien forces.

Where Marx and Feuerbach differed was in their solutions to this alienation. Feuerbach believed that if the knowledge of the laws that govern the material world could be uncovered, this alienation would disappear as man would become the master of the forces which had hitherto been and lien force to him.

Marx on the other hand went further in acknowledging religion as an element of man's alienation, but, that this alienation could not be dispelled and man's mastery over the alien forces operating in the material world until the communist stage of society where all of man alienation would be ended and he would be in true harmony and understanding of himself and the material world.

Therefore, Marx say in no way the possibility of bringing an end to religion earlier than the communist stage of society since man alienation would be maintained until just a date.

Some related material:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. 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 encyclopaedic 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.

Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man -- a question which implies admission of the unreality of nature and of man -- has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as a negation of God, has no longer any meaning, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation.

Thesis 4.
Feuerbach starts off from the fact of religious estrangement, of the duplication of the world into a religious, imaginary world, and a secular one. His work consists in resolving the religious world into its secular basis. He overlooks the fact that after completing this work, the chief thing still remains to be done. For the fact that the secular basis lifts off from itself and establishes itself in the clouds as an independent realm can only be explained by the inner strife and intrinsic contradictoriness of this secular basis. The latter must itself be understood in its contradiction and then, by the removal of the contradiction, revolutionised. Thus, for instance, once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, former must itself be annihilated theoretically and practically.

Thesis 6.
Feuerbach resolves the essence of religion into the essence of man [menschliche Wesen = “human nature”]. But the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations. Feuerbach, who does not enter upon a criticism of this real essence is hence obliged:
1. To abstract from the historical process and to define the religious sentiment regarded by itself, and to presuppose an abstract -- isolated -- human individual.
2. The essence therefore can by him only be regarded as “species,” as an inner “dumb” generality which unites many individuals only in a natural way.

Thesis 7.
Feuerbach consequently does not see that the “religious sentiment” is itself a social product, and that the abstract individual that he analyses belongs in reality to a particular social form.

The religious reflections of the real world can, in any case, vanish only when the practical relations of everyday life between man and man, and man and nature, generally present themselves to him in a transparent and rational form. The veil is not removed from the countenance of the social life-process, i.e. the process of material production, until it becomes production by freely associated men, and stands under their conscious and planned control. This, however, requires that society possess a material foundation, or a series of material conditions of existence, which in their turn are the natural and spontaneous product of a long and tormented historical development.

This antagonistic stage cannot be avoided, any more than it is possible for man to avoid the stage in which his spiritual energies are given a religious definition as powers independent of himself. What we are confronted by here is the alienation [Entfremdung] of man from his own labour.

This leads us to the conclusion that, unlike others have suggested above, there is no need to suppress religion as it will be a force that is dying as man approaches the elimination of his alienation and a full unity with himself and his material world, no longer under the sway of alien forces. Once the material conditions for religion are abolished, religion itself will die out. I of course acknowledge that religion can in some post-revolutionary circumstances act as a reactionary force which has the potential to endanger the progress of the revolution. If this were the case it would be obvious to suppress it, just as we suppress the expropriated bourgeoisie under the dictatorship of the proletariat to ensure the revolution, we may have to suppress reactionary and counter-revolutionary religious activity. This in no way means we should suppress religion as a whole, but only those dangerously reactionary elements if the conditions prove necessary.

ComradeOm

12th April 2008, 01:03

If an individual decides to believe in something, thats up to the induvidual.

Organizing, and making religion institutional, that should be kept at bay, and ultimately dealt away with.

Clear?No, you still haven't dealt with the fundamental contradiction between your positions. You are stating that the individual has the right to believe whatever they want unless you disagree with what it is they believe in. How can you reconcile these?

On a practical level, ie in dealing with religion, the problem (if you want to consider it that) is that religion is a group activity. Every religion that has a mass following (ie, excluding minor cults such as witchcraft or the Jedi) has some form of clergy and some form of communal worship. For the two largest religions - Catholicism and Islam - the latter is central to the faith. You can't have Catholicism without the Church. So will it be illegal to be a Catholic? Will it be illegal to believe in the Catholic teachings?

Fedorov

12th April 2008, 01:31

Organized religion does not pose a major threat and as long as it has no role in politics it is a person's right to believe in whatever and organize. Its odd to think that at one time and still persecuted communists would abolish the rights of others simply because one is "right". If communism and whatnot is truly way then it will trump other currents. A revolutionary or just post-revolutionary situation is a little different, there organized religion and other ideas can be repressed for a time being until being more secure and traces of bourgeoisie eliminated.

Red_or_Dead

12th April 2008, 13:17

No, you still haven't dealt with the fundamental contradiction between your positions. You are stating that the individual has the right to believe whatever they want unless you disagree with what it is they believe in. How can you reconcile these?

No. An individual can believe whatever he/she desires, no matter how stupid or reactionary, and no matter what me or you believe is right or wrong. Its ok as long as it stayes in their heads, or if they practice it, only so long as they dont stand in the way of others.

What goes on in peoples heads is their bussiness, and criminalizing it would be the dumbest thing imaginable. How can you know and control whats going on in someone elses head?

On a practical level, ie in dealing with religion, the problem (if you want to consider it that) is that religion is a group activity. Every religion that has a mass following (ie, excluding minor cults such as witchcraft or the Jedi) has some form of clergy and some form of communal worship. For the two largest religions - Catholicism and Islam - the latter is central to the faith. You can't have Catholicism without the Church. So will it be illegal to be a Catholic? Will it be illegal to believe in the Catholic teachings?

Look at Zeltgeists post. Religion is a symptom of alienation. The further we go down towards abolishing alienation, the closer we are to abolishing organized and non organized religion. Making religion alltogether illegal is pointless, and in early stages of socialism that would only serve to make us more enemies. Sure, we may need to supress it to a certain extent, but making it illegal is not the idea.

Demogorgon

12th April 2008, 13:26

Complete freedom of religion must be an absolute guarantee is any truly secular society, and surely Communism aspires to be secular in nature?

ComradeOm

12th April 2008, 15:22

Its ok as long as it stayes in their heads, or if they practice it, only so long as they dont stand in the way of othersTo clarify: you would have no issue with like minded people gathering to celebrate mass?

What goes on in peoples heads is their bussiness, and criminalizing it would be the dumbest thing imaginable. How can you know and control whats going on in someone elses head?Which is exactly why I find it so ridiculous to maintain the compromise position of "Let them believe, but not act". That is, as I say above, a complete contradiction. You either outlaw religion or you don't; talking about rights is nonsense

Look at Zeltgeists post. Religion is a symptom of alienation. The further we go down towards abolishing alienation, the closer we are to abolishing organized and non organized religionWhich is completely useless in any practice discussion on religion in a post-revolution society. I understand that its easier to discuss general theory and trends than to nail down specific policies, which Marx was wise enough to avoid, but assuming that religion will simply disappear is a matter of wilful ignorance

Making religion alltogether illegal is pointless, and in early stages of socialism that would only serve to make us more enemies. Sure, we may need to supress it to a certain extent, but making it illegal is not the idea.And you are basing this on what assumption? Both the Russian Revolution and Spanish Civil War saw the rise of militant state-sponsored anti-clericism. Obviously the latter was cut short by the Nationalist victory, but in Russia the Communist campaign against religion was remarkably successful and succeeded in smashing the power of the Orthodox Church and any hold it held over the population

12th April 2008, 20:56

what free society communism would be if you were banned for beiliving in anything you want?Everyone especially in communists/anarchists societys should have the right to believe in anythinh he wants.

Fuserg9:star:

Andres Marcos

13th April 2008, 00:08

I say leave the religious alone, That is let them practice their stuff but make sure that Govt. and religion are seperate. The only thing I would say should be gotten rid of is the practice of polygamy, the marrying of children, mega churches, the burka, and when it starts to be a problem in starting religious conflicts like in Iraq or in Bosnia...other than that I say let people practice it privately when they want.

Cult of Reason

13th April 2008, 04:10

For example, if a religion unambiguously declared that exploitation is good

Render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's?

As to the original questions:

Yes to the first three, though I view them as not beneficial at all for a Communist, they can distract you from the real causes for things and, in the case of the first one, provide influence from a section of the status quo, which could be retarding.

Then no, and then yes. However, the judgement of a non-materialist should be met with more suspicion than if they were a materialist, since it cannot be certain that they reached their position with logic derived from reality and, in the case of those in organised religions, it cannot be certain that they are not influenced by religious leaders and sermons and the like, which could be damaging.

Red_or_Dead

13th April 2008, 22:16

To clarify: you would have no issue with like minded people gathering to celebrate mass?

None whatsoever.

Which is exactly why I find it so ridiculous to maintain the compromise position of "Let them believe, but not act". That is, as I say above, a complete contradiction. You either outlaw religion or you don't; talking about rights is nonsense

Where is the contradiction here? I dont see any.

You can outlaw religion. If you do not outlaw it completely, there may still be (and should be) many restrictions, without actualy outlawing the whole thing.

Which is completely useless in any practice discussion on religion in a post-revolution society. I understand that its easier to discuss general theory and trends than to nail down specific policies, which Marx was wise enough to avoid, but assuming that religion will simply disappear is a matter of wilful ignorance

Im not suggesting that religion will just simply dissapear byitself. There is a great deal of things that has do be achieved before that happens, and complete separation of state and religion (which in many of todays western democracies is just dead letters on a piece of paper) is the first step.

And you are basing this on what assumption? Both the Russian Revolution and Spanish Civil War saw the rise of militant state-sponsored anti-clericism. Obviously the latter was cut short by the Nationalist victory, but in Russia the Communist campaign against religion was remarkably successful and succeeded in smashing the power of the Orthodox Church and any hold it held over the population

On the assumption that the population (be it religious and non-religious) generaly tends to loathe repression, and outlawing religion and persecuting religious people is most definatly a form of repression.

apathy maybe

16th April 2008, 09:23

We have too few mods. This thread not only should be in Religion, but is also redundant.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-and-religion-t73036/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-religion-illegal-t55339/index.html

Anyway, religion is a danger to a rational free society (Defending Rationalism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/defending-rationalism-t52489/index.html)), religious people however, are not a threat in and of themselves.

They can't have any more influence on "government" then any other person, because there is no "government".

And you can't just say, "no religion period", without a government and a police force to stamp it out. And even then, it doesn't work.

Education and prosperity is the way to abolish religion.

RHIZOMES

16th April 2008, 09:33

Sentinel

16th April 2008, 12:22

This belongs in Religion -- moved.

And no religion in my communism, please.

al8

16th April 2008, 19:33

Demogorgon

16th April 2008, 22:54

Religion is anti-rational and anti-human. Of cource it should be banned it is wrong and reactionary. It should be forcefully removed from public life. Religious ideas that people hold in their head in secret will not be persued and banned, since it is not practical. But actions and public display built upon religious ideas will not be allowed. As will the sprading of the virus to defenceless kids.
Wanting to prohibit any kind of expression that you do not like is irrational, certainly reactionary as well. Should we ban your authoritarian ideas too on that basis?

Bud Struggle

16th April 2008, 23:25

Religion is anti-rational and anti-human. Of cource it should be banned it is wrong and reactionary. It should be forcefully removed from public life. Religious ideas that people hold in their head in secret will not be persued and banned, since it is not practical. But actions and public display built upon religious ideas will not be allowed. As will the sprading of the virus to defenceless kids.

Of course, one could make a good case that Communism is a religion. It's got the "Good Book". It's got the Pie in the Sky afterlife. It's got the Prophet (Marx). It's even got a "science."

And then there's the RevLeft "faithful". Certainly communism shouldn't be taught to any kids under 21.:D

al8

17th April 2008, 04:39

Wanting to prohibit any kind of expression that you do not like is irrational, certainly reactionary as well.

Your talking in silly abstracts. It is far from irrational. Every society has its norms. Things that are allowed and not allowed to be done or said. I simply want a setup of norms that favor a rational society.

Should we ban your authoritarian ideas too on that basis?

Religion is mostly athoritarian in setup and certainly in its ideas. With a supreme cosmic despot and all. It sounds as if you think it a contraditction, to treat religion, like any other reaction, harshly. As if battling or struggling against the enemy makes one "sink to their level". And makes one even worse than them. :laugh: What an utterly counterproductive sentiment(!).

al8

17th April 2008, 05:06

Of course, one could make a good case that Communism is a religion.

No one couldn't. There is no one "Good Book". There is no afterlife promised or pertained. Marx was not a prophet, just a man that wrote in a spesific time and place. Any atempt to debase his writings to "scripture" has been duely criticized time and again by serious communist.

Sentinel

17th April 2008, 08:23

Of course, one could make a good case that Communism is a religion.

And be utterly rejected and laughed out -- as modern communism is scientific, ie purely based on material observations.

pusher robot

18th April 2008, 01:40

What are the poll results?

RedAnarchist

18th April 2008, 01:43

yes let them believe what they will. http://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar2-l.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar2.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar2-r.gif 15 31.25% no religion in communism. period http://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar3-l.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar3.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar3-r.gif 7 14.58% yes let them believe but no influence in government. http://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar4-l.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar4.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar4-r.gif 23 47.92% religous people are a danger to communism http://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar5-l.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar5.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar5-r.gif 3 6.25%

Dust Bunnies

18th April 2008, 02:11

I am a firm believer in Catholicism. I believe that any religion should be allowed, it gives a person a place to go to when feeling depressed and in need of something more. Religion serves no threat, if said religion has been causing problems ban the religion for 20-50 years and give the options for any followers of that religion to go to another country that will allow it. Problem solved. But if you ban religion people will get angry, people will get killed or imprisoned (a waste of money in this situation) and on a statistical point of view its less manpower.

al8

19th April 2008, 05:36

I believe that any religion should be allowed, it gives a person a place to go to when feeling depressed and in need of something more.

People don't need to do that. There are secular ways to solve these problems. (i.e with a proper society or seeing a therapist).

Religion only preys on peoples weeknessess and should have no hands in 'treating' depression.

Bastable

21st April 2008, 10:28

Belief in religion is a sign of two things. weakness and laziness.

Weakness, for not being able to see the world as it really is, for clinging to the idea of a "perfect Afterlife" just to be able to get through life, a 'crutch' if you would.

Laziness for not taking the time to look at the world around them.
e.g. i grew up in a christian family. This family of mine consider the drought Australia is currently in to be "god trying to tell us something". As opposed to the simple relationship of the weather - el nino & la nina.

I don't know about you but i don't want to see either weakness or laziness in a communist society.

Faux Real

21st April 2008, 11:33

It is not religion that should be made a target of, the problem is of religious and even anti-religious institutions that actively oppose liberation from capitalism.

Followers of religion or none at all, regardless of philosophy or denomination, should be opposed at any attempt to corrupt a movement which fights oppression, accepts diversity and promotes the establishment of small autonomous communities each defining it's own social system.

As long as it's not being imposed or opposed at a state level there is no problem with it, there is no harm.

Aside from that it's flimsy and lazy thinking that religion will disappear because alienation from one's labor does.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

7th May 2008, 19:43

The public presence of religion should be completely obliterated. This means no churches, street preachers, religious parades etc. You can believe what you want in the privacy of your own head and do what you want in your owbn home, but inflict that shit on kids (whether your own or someone else's) or the public and expect a response, depending on just what is it that you do.

pusher robot

7th May 2008, 21:25

Bud Struggle

7th May 2008, 21:30

The public presence of religion should be completely obliterated. This means no churches, street preachers, religious parades etc. You can believe what you want in the privacy of your own head and do what you want in your owbn home,...

Kind of like what happened to Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. :D

BurnTheOliveTree

9th May 2008, 02:05

1. It's possible to be religious and a revolutionary, like Edric, but only if you bend over backwards to squirm out of the reactionary trends that the major faiths are riddled with, like Edric.

2. Yes, but in my experience it's a rare phenomenon. Also, I think that New Age and all that stuff is actually even more ridiculous than say, Christianity. The vatican might sometimes concede the odd point on science, but New Agers just keep peddlimg the same old shit.

3. Yes, I don't think random irrational beliefs like ghosts or whatever affect your politics much.

Do you have to be a materialist to be an ideologically true revolutionary (not all atheists are materialist).

Well, to be "ideologically true" yes you do. A non-materialist is concerned with things 'above and beyond' material class struggle, so they aren't "ideologically true" in that sense. That said, I really don't like to say this, it implies I have some monopoly on what a real leftist is, and none of us do really.

Could a religious atheist be a revolutionary (e.g. some Buddhist sects, some Hindu sects and some "alternative" religions have atheistic followers)?

Yeah of course, although I hardly see hinduism as atheistic, and even those more secular sects are bound up in the caste system et cetera, which makes it unlikely/difficult.

Which is more important: (1) Not believing in a deity, or (2) Not being part of an organized religion - or a combination of the two?

I suppose 2 since it actually has practical and negative consequences for human society if you do, but I find it more frustrating when people talk about their basic theism - it just seems so extremely illogical that I cannot even begin to understand the other side.

-Alex

Tower of Bebel

13th May 2008, 12:59

I think religion should be allowed as communism should/will guarantee freedom of expression.

Let the religious folks try to influence the governing structures of the newborn society, they will first have to defeat the rationality of democracy and freedom. Let them speak out lout, as they cannot rely on any monopoly on speech what so ever (in contrast with the monopoly on media by the Catholic church during the Middle Ages or the the monopoly of capital on media and speech today). Even Neoliberals should be able to express their political beliefs in a communist society.

Of course, this freedom of expression is not automaticly guaranteed in the transition from capitalism to communism; just like it is today.

Demogorgon

13th May 2008, 13:11

Kind of like what happened to Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. :D
Nah, they weren't half as bad as the lunacy being proposed here.

I can only utterly distance myself from the utterlyinsane and ultra-authoritarian so called "Communists" whose bigotry is leading them to wish to create a whole bunch of thought crimes.

Kami

13th May 2008, 15:34

Education and prosperity is the way to abolish religion.Absolutely! If Religion is the disease, education is the cure and prosperity the vaccine.[/QUOTE]
Edit: sorry for replying to old post, thought I was reading the latest page -.-

Peacekeeper

13th May 2008, 20:30

I'm Muslim and in my opinion, it is certainly possible to have socialist states where the majority of the population is Muslim, like in some of the constituent republics of the USSR.

Plagueround

24th May 2008, 22:03

I'm Muslim and in my opinion, it is certainly possible to have socialist states where the majority of the population is Muslim, like in some of the constituent republics of the USSR.

It's possible to have a socialist state where the majority of the population believes in unicorns too...but that doesn't make it progressive or follow the true intent of communism.

Baconator

27th May 2008, 01:33

I think communism and religion might be more compatible than people let up. Looking at their core principles, they both advocate (different) prescriptions of collectivism and socialism. A general common principle I find throughout communism and religion is that the overall socio-religious or socio-economic whole is greater than the individuals from which is it comprised. In most religious texts individualism is shunned and treated as egotistic and collectivism is encouraged.

Aside from that, they are also competing doctrines for the 'collective' souls of millions and thus come into conflict. I understand plenty communists are atheists like myself but there are also many anti-theists.

Baning or outlawing of religion ( presumably with the threat of force) only empowers religion. It has the opposite intended effect. The battle against religion rests in the scientific and philosophical challenges against it. As science progresses religious dogma loses as there are virtually no more 'flat-earthers' and even the Catholic Church is (grudgingly) starting to accept the undeniable facts about evolution.

al8

27th May 2008, 04:54

Baning or outlawing of religion ( presumably with the threat of force) only empowers religion. It has the opposite intended effect.

That is by no means neccisarily follows. This is a self defeating view. Religion must be fought on all fronts.

chimx

27th May 2008, 05:00

but that doesn't make it progressive or follow the true intent of communism.

What do you think the true intent of communism is?

Svante

1st June 2008, 04:17

i dont think there should b e any churches. i hate churches. there are 3 or 4on avery street were i live.

Peacekeeper

5th June 2008, 19:59

It's possible to have a socialist state where the majority of the population believes in unicorns too...but that doesn't make it progressive or follow the true intent of communism.

The true intent of communism is group ownership of the means of production by the working class and the community, the destruction of private property as an idea, the withering away of political power of the state, and to destroy the alienation between the worker and the product he manufactures. All of which are compatible with Islam.

"Progressive," is not a word I enjoy. It is a word used by the US liberal middle class, and not something associated with workers movements, in my humble opinion.

Saying religion is not compatible with communism is ludicrous. I am not a fan of "Israel," but even I can see the success of the collectivist system in the Jewish kibbutzim inside the area claimed by the Zionist entity.

EDIT: Italicized word edited. Was originally "religion." My mind must have wandered as I typed...

communard resolution

5th June 2008, 20:36

I voted for option 3. I believe that's the way Lenin did it, which I think was clever as not to alienate the huge amount of potential allies in various territories in the USSR who happened to be religious. You're free to try and convince them of the absurdity of their superstitions later, but I imagine it's very difficult as faith tends to be stronger than rational thinking.

I have this friend who's obsessed with atheism and is convinced that religion is the cause of all evil rather than just a tool. Therefore his political thought doesn't extend beyond battling religion and arguing for a rational point of view, which in his opinion will automatically make all evil go away. He reads all those militantly atheist books and websites that blame religion for everything they dislike. Some of them are very anti-communist and go as far as blaming religion for the "evils of communism". My friend pointed me to a website that says:

"Indeed to the founder of communist doctrines, Karl Marx (1818-1883), atheism, was just a stage on the path to communism, and it was ultimately "unreal" and "no longer needed" by socialism and communism. This is what Karl Marx himself said about atheism:

>Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation...<

It is important to pause for a moment and consider this statement carefully. If Karl Marx, the intellectual founder of Marxism and communism, repudiated atheism as meaningless and no longer needed, how then could atheism be considered the cause of the atrocities committed under communism?."

Of course, this is a very brief Marx quote and completely ripped out of context. I wonder if anyone knows the context and has an idea what Marx wanted to express by that? To be honest, I was a bit disappointed to read Marx said something along these lines - but again, I don't fully understand what he wanted to say. Can anyone clue me up?

communard resolution

5th June 2008, 20:47

Hold on, I think I just got what Marx said. He meant that at the stage of communism anti-theism would no longer be needed as no one would believe in god/gods anymore.

Post-Something

5th June 2008, 21:02

Let the people believe what they will. If religion really isn't needed, then surely it will wither away by itself. We don't need to force any pressure on people to lose their beliefs, which would probably be detrimental anyway.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

5th June 2008, 22:13

Religion is a psychological problem. If we care about our fellow human beings, we try to help them overcome such problems. A society of untreated manic depressive individuals would have difficulty creating a communist state. Similiarly, a society of untreated religious individuals would have difficulty achieving a communist society.

Religion isn't just something people believe. It might be that, I won't deny this possibility. However, it's more than likely that there are psychological factors that need to be investigated (and have not been due to our cultural environment). Letting people believe something false can lead to actions on behalf of these false beliefs. Such actions are dangerous when trying to achieve a society based on reason.

Again, I'll concede that religion might not be dangerous. But the issue has not been properly investigated and I air on the side of caution.

pusher robot

10th June 2008, 14:21

If we care about our fellow human beings, we try to help them overcome such problems.

Even if they ask you nicely to leave them the hell alone?

Dean

10th June 2008, 15:02

People will believe whatever they want. Whether or not that goes against communist social and economic organization depends on the specific brand of religious practice, but the religion itself is not inherently opposed to communism.

That said, you cannot divorce the reality of the people in a society from the beliefs they hold, so there is no way a sufficiently decentralized society can have religious members who are not involved in social decision-making, and therefore let their religious activity mingle with their political. It is silly to think we can have people in a society with such beliefs and have a society which doesn't reflect that. The trees in the forest, if you will.

Lost In Translation

12th June 2008, 04:16

al8

11th July 2008, 08:27

It's an organ of bourgeois reaction. Of cource it should be smashed.

OI OI OI

11th July 2008, 08:34

This is a crucial issue not so much for communism but for socialism.
I think that religion should be allowed and enjoy full freedom.
Of course not in the form of today,with all the association of religion with the government etc.
People should be free to practice any religion they want.
Of course in the schools no religion should be taught. Just materialism!
Thats how we are going to "wipe out" religion.
Not forcefully .

al8

11th July 2008, 09:06

If we should stop it we shouldn't go half way. We should ban child indoctrination by parents as well, not just stop at universal and firm secular education. And also banish religion from the public space. Believers should be allowed to practice whatever mambo jumbo in secret. But only so for practicalities sake, meaning only when we don't catch them.

Hyacinth

11th July 2008, 09:52

People who argue that religion is somehow compatible with communism seem to ignore that religion doesn’t just consist of ideas, platitudes, and rituals, but is, rather, a reflection of certain material conditions. It is, as Marx called it, the sign of an oppressed creature who, not seeing any hope for liberation here and now, looks for salvation in the illusory hereafter. So long as people persist in believing in false salvation they will be more likely to be content with their present material conditions; for instance, after all, if you have an eternity in paradise to look forward to what incentive is there to risk sinning by trying to overthrow the established order? This view is not only false, but, more importantly, it is pernicious; to permit its propagation is not only disrespectful to human intelligence, but, moreover, harmful to a revolutionary cause.

RedAnarchist

11th July 2008, 10:40

I don't see any point of eliminating religion. Doing so would cause social unrest, and that could be bad if you're a developing socialist state. However, if religion is in any way used to influence the politics of a country, then we have a serious problem.

In a class-concious society, I would think that most people would have shed any religious views, bar a small minority - people such as some rich people or devoutly religious people.

Bud Struggle

25th July 2008, 23:49

In a class-concious society, I would think that most people would have shed any religious views, bar a small minority - people such as some rich people or devoutly religious people.

An interesting idea. And if by chance--there is a God--then the rich not only will have a wonderful and privileged life on earth but also will enjoy eternal happiness in heaven.

And the poor, living lives that are solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short then die and suffer eternal damnation and hell fire.

That ALMOST doesn't seem fair. :)

RedAnarchist

26th July 2008, 11:46

Well, if you can fit that camel through the eye of a needle you'll be fine, Tom.;)

Pirate turtle the 11th

26th July 2008, 12:55

Wasn't it "its easier for a camel to pass though the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven" ?

Random Precision

26th July 2008, 17:58

That's a verse that's often taken out of context. Apparently there was a gate called "the Eye of the Needle" in Ancient Jerusalem. As its name suggests, not many large things could enter the city through it. Now, a camel could get through the Eye of the Needle- but it would be undesirable for them to do so, because camels were used as beasts of burden, for carrying the owner's property. For the camel to get through that gate, its owner would have to take off everything the animal was carrying and have it carried it separately.

So the point, IIRC, of the verse is that a rich man can get into heaven, but just like the camel passing through the Eye of the Needle, he has to shed all his wealth and possessions first.

PigmerikanMao

22nd August 2008, 17:34

Is this a fucking joke? Can communism ad religion mix?! They already have!

Christianity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
Islam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_economic_jurisprudence
Buddhism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_socialism

~PMao :laugh:

Dr Mindbender

22nd August 2008, 17:45

in my view it isnt religion, or even institutionalised religion that is the problem but the way in which it is used as an opiate by capitalist forces to dilute and divert revolutionary sentiment.

In ireland it was used to great effect, as the religious leaders on both sides were allowed to act as each other's literal community leaders and diplomats.

I do not believe that outlawing it in a post capitalist society will help because it will only drive religion underground and provide them with a matyrdom complex.

maverick

22nd August 2008, 18:05

yes let them believe but no influence in government.

In my opinion is the most rational choice. Banning religion or going on idiotic rants about how religion is the ultimate evil or the cause of all our problems is silly. True some religious can be viewed as dangerous, or may be questionable but we have no right to control peoples minds. Let people think for themselves and make their own decisions. As long as its a personal matter that is handled with respect to others in the social structure I see no problem. The end.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

26th August 2008, 09:50

I don't give a fig about people championing invisible dragons and white men as their saviors, so long as it doesn't impede on my abilities.

On a personal level, I worship Santa Claus. Yes, he's very materialistic, but when parents aren't interfering in the process, he tries to meet the demands of millions. Unfortunately, capitalist culture shows his elfs as being slaves, but they really are his co-equals.

Killfacer

26th August 2008, 13:25

used to great effect in ireland? So the war wasnt about protestants and catholics disliking each other greatly. Religious leaders like the reverand Ian Paisley? Yeah he really brought peace to the world ulster socialist.

pusher robot

26th August 2008, 22:11

On a personal level, I worship Santa Claus. Yes, he's very materialistic, but when parents aren't interfering in the process, he tries to meet the demands of millions. Unfortunately, capitalist culture shows his elfs as being slaves, but they really are his co-equals.

Haha! Santa Claus is the perfect example of Soviet equality! Of course, Santa is in charge of the whole operation, decides what gets made and in what quantity, organizes the labor of the elves, commands the distribution of their productive efforts, hogs all the glory, and keeps the lists of the "naughty" and the "nice." But they all call each other "comrade," so you see! They are equals!

Bud Struggle

29th August 2008, 00:50

Haha! Santa Claus is the perfect example of Soviet equality! Of course, Santa is in charge of the whole operation, decides what gets made and in what quantity, organizes the labor of the elves, commands the distribution of their productive efforts, hogs all the glory, and keeps the lists of the "naughty" and the "nice." But they all call each other "comrade," so you see! They are equals!

Also, from the way these Commies talk about the how life is going to be "after the Revolution" you would think Santa Claus would be in charge. :D

Frost

1st September 2008, 02:17

Also, from the way these Commies talk about the how life is going to be "after the Revolution" you would think Santa Claus would be in charge. :D

Well, the resemblance between Santa and Marx is quite uncanny.:laugh:

Socialist18

7th September 2008, 23:10

So long as religious laws stay out of government I have no problem with people worshiping in private or even in a church that has its doors closed. What I wouldn't want is the church to hold sway over the government because they have ulterior motives to the non believer. I'm kinda agnostic for the simple reason that I haven't decided whats real, if anything, in the spiritual world and I like to keep an open mind about it. That being so, its my personal standpoint and doesn't wash over into anything to do with political thinking.

In my opinion one can be a communist and religious simultaneously without too many serious problems or contradictions. Its been said that Jesus, if he even existed, was the first socialist. I don't know about that...

PostAnarchy

20th November 2008, 17:47

I would say they religion and communism would have to exclude one another.

Brother No. 1

24th December 2008, 04:26

well yes Communsim and Religion can be together just depends waht kind of together a full infulcence in goverment or no infulence but still active

ashaman1324

26th December 2008, 07:41

unless the pope runs for president on the catholic church ticket he should stay out of the government.

Revolutionary Youth

11th January 2009, 13:39

Religion guides human to unreal happiness , unreal hopes, destroys the fortitude, deminishes the will to revolutionary and limits the process of fighting for the mastering of our own life. By nature, religion is a negative existence of the society.

In Socialism, religions are seperated from politics. The government has the policies for any citizen to have rights to have his/her own religion. But those policies never forget to completely ingore the political characteristics of religions. Thus, religions and communism will absolutely exclude each other. ;)

Brother No. 1

16th January 2009, 21:46

hmmm you do make a point comrade a very good point. I support you

Bud Struggle

16th January 2009, 21:56

Religion guides human to unreal happiness , unreal hopes, destroys the fortitude, deminishes the will to revolutionary and limits the process of fighting for the mastering of our own life. By nature, religion is a negative existence of the society.

Since when has Communism in all it's works and pomps ever given man real happiness? Has any (serious) attempt at Communism ever given man happiness or fortitude or solice from pain?

Has any attempt (and there have been many) at Communism ever proven positive?

Brother No. 1

16th January 2009, 22:02

thats the thing every time it has been atempted some one as screwed it up

Pogue

16th January 2009, 22:04

Revolutionary Youth

20th January 2009, 14:48

Since when has Communism in all it's works and pomps ever given man real happiness? Has any (serious) attempt at Communism ever given man happiness or fortitude or solice from pain?

Has any attempt (and there have been many) at Communism ever proven positive?

You should ask those guys in "History" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/history-f15/index.html).
Well, at least we can achieve it through our own hands, not by some funny ballooney gods.;)

Revolutionary Youth

20th January 2009, 14:50

hmmm you do make a point comrade a very good point. I support you

Thank you!:lol:

Brother No. 1

21st January 2009, 02:22

your welcome comrade.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

21st January 2009, 06:29

Religion guides human to unreal happiness , unreal hopes, destroys the fortitude, deminishes the will to revolutionary and limits the process of fighting for the mastering of our own life. By nature, religion is a negative existence of the society.

So you're all for banning recreational drugs, entertainment, and sport as well?

After all, a worker getting drunk and watching 6 hours of football is just as bad using the day to go to church.

Comrade Anarchist

6th February 2009, 23:20

Organized religion can not exist because it creates a hierarchy. Belief as a whole cant either because it says that there is someone above all people and in communism no can be above another.

Glorious Union

7th February 2009, 00:38

I beleive that in order for Communism to coexist with religion we must abolish organised religion and churches. Either that, or make one world church with a single religion, but that is too opressive for me to agree with unless it was by popular consent.

-marx-

18th February 2009, 01:59

In my opinion we are all entitled to:

Freedom of thought!
Freedom of speech!
Freedom of assembly!

So long as the religious doesn't want to influence governmental decisions in a socialist state, let them be.

I wont be influenced by the religious and I doubt any other atheists would either so i don't see the harm in letting them be.

EDIT:
After further thought, this site makes me think the religious are a danger to society: godisimaginary.com and this one:evilbible.com
:cool:

ibn Bruce

20th February 2009, 14:45

Depends what kind of religion we are talking about.

In terms of Islam, there is no separation between politics and religious life for the Muslim, Islam is a political system on its own steam, not subservient to any other ideologies.

It shares some things with the left. The institution of Zakat was the first widespread form of social welfare, mandating the redistribution of wealth to those not in possession of it. Also the 'Waqaf' (community endowments) give a precedent for communal ownership of both the means of production and many other things (much of East Jerusalem remains owned by the Ummah (Muslim community) as a whole, as it was given as Waqaf when Saleh'Uddin recaptured the city hundreds of years ago). Similarly there is no enforceable religious hierarchy or structure, legitimacy is given by 'ijma' or consensus. The 'believers are as the teeth of a comb'.

Similarly there is a limit on business endeavours. Interest is strictly prohibited, as are exploitative contracts.

Then again, many Muslim social conventions would not be considered left by any stretch. The Khalifa has power in not only public but in many aspects of private life (something which at the moment is no issue as there is no Khalifa). While we are told to fight against oppression wherever it is found, there are limits upon rebellion against rulers if the chance at reforming them exists. Strict punishments exist for crimes not only against person, but against the society as a whole.

The endowment of governership by the people would go against many anarchist conventions, while as an anarchist one could have no problem with current systems, where the Khalifa to be restored, power structures in turn would exist to reflect this.

So there are some parts that are compatible, and others that are not :D

I do not believe that a society based on small autonomous communities would be un-Islamic. Nor would communal owning of the means of production be seen as haram (prohibited).

thecoffeecake1

26th February 2009, 20:55

There's no reason religion should be supressed in any way. Any government official should be allowed to practice any religion they want. However, I don't believe that the doctrines of these religions should have any effect on the government whatsoever. :hammersickle:
l
l
--------------
l
l
l
l
l

ibn Bruce

27th February 2009, 12:51

ThiagoCL

28th February 2009, 04:08

Marx sais relligion iludes the people and he is right:
dogmas, rules, wath is or isn't sin,
and expeculations over the after-death;
Those can't be imposed by a relligion, but he doesn't dennies the influence of god. No religion is diferent than ateism. Marx is belived to member of the Freemasonry, not a relligion, but a phylosophy.
Comunism doen't allows relligions, but doesn't dennies the existence of a god. So you can say:
-No relligion in comunism;
-They let you belive, but not influence in govoerment; and
-Relligious people are dangerous to comunism IF imposing trought relligion their vison of god.

John Lenin

2nd March 2009, 14:47

http://www.jrtart.com/bsd/commie_graphics/commie2.jpg

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th March 2009, 18:22

Common sense? More like nonsense.

Stupid Godbot.

CHEtheLIBERATOR

28th March 2009, 04:15

Il Medico

28th May 2009, 16:21

I voted that it can but can't influence the government. Not sure what influence it can have over government in a stateless society though....

CrazyMoron

7th June 2009, 07:54

How can we call ourselves' truly free when we are unable to worship?:confused:

the last donut of the night

9th June 2009, 03:12

Alternatively you could just leave religion alone (As attacking it will probably make enemies out of religious people whose beliefs will be reaffirmed due to them feeling persecuted) and let it wither away naturally as people will someday see the pointlessness in it (As shown by the growing amount of Atheists in the world today).

That simply isn't true.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

9th June 2009, 03:29

Part of communist philosophy presumes people are inherently rational if people aren't exploiting them for personal gain. If that is true, religion should no longer exist.

If that's false, we've made a serious error. Very likely, then, communist philosophy is doomed outright as religion is in one of the most ridiculous beliefs. If people naturally belief that, they will naturally believe other things.

If someone doesn't respond to rational appeal to reject their religious belief, under ideal conditions, I suspect there is another problem. We should look consider the possibility they have a psychological condition.

Religion is not just a simple matter of taste. If you continue to be religious despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there may be something wrong with you. My first assumption would be anxiety disorder. Keep in mind that anxiety is a disorder diagnosed on a curve. Just because religious individuals are able to function somewhat normally doesn't mean they don't have a problem.

Decolonize The Left

9th June 2009, 23:58

Few things smack of fascism quite like the notion of diagnosing a natural human tendency as a psychological disorder.
I think the fundamental role of religion is - and has always been - to cope with existential questions which cannot be answered through materialism. Whether an individual seeks to answer these questions through science, religion, philosophy, (most likely through pseudoscience or 'pataphysics') or is just agnostic or apathetic about it strikes me as being of no consequence so long as such views don't cause societal hierarchies or exploitation or the like.

Religion (that is a belief based entirely upon faith) is not synonymous with science or philosophy (although it has more in common with traditional philosophy). Science is based upon the ability to have a repeated observation by any independent observer - that is to say that it is verifiable. Religion, by definition, is entirely unverifiable.

Human beings are not all identical; there are peculiarities and variations among people which "communist philosophy" may not account for.
If a peculiar belief or idea is not harmful to society or exploitative in nature, I see no reason why it can't be explained as a natural result of human diversity.

I disagree with the entire strain of conversation related to the "nature" of things. This idea is posited without justification.

- August

Decolonize The Left

10th June 2009, 05:35

You need not explain this to me, I am not presently (nor have I ever been) under the illusion that religion is scientific or scientifically verifiable, as this is clearly not the case, and claims to the contrary are generally reserved for use only by the more recent variety of religious fundamentalists who seek to interpret scripture literally as opposed to metaphorically. Either you've misinterpreted my previous comment or I've misinterpreted your response because the point you've made seems to have nothing to do with my assertion.

Interesting. Here's the comment I was responding to:

Whether an individual seeks to answer these questions through science, religion, philosophy, (most likely through pseudoscience or 'pataphysics') or is just agnostic or apathetic about it strikes me as being of no consequence so long as such views don't cause societal hierarchies or exploitation or the like.

I interpreted this to equate science, religion, philosophy, etc.. in the sense that they are "of no consequence so long as such views don't cause societal hierarchies or exploitation or the like." I was noting that this is a utilitarian point-of-view which ignores the processes inherent in the belief system. Belief systems which are based upon faith are not subject to rational inquiry - they are, of course, from a scientific point-of-view... but not from their own point-of-view. I was noting how this is highly problematic.

Thanks for requesting clarification.

- August

MakeYourFuture

10th June 2009, 17:29

As Marx says, the solution would not to forbid religion, but show to the people that they don't need it. I not very agree with this, because I think religion is necessary, and I consider religion as a philosophy.

Jerolin

9th July 2009, 01:21

It's simple.

1.outlawing religion is a fascist act
2.Letting it control the government would lead to religious fascism
So the only solution is , let them believe but with no government influence.
If the prolateriat wish to believe than give them freedom

I would certainly agree with that sentiment. I'm very much an agnostic, and I'm a huge supporter of secular government, but I don't think banning organized religion would be the right thing to do.

Atrus

12th July 2009, 16:00

A few months ago I said something similar in a similar thread. I'm religious and communist, the two are not mutually exclusive. However, what I believe does not fit with communism is organised religion.

An individual must be free to believe whatever they please, personally I think they should be encouraged to discuss it, their reasonings etc, whilst listening to and considering the ideas of others as well. When approached with an open mind and respect for everyone, everyone's ideas and not putting one's own ideas above those of others, this can have a very good influence on people.

However, if there is an form of organised religion, where certain people tell others what to believe rather than discussing on an equal level, then there is conflict with communism. Organised religion is by it's very nature a hierarchal, in fact the word "hierachy" derives from the powers of the priest, and as such there is no room for this in a communist society, ever.

trivas7

12th July 2009, 16:30

IMO Communism itself is a religious ideal. It is rationally incoherent and therefore unrealizable in reality.

Marxist Madman

15th July 2009, 18:32

IMO Communism itself is a religious ideal. It is rationally incoherent and therefore unrealizable in reality.

But to the rest of us, it obviously is not.

I was 'converted' to socialism by a devote Catholic, the religion I too came from. I believe they could co-exist; while I was still a Catholic and a Marxist I found that, like the Talmud stated earlier; the ideal society even with religion is a communist one.

Propaganda

22nd July 2009, 14:59

I believe that they can exist together but "separation of church and state" and all that :)

trivas7

22nd July 2009, 15:11

Rosa Provokateur

22nd July 2009, 15:15

But to the rest of us, it obviously is not.

I was 'converted' to socialism by a devote Catholic, the religion I too came from. I believe they could co-exist; while I was still a Catholic and a Marxist I found that, like the Talmud stated earlier; the ideal society even with religion is a communist one.

A Catholic brought you to Socialism? Interesting:cool:

trivas7

22nd July 2009, 15:18

A Catholic brought you to Socialism? Interesting:cool:
Catholic social doctrine has a long history of reactionary -- er -- opposition to capitalism.

Led Zeppelin

24th July 2009, 08:05

I wrote this in response to a "communism is a secular religion" comment in another thread but it was closed, so I'm re-posting it here.

The term "secular religion" is an oxymoron, first of all.

It's a nice attempt by people to be witty but aside from that (which it doesn't accomplish at all) it doesn't really mean anything.

The supposed meaning of it is that communists adhere to certain things like a religious person adheres to certain things, so those things are considered "God" or "Godly" by the religious person as well as the communist. But if this is the case "secularity" doesn't come into it, unless you admit that the communist doesn't use the same method of reasoning as the religious person does to arrive at his conclusions...but then, the entire "religion" element has been rendered meaningless due to the method of reasoning which is inherent to it being essentially different.

Secondly, the statement is subjective. All "communists" don't use the same method of reasoning, but all religious people do. When you take the logic of religion to its end, you'll eventually and inevitably come up against subjective belief, as opposed to objective, observable, empirical based conclusions.

If there is a communist who does not use this method of reasoning, that is, the scientific socialist (or Marxist, as it is also called) method of reasoning, then they are not actually communist, for the same reason that a person who does not ascribe to the precepts of the Theory of Evolution is not a evolutionist. Of course I am referring to the scientific method used to arrive at that theory, not the conclusions that method garnered when it was first expounded. The whole point of a scientific theory is that it is based on the method, rather than the conclusions, because the conclusions can and do change with time and with a greater understanding of the world.

Atrus

31st July 2009, 17:49

There's no such thing as an unorganized religion. ;)

This is ridiculous, of course there is. An individual's religion.
I am religious. I despise the church, and all other "churches". I look into my own theory, consider reasonings etc, and then make my own mind up.
I discuss it with other people on an equal level [a feature which all organised relgion lacks] and through the discussion we carry on making our own decisions, but listening with an open mind and considering the other person's opinion as equal to my own.
There's no reason that this should not fit with a communist system, but organised religion does not fit one bit.

Decolonize The Left

4th August 2009, 07:56

This is ridiculous, of course there is. An individual's religion.
I am religious. I despise the church, and all other "churches". I look into my own theory, consider reasonings etc, and then make my own mind up.
I discuss it with other people on an equal level [a feature which all organised relgion lacks] and through the discussion we carry on making our own decisions, but listening with an open mind and considering the other person's opinion as equal to my own.
There's no reason that this should not fit with a communist system, but organised religion does not fit one bit.

Actually, trivas7 is correct.

All religions are based upon some form of text - and hence an organized body of writings stating the supernatural/spiritual significance of a certain event, life, period, etc...

Spirituality need not be organized; it can be individual and completely incoherent. Religion, on the other hand, is always organized. It is from this organization that it derives it's power - bringing order to a perceived chaos.

- August

ComradeMan

22nd November 2009, 18:37

My thought, Mark said that Religion was the opium of the people, not God/Spirituality. We lack the words to define the subtleties. I personally see no problem with a belief in a higher dimension, spirituality and a poltical view. I think the problem is with the concept of "religion", "religio (lat.)".

ReggaeCat

4th January 2010, 15:29

as far as i concern people can be religious but burn those fucking temples of whatever religion...that to me is organized religion which i despise..you are christian go home read the bible..you islamic do home read the koran or whatever it called you pagan go in the forest talk with fairies but please do not make temples to attract people..or it will be like norway in the 90's

all hail bm:thumbup1::p

Philzer

12th March 2010, 20:02

Hi!

Religion is a step of conscious in the history of the anthropogenesis.
Let’s see what it brings for the individual:

1. Religion as theory of cognition
2.a.& b. Religion as rulers affirmation & justify corruption (exploitation-aspects)
3. Religion as comfort
4. Religion as ethic/ strategie

to 1st:
As a theory of cognition it works until today for the majority of mankind, mostly for all individuals with lower education, but not only, as shown in further explanation.

A nice sentence by Nietzsche related to this aspect:

Religion is the will to winter sleep.

to 2nd:

2a) benefit for rulers:

Since the class society is this function most important for the rulers. Marx said in class society religion has become ideology.
This you can imagin as a special kind of "knowledge of domination". I.E. the rulers are emancipated from believing in god, but they let the their people "ditching in the fog".

Even the pantheism of capitalism justifies its principal of the strongest with the in the matter containing spirit.

Quotation of Adam Smith “the egoism of the individual brings automatically the material prosperity off all people” means exactly this. If this would be true who cares about nature, environment and so on – God of course?

2b) benefit for rulers a n d crowds:

religion to justify corruption:
- democracy(pantheism): justifies exploitation of other peoples and the nature
- pre-democratic societies ( Polytheism/ Monotheism): exploitation of nature and the "own" women/ family (latent slavery in family)

The missing of both of these elements in the crowd was the reason for the instability of the real exist socialism!

to 3rd:
As Marx said is religion “...opium for the people...”
It summarises things like waiting for a saviour/redeemer; a better life in heaven or in next life, or for the capitalism: the technologies of future will solve all problems of mankind.

Generally you will find in all religions that problems will be shifted in an uncertain future. This principle is part of its opportunism.

-->> consequently you will find this strategy by all rhetor-bourgeois (thanks to Thomas Mann for create this "category" of professional liars)

to 4th:
But in my own researches I found out that all these points are not most important for people to be religious.
I also have not the same opinion at this point like Richard Dawkin. He means that religion is only an indoctrination.
In fact is it a spiritual offer which is willingly accepted by individuals of a certain conscious.
The most motivation for the individual is the ethic aspect because:

Religion is the easiest way to justify the own existence, the own willing and the own acting, with no chance for the human spirit to disprove.

This means the individual use their religion as strategy.

In following by Nietzsche’s sentence I say, related to ethic aspect, which is conditioned the behavior of each religious individual:

Religion is the will to be right.

You can see this in overpopulation and/ or overconsumption by mankind until today.

Religion is a partially carry over of rules, principles and consequences of unconscious life**, like carelessness (overconsumption of biotopes) and fall back into powerlessness in war.*

(explain: * war is always a result of overconsumption/overpopulation. **the animal cannot recognise the time, and the religious individuals ignore the long time consequences of their acting, this is what I call opportunism)

Conclusion:

I think, to overcome the opportunism in society, like capitalism for example, there must be a scientific ruled society.

That I would understand as communism and there is no place for every kind of opportunism.

Explanation:

Religion is that consciousness step between animal and person which merged the 4-dimensional creativity of the human individual, with three-dimensional strategies from the unaware life, how carelessness and the principle of the strongest.

See in the following figure the evolution of god-abstraction:

http://s3.directupload.net/images/100821/7zwf7wa5.gif (http://www.directupload.net)

kind regards

Marksman110

30th March 2010, 15:29

Everybody has a right to believe in what they want, If doing so doesn't offend somebody. I don't believe.

Philzer

30th March 2010, 16:49

Hi Marksman!

Everybody has a right to believe in what they want, If doing so doesn't offend somebody..

This is the basic for the actual religion of capitalism, the pantheism.
If you believe so, you must know, the capitalistic world will remain.
Then exaktly this is the basic to realize the prinzip of the strongest.

For example a Note-democracy: :D

Every body can note what he want, but the bank-note says what to do.

I don't believe..

This is a funny contradiction. If you are meaning all thinks will be good, when everybody believs what he want, so is this nothing else than you delegate the response for the society to an higher sanity.

As far as this is the normal way for every religion. But in difference to the lower religions with a lower grade of god-abstraction, the pantheism set the god into the matter.

Spinoza: god = substance = matter

a little more about pantheism I have tried to explain here in Post nr.3:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html

Kind regards

Philzer

3rd April 2010, 10:37

Hello ReggaeCat,

....but please do not make temples to attract people..or it will be like norway in the 90's

What about Norway? What happened there in the 90th??

regards
Philzer

index

2nd May 2010, 00:35

As a Not really religious and caring Catholic who advocates the secular state, I voted: "yes let them believe but no influence in government."

Comrade Niko

16th June 2010, 03:23

Mahatma Gandhi

16th June 2010, 07:53

I'm still kinda new to Communism/ Socialism, but from what I've learned so far, I understand that everyone is supposed to be really equal, no discrimination, no classes and fairness for all. If religion was persecuted or shunned in a communist society, wouldn't this infringe on these ideas of equality? I understand separation of church/ state, but from my "junior revolutionary" understanding, religious persecution or prohibition would be un- communist. Like I said, I'm new, so please provide an easy to understand rebuttal if you have one. thanks :)

~Comrade Niko, Christian Communist

Good points, but communists don't feel that way. Most of them hate religion and would love to persecute religious people, as the Soviets did with the Eastern Orthodox Church.:( Why else would revleft have a thread bashing the Bible? What good would come out of it?

Point is, communists spend more time bashing religion than they do fighting for workers' rights and freedoms. No wonder religious people fear communism and favor capitalism, because the latter, for all its flaws, doesn't actively seek to persecute religious people.

So for guys like us, Social Democracy would be the answer; it not only avoids the mindless hatred that communists have for religion but also the mindless consumerism espoused by capitalism. It is sort of the middle path - safe, neutral, and doesn't antagonize people needlessly.

Comrade Niko

17th June 2010, 05:09

Thank You Mahatma! I will update my profile to Christian Socialist now. So to all you Stalinists, please follow this guys advice and stop bashing religion, and start fighting for the workers! :mad:

Invincible Summer

17th June 2010, 08:10

tradeunionsupporter and 4 Leaf Clover - you both have verbal warnings for spamming.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

17th June 2010, 12:05

Good points, but communists don't feel that way. Most of them hate religion and would love to persecute religious people, as the Soviets did with the Eastern Orthodox Church.:( Why else would revleft have a thread bashing the Bible? What good would come out of it?

Education. Studying the Bible in a critical manner will teach you a lot of things about it, some of them shocking to modern sensibilities.

Point is, communists spend more time bashing religion than they do fighting for workers' rights and freedoms. No wonder religious people fear communism and favor capitalism, because the latter, for all its flaws, doesn't actively seek to persecute religious people.

Oh please. Communists aren't the only ones who think religion is a crock of shit.

So for guys like us, Social Democracy would be the answer; it not only avoids the mindless hatred that communists have for religion but also the mindless consumerism espoused by capitalism. It is sort of the middle path - safe, neutral, and doesn't antagonize people needlessly.

It's the middle that is mindless. The fact that you characterise strong criticism of religion as "hatred" and assume that people's religious beliefs should not be questioned is a testament to that.

leftace53

17th June 2010, 13:14

Religion has years and years of indoctrination under its belt, we can't just ban it outright without severe repurcussions. I am however of the belief that with the deconstruction of current education systems, and with the construction of communist education systems, we will encourage more critical thinkers. Critical thinkers who will view current religious systems as how we view ancient roman and greek religious systems - as a mythology.

Ovi

17th June 2010, 14:26

I'm still kinda new to Communism/ Socialism, but from what I've learned so far, I understand that everyone is supposed to be really equal, no discrimination, no classes and fairness for all. If religion was persecuted or shunned in a communist society, wouldn't this infringe on these ideas of equality? I understand separation of church/ state, but from my "junior revolutionary" understanding, religious persecution or prohibition would be un- communist. Like I said, I'm new, so please provide an easy to understand rebuttal if you have one. thanks :)

~Comrade Niko, Christian Socialist
The question is not whether to ban religion, which is anti communist and would accomplish nothing, but whether we can have a revolution by religious people. I won't deny that there are religious leftists, but even though atheists are a religious minority in many parts of the world, they do seem to be a majority in the revolutionary left movement. Atheists are far more likely to be communists, so is religion reactionary by nature?

Mahatma Gandhi

17th June 2010, 15:14

Education. Studying the Bible in a critical manner will teach you a lot of things about it, some of them shocking to modern sensibilities.

And then what? In what way does that help spread communism? Even if you succeed, those people will become atheists, not necessarily communists.

Oh please. Communists aren't the only ones who think religion is a crock of shit.

Again, is there a point behind this abusive trolling?

It's the middle that is mindless. The fact that you characterise strong criticism of religion as "hatred" and assume that people's religious beliefs should not be questioned is a testament to that.

There is a thing called prioritizing. As a communist, you ought to worry about workers' rights, not whether they believe in tooth fairy and Santa. By criticizing religion, you achieve the following:

a) antagonize workers who may otherwise be sympathetic to communism.

b) divert the attention from class struggle to secondary issues.

c) If at all you succeed, there is no guarantee that these 'new atheists' will become communists. Most likely, they'll become liberals a la Dawkins. That's a far worse threat to communism.

d) Waste a lot of time and energy interfering in people's personal matters when that time and energy could be better spent organizing strikes (or doing just about anything to unite workers).

For all these reasons, your tactics will only divide workers and antagonize them.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

17th June 2010, 15:37

And then what? In what way does that help spread communism? Even if you succeed, those people will become atheists, not necessarily communists.

I'm interested in spreading atheism as well as communism.

Again, is there a point behind this abusive trolling?

I don't see the point behind your trolling, no.

There is a thing called prioritizing. As a communist, you ought to worry about workers' rights, not whether they believe in tooth fairy and Santa. By criticizing religion, you achieve the following:

a) antagonize workers who may otherwise be sympathetic to communism.

I want do right by people, not mollycoddle them and flatter their misconceptions.

b) divert the attention from class struggle to secondary issues.

Most people aren't as stupid as you are. They are capable of dealing with more than one issue.

c) If at all you succeed, there is no guarantee that these 'new atheists' will become communists. Most likely, they'll become liberals a la Dawkins. That's a far worse threat to communism.

Like I said, I want more people to be atheists. If they become communists as well that's an added bonus, but not necessary. Liberals aren't a threat to communism, at least compared to the more numerous and influential religious conservatives.

d) Waste a lot of time and energy interfering in people's personal matters when that time and energy could be better spent organizing strikes (or doing just about anything to unite workers).

Again, people are more clever than you think, and are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves how they want to spend their time and energy.

The only reason you think criticising religion is a "waste of time" is because you're religious yourself.

For all these reasons, your tactics will only divide workers and antagonize them.

Nuts.

#FF0000

17th June 2010, 15:40

"Most communists" really don't care about your stupid religion. /persecutioncomplex, please.

EDIT: There are the anti-theists (many of whom are anarchists, not "stalinists") who like to actively promote atheism and criticize religion but literally nobody advocates religious persecution.

Either way religion is a dumb thing but I don't care what you believe or how you manage to believe in a materialist conception of the world while also believing in a religion. People have had dumber beliefs and I really just don't care.

Mahatma Gandhi

17th June 2010, 16:10

"Most communists" really don't care about your stupid religion. /persecutioncomplex, please.

Hmm, Soviet Union comes to mind.

Comrade Niko

21st June 2010, 23:31

Atheists are far more likely to be communists, so is religion reactionary by nature?

I practice my religion at home, not going to a church unless it's a special holiday service that my friends go to. I interpret the bible my own way. The way I see it, Jesus Christ was a radical thinking, liberal socialist who wanted equality, and the best for the [I]people[I]. So to me, he is not only a religious figure to look up to, but also a socialist one. In other words, my religion lead me to my leftist viewpoint. So no, I don't consider all religion reactionary by nature. However, I can't represent other faiths and judge their "compatibility" with the far left. This is just my view as an at- home follower of protestant Christianity. Thoughts? (That aren't hostile :P)

Adi Shankara

24th June 2010, 07:35

I've read almost all this thread, and I can't believe all these people claiming to know what's best for "the people" based off a dogmatic approach to Marxist views--I believe the Sankara/Ortega approach to religion: religion, at it's most basic, is proletarian; capitalist and reactionary elements have infiltrated religion, but folk belief and simple religion isn't anti-communist, in fact, the majority of poor people have deep spiritual beliefs; even as more people become "non-religious", the amount of those who believe in a higher power remains the same; so it's not religion that's the problem, it's the reactionary nature of church hierarchy.
at it's most basic, religion is not incompatible with Marxist beliefs on economy and class, even if it wasn't Marx's or Bukarin's own cup of tea; but at the end of the day, the people should decide if they want to keep or ban religion, not some bourgeoisie "vanguard" party elites who hang on to every word Marx has ever said as if it was gospel.

Invincible Summer

24th June 2010, 08:01

I've read almost all this thread, and I can't believe all these people claiming to know what's best for "the people" based off a dogmatic approach to Marxist views

...

at it's most basic, religion is not incompatible with Marxist beliefs on economy and class, even if it wasn't Marx's or Bukarin's own cup of tea; but at the end of the day, the people should decide if they want to keep or ban religion, not some bourgeoisie "vanguard" party elites who hang on to every word Marx has ever said as if it was gospel.

Funny, because that's not why most (I'd say almost all) of the atheists here on Revleft, or leftist atheists that I know offline, choose atheism.

No matter how many times you claim it to be true, it isn't.

Ironically, you claim to be a Trotskyist and slag the vanguard.

--I believe the Sankara/Ortega approach to religion:
Of course you do :rolleyes:

religion, at it's most basic, is proletarian; capitalist and reactionary elements have infiltrated religion, but folk belief and simple religion isn't anti-communist,
No, it's not anti-communist per se, but again you're building up strawmen. It's not because religion is "anti-communist" that atheist communists are against it, but rather because they are atheists as well as communists.

There's also a difference between being "anti-communist" and "reactionary." Religion is generally the latter, as its foundations are built upon folkloric, antiquated understandings of the world.

in fact, the majority of poor people have deep spiritual beliefs; even as more people become "non-religious", the amount of those who believe in a higher power remains the same;
What?? Although more people become secular, the amount of believers remains the same?

so it's not religion that's the problem, it's the reactionary nature of church hierarchy.
What about non-Christian religions? It's not just about the organized Church, but the beliefs themselves.

Adi Shankara

24th June 2010, 08:28

Funny, because that's not why most (I'd say almost all) of the atheists here on Revleft, or leftist atheists that I know offline, choose atheism.

[QUOTE=Helios+;1782927]No matter how many times you claim it to be true, it isn't.

we can disagree on this, I'm fine with that.

Ironically, you claim to be a Trotskyist and slag the vanguard.

only the current "vanguard" movements that exist so far, that have proven to be self-serving bourgeoisie movements--can you really call the Politburo of China, North Korea, etc. a vanguard movement? barely. they live in palaces, with servants, waiters, etc. while the people in the country side live in squalor. Trotsky called for a vanguard actually led by the people, not just a few select individuals.

Of course you do :rolleyes:

and what's wrong with that? the works of such "3rd world revolutionaries" like Patrice Lumumba, Julius Nyere, Sankara, Ortega, Machel, etc. came to me at a time of need. they have changed my life forever. I would hope everyone would have such an epihany of knowledge to forever change them for the better, to want to build something greater because of great men and women before them left a body of work to follow.

There's also a difference between being "anti-communist" and "reactionary." Religion is generally the latter, as its foundations are built upon folkloric, antiquated understandings of the world.

religion can be ever progressive and changing too: Sankara set aside a council group that encourged society to make the wednesdays every month where men had to do women's chores--yes, this is not religion, but this was the attempted dismantlement of a reactionary aspect of Burkinabe culture. I don't see why religion can't be handled with the same approach.

What?? Although more people become secular, the amount of believers remains the same?

it seems more like people are just abandoning organized religion, but not beliefs in a higher power:

"According to the most recent relevant Eurostat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurostat) Eurobarometer poll, in 2005, 52% of European Union citizens responded that "they believe there is a God", whereas 27% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 18% that "they do not believe there is a spirit, God, nor life force"."

so at least 80% believe in a god, compared to atheism/agnosticism's 18%. that number has been stagnate for a while, even as church attendance drops. so it shows people are abandoning the church, not necessarily religious beliefs.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/strange-tongue/201006/why-atheism-wont-replace-religion-0

What about non-Christian religions? It's not just about the organized Church, but the beliefs themselves.

almost every organized religion has a "church", hence why they call it organized; it's this sense of structure and power that needs to be dismantled, not necessarily the belief in a higher power, which isn't incompatible with Marxism; in fact, many early communist parties, especially in the Muslim states, relied on alliances with the Islamists, such as the Tudeh in Iran.

Invincible Summer

24th June 2010, 10:33

only the current "vanguard" movements that exist so far, that have proven to be self-serving bourgeoisie movements--can you really call the Politburo of China, North Korea, etc. a vanguard movement?

Not to get totally off topic here, but:
1) Your post did not make it clear that you mean to criticize specific groups
2) I wouldn't call these governments "movements," and it's also problematic to lump modern China with the DPRK, Cuba, etc.

and what's wrong with that? the works of such "3rd world revolutionaries" like Patrice Lumumba, Julius Nyere, Sankara, Ortega, Machel, etc. came to me at a time of need. they have changed my life forever. I would hope everyone would have such an epihany of knowledge to forever change them for the better, to want to build something greater because of great men and women before them left a body of work to follow.
I would just like to see a post where you don't name drop either Sankara or Ortega as if their deeds and words were sent from on high.

religion can be ever progressive and changing too: Sankara set aside a council group that encourged society to make the wednesdays every month where men had to do women's chores--yes, this is not religion, but this was the attempted dismantlement of a reactionary aspect of Burkinabe culture. I don't see why religion can't be handled with the same approach.

Then all that would be left of "religion" would be core values that I - and I assume many other atheists - consider to be inherent to humanity.

almost every organized religion has a "church", hence why they call it organized; it's this sense of structure and power that needs to be dismantled, not necessarily the belief in a higher power, which isn't incompatible with Marxism; in fact, many early communist parties, especially in the Muslim states, relied on alliances with the Islamists, such as the Tudeh in Iran.

A belief in a higher power is in itself a hierarchy, if we're going down that route.

Also, an alliance is not the same as religion being congruent with communism. I'm not saying that they can't work together (although IMO it's not preferable), but rather that communist parties allying themselves with religious groups doesn't mean they're bff.

Adi Shankara

25th June 2010, 02:02

Not to get totally off topic here, but:
1) Your post did not make it clear that you mean to criticize specific groups
2) I wouldn't call these governments "movements," and it's also problematic to lump modern China with the DPRK, Cuba, etc.

my mistake then

I would just like to see a post where you don't name drop either Sankara or Ortega as if their deeds and words were sent from on high.

ha, I'm not trying to sound like a cultist, I just find that their work on revolution has changed the way I think so much, that it has become inseparable to my thought process on politics; however, it's not like either of these men built cults of personality around themselves. again, I just really admire their works is all, and I find no one really knows who Thomas Sankara is, so I do my best to spread the word. call me a "Marxist Missionary", even if may not be very successful at it :D

A belief in a higher power is in itself a hierarchy, if we're going down that route.

Not necessarily; only in Abrahamic faiths does that usually seem to be the case, but in Dharmic and Mesoamerican religions, "gods" aren't considered better or worse than human beings--each different group of beings is seen as having their own role to play in the universe, and humanity is the most prime state of being, as we are in the middle between earth and hell (since Hinduism is rather esoteric, I'm not sure if that was meant to be literal, but I think it was more an allegory).

Also, an alliance is not the same as religion being congruent with communism. I'm not saying that they can't work together (although IMO it's not preferable), but rather that communist parties allying themselves with religious groups doesn't mean they're bff.

although I'm saying that I don't see why they can't--there is no reason why communist parties can't have alliances with religious believers; maybe not the traditional clergy that control the church, but the believers in religion...I don't see what benefit there is to revolution to distance ourselves from these potential communists, who could more often than not usually benefit the most from Communist revolution.

RaÃºl Duke

25th June 2010, 03:10

Thank You Mahatma! I will update my profile to Christian Socialist now. So to all you Stalinists, please follow this guys advice and stop bashing religion, and start fighting for the workers! :mad:

Wow, you just quickly believe what he said without any questions?

I bet you are nothing more than a sock-puppet for that user...if not an abject moron.

All leftists, IRL (this can be seen via observation), spend more time "fighting for the workers" than bashing religion.

On this site, however, things are different because it's a discussion site, you can't really "fight for the workers" in a discussion site but you can discuss anything even the most irrelevant things. I can't see why you all can't get this fact through your thick skulls.

Comrade Niko

29th June 2010, 02:51

I bet you are nothing more than a sock-puppet for that user...if not an abject moron.

If either, I'm the latter. But I don't recognize any lies in his post, so what's there to question? I understood a lot of his points, and found myself agreeing that I should recognize myself as christian socialist. But forgive my comment about bashing religion, for I am a thick skulled abject moron. At least I'm not an asshole redneck who shoves my religion down your throat (even though I live in Texas, and receive it everyday...)

tradeunionsupporter

21st August 2010, 02:49

People should have freedom of religion but no mixing the church and state.

tbasherizer

28th August 2010, 05:34

Crimson Commissar

3rd September 2010, 13:12

I'll write a giant diatribe against religion later, but I think the most commonly expressed view on the poll is antidemocratic. To exclude the religious from political intercourse is to restrict true democracy- Christians are people too. The task of a socialist government is to, through promotion of religious and cultural tolerance and education in science and materialism, eventually erase religion to promote rationality in it's business.
If we promote religious tolerance we are infact promoting religion. Militant atheism and anti-theism is the only way for us to wipe out religious beliefs and establish a true communist society. Yes, Christians are people, but their beliefs are ridiculous, reactionary, idiotic and merely serve to hold back human progress even further.

Bud Struggle

3rd September 2010, 14:13

Yes, Christians are people, but their beliefs are ridiculous, reactionary, idiotic and merely serve to hold back human progress even further.

So say you.

Someone else could say that Communism is all of those things. Once you say that you will impose your beliefs on other people because you are "right" and they are "wrong" you become a dictator.

I'm sure you would be a kind and sweet and pleasent dictator, but a dictator none the less. The point of Communism is to THROW OFF dictators--not just substitute one kind for another. The moment Communism ceases to be free--there is no reason for it to exist.

Crimson Commissar

3rd September 2010, 16:02

So say you.

Someone else could say that Communism is all of those things. Once you say that you will impose your beliefs on other people because you are "right" and they are "wrong" you become a dictator.

I'm sure you would be a kind and sweet and pleasent dictator, but a dictator none the less. The point of Communism is to THROW OFF dictators--not just substitute one kind for another. The moment Communism ceases to be free--there is no reason for it to exist.
Except that religion IS ridiculous. Communism is a reasonable and realistic idea. Religion is a damn fairy tale. That is a fact. Some thousand year old book is not proof. I could write a book about how I am the reincarnation of an ancient deity and that I created the world 10000 years ago and it would have about the same historical and scientific evidence as the bible or quran does. Religion is only accepted because it has become merged with our culture. And that means our culture has to fucking change. Religion is incompatible with communism. It always has been and it always will be.

Bud Struggle

3rd September 2010, 20:42

tbasherizer

4th September 2010, 03:41

Except that religion IS ridiculous. Communism is a reasonable and realistic idea. Religion is a damn fairy tale. That is a fact. Some thousand year old book is not proof. I could write a book about how I am the reincarnation of an ancient deity and that I created the world 10000 years ago and it would have about the same historical and scientific evidence as the bible or quran does. Religion is only accepted because it has become merged with our culture. And that means our culture has to fucking change. Religion is incompatible with communism. It always has been and it always will be.

I agree that religion is completely incompatible with communism, as it is the belief in bogus stuff. However, since Christians are probably a significant portion of the people, we have to avoid direct campaigns against their religion.

Using indirect methods, such as the promotion of rational thought, destruction of dogma, and teaching of science, we can take out religion's roots. Furthermore, the promotion of religious tolerance might remove the relevance of religion in general from peoples' social interactions, which would make people miss it less. I share your ire against religion, but I just think those certain tactical measures should be taken in its destruction.

There is also a need to understand how our views could be potentially viewed to be just as arbitrary as religion's. Those who would think this fail to see how the socialist opinion is firmly based in material reality while the religious one is firmly based in the ink in the Bible(or other book). This is a major problem. Without a prior education in scientific materialism and rationalism, the majority of people would see our point of view to be on the same level as a religion's. We shouldn't assume that non-materialists share our view of reality, because quite frankly, they don't.

Invincible Summer

4th September 2010, 04:56

There is also a need to understand how our views could be potentially viewed to be just as arbitrary as religion's. Those who would think this fail to see how the socialist opinion is firmly based in material reality while the religious one is firmly based in the ink in the Bible(or other book). This is a major problem. Without a prior education in scientific materialism and rationalism, the majority of people would see our point of view to be on the same level as a religion's. We shouldn't assume that non-materialists share our view of reality, because quite frankly, they don't.

I think it's sort of elitist to assume that a "majority" of people have to be "trained properly" to understand socialism. I mean, such understanding could be forced upon the populous in order to "educate" them, but people go to school everyday and are "educated" about math. It doesn't mean it's valued.

It's probably a better bet to allow socialism to grow naturally. I mean, by all means sow the seeds... but you can't force communist ideals.

CommunityBeliever

4th September 2010, 12:38

People don't really choose their religion, for the most part they are born into it and it is very much dependent upon the country in which the individual resides in. I think we should change things so that children can more easily decide for themselves.

Organized religions today don't really grow based upon their merits, but instead based upon their ability to accumulate capital and land. Especially land, religions really want land to build their churches, temples, and cemeteries.

In communist society all land will be owned by the people, so I think there should be no churches, temples, or other religious buildings on the people's land because the organization of components of society such as land should be secular and non-religious.

Although I do recognize that if there is a decent group of Christians or whatever that they may want to meet somewhere to discuss their common delusion, so I think they would probably organize a time that they can meet in a sort of general purpose meeting center, as we will have general meeting centers where any group of people can meet in person to discuss and present things.

Using indirect methods, such as the promotion of rational thought, destruction of dogma, and teaching of science, we can take out religion's roots.

Is that really religion's roots? I would rather think religion is also rooted in capitalism and poverty, hence the "capitalism is the opium of the masses" statement, and if you look at first world countries and the richer countries you will notice they are increasingly less religious, so I would state that if we simply introduce socialism and bring industry, modernity, and wealth to the world that alone will do a long way to destroying religion. This is not to diminish the importance of the indirect methods you stated, they are essential as well.

Without a prior education in scientific materialism and rationalism, the majority of people would see our point of view to be on the same level as a religion's.

???????? ?? ???????

tbasherizer

5th September 2010, 01:13

I don't even know, guys. I was kind of out of it when I wrote that reply. I just reread what I wrote and can't make sense of it myself...

matevz91

6th October 2010, 19:57

I think that it would be the best to philosophically separate religion (as personal belief into a higher being) and communism.

I think that choice of religion in the personal sphere should be free. People believe in different things (some believe in God, others in Force, ... some mix beliefs and make their own like me :cool: ).

What people believe is their own decision. As long as they do not harass other people (of different religions or non-believers), they are free to do what they want.
About church, one cannot abolish it, but one can reform it to have no political power (like protestants). Religious institutions ensure flow of religious thoughts on the same place (like leftists join revleft), but those who exploit this power are people leading the church, not the church itself.

People are the problem.

As for you, who think that religions (actually beliefs) will fade out, stop and thing about the universe in which we live. No one can predict how big it is, no one can deny nor prove that other universes do not exist. Perhaps there are other civilizations out there, and they too have their own religions, for sure. There is a place for God outside all of this.

Consult Theory of Greatness (google for it) for more info.

Theory of Greatness was written to show that:

a) Creation of the Theory of Everything is possible (what atheists mostly strive towards)

b) No belief is nonsense (what religious people would want to hear)

c) That everything you can imagine can exist

If one wants to confirm the Theory of Greatness, he is obligated to take the path of communism, because it shifts the burden from inner affairs (how to handle money, how to make a perfect strawberry cake) to outer affairs (expeditions in outer space, seeking outer form of life, proving the Theory of Greatness). Inner affairs are blocking outer affairs and communism promises to abolish this.

One last remark about communism vs religion:

Dr. Sergei N. Khrushchev said: "The first communist was Jesus Christ", as the Grenadij Zhuganiev also added ("he was the one who said: "care for the poor",..."). I agree with them completely. Communism emerged from the Bible and was shaping for centuries, when Marx and Engels captured it, along with other fathers of other billion of versions of socialism.

In fact, Christian/Islamic leftists of all ranks should be proud of that. But not too much (not to suppress other religions, whoops :rolleyes: ).

That is my humble opinion, now it is up to you to do with it what you want. Just be nice!

Dunk

23rd April 2011, 19:52

It's possible to be a communist based on conventional morality v. a system of ethical principles, but in my opinion, it's a tenuous position to hold because the justifications religious socialists have in being socialists inevitably regress to scripture. If, for example, a religious person objects to this and claims "But I don't justify communism with scripture", then you are ignoring what scripture might have to say and you are not very religious. If a communist does justify communism based on scripture - dandy - because you can justify just about any particular position in scripture.

I think a simultaneous belief in the supernatural and in the overthrow of capitalism for a communist society is contradictory because belief in the supernatural necessitates belief in universal positions or divine law. Beliefs or positions which transcend not only time, but also current social conditions.

More specifically, what I'm trying to say is that as communists we believe society is what we make of it together - it is the combined social product of our labor. If we didn't believe so, achieving communism would be impossible. This is why we disagree with the right wing when they claim that alternative societies are impossible for whatever reasons they cook up; Divine Right, human nature, economic calculation problem. Belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent being(s) is a contradiction of the challenge that society is what we make of it, because if such supernatural forces exist, society is not what we make of it, it is what it or they make of it.

Heathen Communist

17th May 2011, 03:22

Communism and Religion do not necessarily exclude each other.
Religion is completely capable of being present without classes or a state. However, certain religious trends must inevitably disappear with the fall of class society, for example complicated religious hierarchies such as those found in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Religious belief in classes and a state is the only element of religion that is intrinsically opposed to Communism.
However, personal religion and spirituality, and even local, communal, religious practices have their place in Communist society. As long as a religion is not expansive, evangelizing, statist, or class-oriented, it in no way interferes with Communism.
Moreover, religion may have a place in encouraging Communist thought. My religious practices and beliefs have led me to believe that Socialism is the correct path, by appealing it to my strong religious belief in justice and honour.
Religion, if correctly implemented and with the correct societal role(s), may serve as an ally, rather than opponent, of Communism. If Communists as a whole decide to accept religion as a part of society, our chances of success will multiply greatly.

ColonelCossack

24th May 2011, 19:50

I think that after the revolution, religion would wither away with the state.

hatzel

24th May 2011, 20:38

wither away

I love it when people use this phrase. It's just sooooo cute :rolleyes:

Comrade_Oscar

3rd June 2011, 04:27

Religion will probably continue throughout the early stages of communism and it will almost certainly be around in a socialist state, but it shouldn't be something to take any sort of physical action against. Religion must be something that we fade out slowly.

Hebrew Hammer

7th June 2011, 23:23

I believe Communism and religion can mix, who really cares what I believe or practice? To you your way, to me, mine.

I also don't believe it is something that needs to be faded out slowly or that by virtue of being religious you're automatically irrational.

The Insurrection

6th November 2011, 10:29

It will cease to be necessary. Religion I mean.

tnc

21st November 2011, 19:39

Azraella

21st November 2011, 19:46

hello everyone, brand new here soo this my second post (posted somewhere else as well)
well Im actually a muslim and funnly enough it was islam that led me onto become a socialist, before i was right wing.. anyways long story short i believe religion and socialism/leftisim (whatever you call it) CAN go hand in hand and im not just talking about islam, i mean in general, it depends on how its used. peace :)

I added the bolded word to emphasize a point. Many lefties are atheists, I have no problem with this, some of us(like me and you) are religious and reach socialist conclusions through our faiths. To be honest, I have been really interested in trying to convince more religious folk to become socialists. There's too many of us religious types in here, that have the ability to try and convince our fellow religious proles to become socialists.

tnc

21st November 2011, 20:57

I added the bolded word to emphasize a point. Many lefties are atheists, I have no problem with this, some of us(like me and you) are religious and reach socialist conclusions through our faiths. To be honest, I have been really interested in trying to convince more religious folk to become socialists. There's too many of us religious types in here, that have the ability to try and convince our fellow religious proles to become socialists.

yep i agree 100% I think the problem is that most religious people dont understand what communism stands for, they are misled (especially in my country).
I have already told a few people, (trying to plant the "seeds" hopefully they will find the right path) :)

Nucking_Futz51

22nd November 2011, 21:23

If religion is prohibited in a Communist society, then extremist groups will more than likely appear. At one point in China (I can't remember when) the citizens of China were only allowed to practice religion in their homes.

Most religious groups DO thrive on a mass or cult. Without these masses, there is no drive for a religious follower to stay with the group he or she is involved in, thus driving away their need to practice what they believe in.

Although some strong willed people can practice religion by themselves, most teens or young adults (ages 21-30) most always practice their religion at a church or meeting place.

farleft

22nd November 2011, 21:29

Religious people are a threat to communism because religious people can't think logically.

hatzel

22nd November 2011, 21:35

Religious people are a threat to communism because religious people can't think logically.

I beg to differ. Logically speaking.

Azraella

22nd November 2011, 22:16

Religious people are a threat to communism because religious people can't think logically.

I love your logic then.

We are not impaired people. We're not flawed in any way, shape, or form. We're not diseased or evil. Religious commies exist. Period. I'm tired of people erasing our existence.

revhiphop

27th January 2012, 17:03

There was religion before capitalism. We can't really say that religion is a product of capitalism. I am a Muslim. But as far as Islamic law goes, I govern myself. I think people (not all of them obviously) are going to follow religions forever and communism is not going to eradicate religion. But under socialism, religion should have no place in the government. Your personal beliefs are your personal beliefs, not anyone else's. I'm not sure how we can stop them from bringing religion into politics though. Anyway, Religion is like a penis, it's fine to have one, just don't go shoving yours down my throat.

Drosophila

27th January 2012, 20:16

In my opinion, religion is too contradictory with science to be "allowed" by the state. I have no problem with an atheist state. There is plenty of evidence to disprove religious claims.

Commiekirby

29th June 2012, 03:56

By my ideas and many others it seems, I personally don't care what your faith is in a Communist society as long as one who is religious does not A) Force it upon others, B) Establish a Fundamental Dogma, C) Influence Politics.

Many faiths today of course violate those things, mainly due to ignorance and personal benefits such as money or social acceptance. But true believers that can think outside the box and see other people's points should be allowed to express their faith openly as long as, again they are not violating any of the above.

Government should be secular but it's still the objective of the Left to protect the people and what they are inside so in a truly evolved Communist society freedom of religious should exist. On the other hand, Staunch Atheist beliefs should also be kept on the down low because any system going fundamental equals hypocrisy and horrible things to come.

eric922

29th June 2012, 17:56

I added the bolded word to emphasize a point. Many lefties are atheists, I have no problem with this, some of us(like me and you) are religious and reach socialist conclusions through our faiths. To be honest, I have been really interested in trying to convince more religious folk to become socialists. There's too many of us religious types in here, that have the ability to try and convince our fellow religious proles to become socialists.
I couldn't agree more. It seems easier with some religions than others, though. All my Pagan friends are an anarchists, but most of my Christian friends are conservatives. I think it has a lot to do with the rather weak hierarchy of most pagan groups. You probably know this better than me, of course, but most pagan religions don't have a strict hierarchy. Even Wicca with its system of priests and priestess makes everyone a priest after a year, whereas Christianity has a full time clergy, protestant or catholic.

The Burgundy Rose

18th July 2012, 14:43

It is my personal view that religion would eventually be phased out of a truly egalitarian and wealthy society naturally. Religion is essentially a phenomenological apperception of the world that has come to be both ubiquitous and in many cases egregiously powerful. it unites people who feel suppressed, demoralised and disenfranchised under the promise that those that suppress them will eventually face justice in some mythical afterlife. this tempers the proletariat and keeps them from rising up, fettering them to their masters. not only does it serve to maintain the status quo but it also more powerful in harsher times or environments. this is because when people are working for material necessity they become more stressed and demoralised and feel the need for a paternal or maternal voice comforting them. speaking from a psychological viewpoint 'god' is merely a manifestation of the paternal figure we crave when things go wrong, when we need guidance and assurance. once we emancipate the people from material necessity then religion will lose its pernicious potency and there will be a plurality of different thoughts prevailing the social scen, which is good in a free society, without any one of them taking precedence over the other except through the medium of science and rationalism.

there is therefore no need to actively attack religion or discourage it. if people want to be religious then let them so long as it doesn't conflict with our primary objective of elevating the standards of living for the poorest of us and bringing the most opulent and affluent of our society back down to earth so that they are more accountable to the people.

jstrodel

9th February 2013, 02:44

Any government that restricts peoples right to believe whatever they want is an immoral government that has no right to exist and ought to be overthrown.

Anyone who doesn't believe this is a fascist.

jstrodel

9th February 2013, 02:50

In my opinion, religion is too contradictory with science to be "allowed" by the state. I have no problem with an atheist state. There is plenty of evidence to disprove religious claims.

Christianity created the science and University culture that gave rise to Marxism and every other left wing ideology.

There is no conflict between science and religion. Most of the scientists that are alive today are Christians, at least in America.

The conflict between science and religion is something that the left invented, because it has no respect for truth. There is no conflict between any area of theology and science.

I have personally experience the reality of the Holy Spirit, I have seen God, God is real. It is a fact.

Anyone who is for using the state to outlaw religion is doing something extremely evil. They will suffer the most painful death in hell for their crimes. What if what I am saying is right?

Goblin

9th February 2013, 03:01

Depends on what kind of religion were talking about. If were talking about the abrahamic faiths (Judaism/Christianity/Islam), then no. These "religions" have created nothing but terrible things. Theres also alot of conflict between the people who belong to these faiths, and alot of those conflicts end in death.

As for eastern religions (Hinduism/Buddhism/Sikhism/Jainism etc), then yes. These religions promote nothing but peace and love for your fellow man. Its also worth noting that the hindu God Krishna (Vishnus 8th avatar), is by many regarded as the first communist. I am aware about the caste system, but its pretty much dying in India, and its not practised at all by western hindus.

jstrodel

9th February 2013, 06:32

jstrodel

10th February 2013, 22:25

Religious people are a threat to communism because religious people can't think logically.

What is logic? How do you do logic if you are a naturalist? Are entities such as numbers real - how do you square that with naturalism. If there are no entities, how do you do logic?

Aristotle believed in God, he is probably the greatest logician in history. Do you even know what logic is?

I bet you have never done a single exercise in real philosophical logic. You probably don't even know what naturalism is, yet know how to death with the very serious challenges to reasoning that exist from a naturalistic perspective.

You think that logic is knowing how to argue with your parents.

Fourth Internationalist

10th February 2013, 22:29

How can you disprove what I am saying. It is not up to him to disprove you but for you to prove your claims. Can you disprove that Zeus is not real? Or that there are fairies under your garden? No, disproving a negative is impossible.

Marxists treat psychological speculation as if it is real evidence that proves anything.

I find that's exactly what the religious do, not Marxists.

jstrodel

10th February 2013, 23:16

one
It is not up to him to disprove you but for you to prove your claims. Can you disprove that Zeus is not real? Or that there are fairies under your garden? No, disproving a negative is impossible.

Asking someone to "prove" (according to the Western scientific epistemological method) that God exists on a message board in this context is sort of like a situation where someone was a student of chemistry and they hadn't read a single book, and they demanded proof, down to an extremely detailed rigorous method, exactly how something worked, before they had read any other chemistry.

Now, there are some very good arguments for God's existence (look up on YouTube - the moral argument, the teleological argument, the kalaam cosmological argument, the argument based on other minds, look up Alvin Plantiga, William Lane Craig, Alaisdair McGrath, NT Wright, there are lots of other ones).

Yes, there are good arguments for God's existence, but can you prove that Gold exists, as a chemical element, without knowing quite a bit about chemistry? Of course you can't. Is it reasonable to take as an argument from authority, that gold may exist because people that are experts or people that I trust say that it exists? Yes, this is how 99.99999% of people in the world learn that the element gold exists.

It is the same thing with religion. You can hear arguments on the internet about whether God exists, and there are good arguments, Christianity is not an irrational religion. But they are not really the same as pursuing God and learning about Christianity yourself. It takes time to learn about God, and if you want to see God and miracles, you must repent of your sins and purify yourself because God will not reveal himself to those who are unclean (usually, although I know of cases where he has miraculously stopped suicides in progress while they were happening.

The proof of knowing that gold exists really happens when you go into a laboratory and do different tests to verify the compisition of gold. This is the same with Christianity, the proof comes when you actually pursue God seriously, not as something to mock and disprove but something to seriously consider. There is no learning outside of this, no morals, no meaning to life, no justification for any political philosophy (especially one that makes you an autocratic proletariat dictator). There is no reason to care about politics if God doesn't exist. It is worth pursuing.

I find that's exactly what the religious do, not Marxists.

Wrong, User Name. Theology is based on a careful theological method. People trust in the teachings of the church and Holy Scripture because God has spoken through these texts for thousands of years. There is nothing psychological or speculative about it. It is not even a process mostly involving reason, the authority of the scriptures and theology comes directly out of experience.

In contrast, Marxist critiques of religion are based on speculation about the psychological underpinnings and class origins of religious feelings. There is little evidence and much speculation. In the world of the Marxist though, evidence is only needed if it can support the ideology of Marxism, evidence against Marxism is of course, safe to ignore, if not prohibit.

Lenina Rosenweg

10th February 2013, 23:46

Jstrodel, why have Christian societies, ie Europe and America, been so devastatingly brutal and destructive towards the rest of the world?

Spain destroying and enslaving the Aztecs and Incas, the English and Americans exterminating the Native peoples, the English virtually enslaving the Irish and exterminating the Australian aboriginal peoples, mass famines in India created by the British killing 10s of millions of people, colonial wars-extremely brutal colonial wars-Algeria, Vietnam, Libya, elsewhere which killed 10s of millions, etc.

I am not romanticing non-Western cultures, they had their share of brutality and destruction, but the fact is that the destruction Christendom visited on the planet has vastly outweighed this. Why weren't the teachings of Jesus able to mitigate the horrors of capitalism? Christianity in its various forms has been around for 2000 years, why hasn't it succeeded in making the world a better place?

albania1978

27th February 2013, 12:20

faith and ideology belong to two separate dimensions thus not excluding each other. Faith is dealing with life after death and answering questions related to creation. the processes of faith happens in the spiritual realm of a human being, and if this realm didnot exist, there would be no faith. please note I use the word faith, which is very personal and deals with the individual. religion on the other hand is the ways of men (their interpretation of God and what he is all about) and they are most of the times wrong and have led to largest cruelties in our ages and in the past. instrumentation of religion has been very obvious in the western countries.
Marxism and Leninism is showing a practical way to live a better and more sublime life on earth, it is processed in the rationale so it belongs to a different realm of the human being. So faith and ML have a possibility to coexist, but religion and ML to me is a no no and pressure should be hard on these practices( like Hoxha did).
my question is
what wing did christ belong to when he made the statement: He who has two coats share one with your brother (commrade)?
or
if you want to follow me sell all your wealth and share it with the poor (progressive tax concept)
or when the bourgeois ( tax collector) spread his wealth to the poor (not talking about charity here) and was made into a new man?

Buck

3rd April 2013, 17:13

As a Marxist, it is not possible to be religious, as religion(theist) claims that their is an omnipotent, omnibenevoilent, omnisencent ect that rules over humans, guiding them with a divine plan. This should suggest that workers and the like should jut wait and pray for some god to rescue them, instead of worker action. Also to be religous you most likely believe in an after life, so why bother fixing this system, if when you die, you will be in paraidise, if you accept some guy as you savour. Also religion spreads ignorance and thus hinders society as a whole by saying god does it to every natural phenomena. Like being anti science, not listening to reason, logic, etc or the scientific method, instead taking things on faith rather than reason. Plus the bible and other such religious texts advocate slavery, subjugation to a divine ruler, sexism, thought control, suppression of free will, homophobia, fuedalism, and caste in society. If you look at texts like the bible and read it, you realize that it is just a cultural document of how the societies back then lived, not rules of life. The bible has no knowledge of pi, seems to think that by killing a bird, dripping it in another birds blood and then flicking it several times on a person or house will cure them of any skin condition/disease or the house of mold. Enough said

LifeIs2Short

9th May 2013, 12:50

Communism is about the liberation of humanity. A part of this is the liberation of consciousness, and that includes destruction of those institutions limit consciousness. Organised religions are a prime example of this. People who are born into an organised religion, have no choice in what to believe in. Organised religion and communism cant coexist.

Craig_J

16th May 2013, 21:10

Religion wil never disappear as it offers questions about the world science and other things can't. We're still going to want consolation on what happens when we die and the hope that we may somehow meet relatives again.

I believe that organised traditional religion can be very controlling and cause people to believe that other people's moral views are wrong because a benevolent bing doesn't approve of it. The taking of illegal drugs for example, or being homosexual. It can also cause people to go to war and try and enfore fundamentalism which is obviously not a good thing.

Ideally I would like to see a world of "belief" more than organised religion. It's fine to believe in a God or believe in reincarnation but honestly why do you need to live your life according to morals that have been put into a book that's thousands of years old, has been translated many, many times by many, many different people and accept it as the word of God? If you have certain morals that's fine. If you don't believe that God approves of alcohol ordrugs then so be it. But why enforce others to follow? If your acting according to what you believe a benevolent being would want then you'll get rewarded anyway. Just don't try and enforce others to agree and do what you think is right. And draw your own conclusions on the world, assess all options and believe what you think is right, not what someone preaches is right.

I'm a follower of a combination of Taoism and Buddhism and I like to pick out bits I agree wth. What I like about these religions, if you call it that, (I tend to think of it as more of a philosophy than religion) is that they don't force you to believe in a God or live your life certain ways. It's more like advice and reccomendation on how to live your life best and practices to draw your own conclusions on the universe and this earth.

Yuppie Grinder

16th May 2013, 21:13

judging by that poll we have 117 militant atheists
ew

InSovietRussia

17th May 2013, 01:56

I do not believe that communism and religion are incompatible, I do believe that it would be better off without it in the long run.

Djoko

27th May 2013, 11:42

Communism is based on thruth and that's the reason why they exclude each other

LuÃs Henrique

27th May 2013, 12:57

Communism is based on thruth and that's the reason why they exclude each other

If I can't lie anymore, then it's not my revolution... ;)

But no. Communism is based in the social property of means of production, not on "truth", whatever definition of "truth" you may give.

Luís Henrique

agantt0

19th July 2013, 03:21

My opinion on the matter is that so long as any government is honest and seeking to do what's right for the people, religion isn't really an issue for them. Religion in of itself isn't usually a problem, but rather the messy situation that occurs when religion is mixed with political power and economic interest. Individuals who seek to confuse the line between one thing and another are always a danger, but to plan on "eliminating" risks is hardly an ideal that I see the left as having. We all may disagree with different belief systems and the reasoning behind someone's thought, but at the end of the day, what matters is the common good of humanity. If one person feeds the poor out of simple human understanding and another feeds them, at least in part, because their religion tells them too, I see no real difference. I grew up in a very religious region in the US where many people do consider themselves to be "evangelicals", but most of the time when I talked to these people, I could perceive that they weren't doing something only because of religion, they were doing it because of a feeling of common humanity. Ultimately, religion reflects what it is to be human. Some very great things are done in the name of religion while other really terrible things are done because of it. To hint at "destroying" religion is to hint at destroying humanity and all it means. We are an imperfect group of creatures and that is half of the beauty of it all. We all mess up, but when we truly care about the world around us, we right our wrongs and end up on the right side of history. "Bad people" are influence by other people. Religion has, for many people, been simply a place where people can mix together and be social, so sometimes it goes wrong and the bad influence extremist type person appears at the ideal moment to corrupt another. These negative influences can be found in all sects of society and I would argue that we could find just as many people have been killed in the name of economic gain and political power as have for religion.

NeonTrotski

28th July 2013, 09:24

I stand by religion is dangerous to communism.
I don't think outright abolition or oppression is necessarily the answer. Zealots and martyrs etc.
But how can faith (belief without evidence) not be dangerous to communism?
Communism is based on science not faith, evidence, analysis of history,
How could you trust Baptists to be tolerable toward gays or Muslims to be employed as gynecologists?
Would a communist society ban Catholic priests from working in daycare?
There is no logical path that suggests that atheism leads to war, there is however a logical path for almost every religious ideology to goto war. If Hitler quoted the bible to support his polices that wouldn't be illogical of him the bible is genocidal. If a Muslim becomes a holocaust denier it follows a logical path. Atheists might be warmongers but not because atheism lead them to it.

Brutus

28th July 2013, 10:07

Hopefully there won't be any Catholics in communism because people will have rid themselves of this suppositious bollocks. The main reason people are religious is because it's been shoved down their throat from birth. Men will be able to think for themselves.

Rafiq

28th July 2013, 17:17

Sometimes I'm just appalled that whole buildings, whole structures are built today, places of worship, that people regularly attend and give ideological and social legitimacy to over superstition and ridiculous bullshit. When I say social legitimacy, I mean places that you're supposed to be respectful, dress nice and so on in. I don't see the difference between a church and a McDonald's but apparently I'm supposed to. Actually at least a McDonalds serves an actual meaningful purpose. Zizek kind of touched on this, how people believe but don't believe. Meaning people personally say they don't believe, but still follow the routines and customs of a believer. It's fascinating really.

Rafiq

28th July 2013, 17:19

Without structural and ideological hegemony, without the social power they hold, religious institutions are rendered just as serious as your typical conspiracy theorist reptilian clubs.

agantt0

2nd August 2013, 02:49

I wouldn't say that I agree when people claim that Communism is based on science. It embraced science, mainly in order to compete with the "West" during the Cold War, but the original system in of itself was based around simple social ideas of what is right or wrong. Many Communist nations also developed a type of "folklore" that in many ways resembled religion. However, I also don't see science and religion as not being able to coexist. From my own experience, they both deal with very different questions and don't really seem to butt heads. There are those on both sides who would love for them to butt heads, such as the people who created the "Creation Museum" and such, but I don't see this to be the case of most people on either side.
As far as the question of "faith" goes, I'm not sure that Communism is not in of itself a type of faith. Many of us believe that we are fighting for what is "right" or "just" with no real proof that it is the case. We are often bashed over the head with examples of the Soviet Union and China under Mao as examples of how Communism supported oppressive regimes. There are not very many case studies of where the Left has gotten it "right", so in many ways, we do have a type of believing without seeing, so to speak.
In response to the tendency to war, I don't follow your argument, NeonTrotski. Most of the people of faith that I deal with frequently who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu do not at all interpret their religions to endorse war at all. I personally don't see my faith as calling for me to go to war so much as telling me that it must be avoided at all costs. Humanity has a tendency to war, faith or not. Religion is a variable that I do not find to be in of itself meaningful to the outcome. Terrible wars have been fought in the name of various religions, and most people of those faiths will admit that those were terrible misinterpretations of faith, not actual manifestations of the religion. Genocide and such have been committed in the name of many ideals, including some of our own, but I don't see that as meaning that we should be banned or gotten rid of.
Finally, in response to Rafiq's comment about how "serious" religion would be without social hierarchy and hegemony: why does this matter? If you don't belong to a particular religion, why would you care about how serious it is? I converted to my faith, not because of how "serious" it is, but because of the fact that I saw it giving a sense of meaning to many people. If something makes somebody a more content human being, does it have to be serious? Is Communism meant to make us all into stoic non-religious versions of the Amish? If this revolution can't have some goofy shenanigans going on, I don't want to take part!

Unumundisto

3rd November 2013, 15:21

Materialism (nowadays philosophers more often call it "Physicalism") is a metaphysical position.

Atheism is a position regarding a religious question.

Socialist positions and communist postions (a type of socialist positions) are about social systems.

Religion and metaphysics tend to be related to eachother in the sense that every religion has a metaphysics (not to imply the reverse).

Positions about metaphysics &/or religon don't, per se, conflict with positions about social issues, such as socialist and communist social positions.

Of course obviously some religions _do_ oppose socialism &/or communism. Although all of the U.S. communist party platforms offer freedom of religion, that dosn't mean that everything advocated by a religion would be permitted. For example:

You don't need me to specify some religious practices that wouldn't be allowed by any humane government. I'm sure that you know of some. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that all religious practices are permitted, when they conflict with social guarantees and protections.

So, although the U.S. communist party platforms offer freedom of religion, and some religions oppose socialism and communism, that _doesn't_ mean that a communist government would allow opposition to socialism &/or communism if communists, including the voter-majority who voted for a communist government, (rightly, in my opinion) regard opposition to socialism or communism as socially &/or aesthetically undesirable.

Of course a democratic socialism would allow expression of all positions on everything, including socialism. That's a choice that voters would make when they choose between communist and democratic socialist government. Speakiing for myself, I'd vote communist.

I talk about communist parties and democratic socialist parties in my thread "A new member, introducing myself", in the Introductions forum.

As I've said there, I personally prefer the communist party platforms to the democatic socialist party platforms, and I refer both of those to the non-socialist progressive party platforms.

...and I prefer all three categories to the non-progressive (mostly Republocrat) parties and policies, to which i would never give any ballot-support.

Unumundisto

Red_Banner

3rd November 2013, 16:38

"All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is that stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and supersedes them."-Engels

RedMoslem

3rd November 2013, 21:18

It's my personal opinion that religion and communism should never mix because mixing religion with politics can only lead to bad things in the long term.
I myself am a Muslim,I was an Agnostic the majority of my life until I found the truth in Islam and I don't think anyone should be forced to be Muslim nor indoctrinated into any religion there is.
Let's just keep religion a personal matter,without huge "institutions" that can do good,but generally are bad in their right.

TiberiusGracchus

27th December 2013, 20:08

I can see various ways in which religious belief can be anti-revolutionary. For example having a conception of the world which contradicts science, i.e. believing in the existence of various "forces" that effects us but cannot be rationally studied and understood. Or of course advocating social differences, states etc. Or at least claiming that it's wrong to participate in class struggle in order to smash classes and states.

I'm not very familiar with any religion. I'm most familiar with christianity but my theological knowledge is yet very limited. Still I would claim that it's nothing in christianity that necessarily contradicts a revolutionary struggle - quite the opposite.

The christian world view does not contradict with the scientific world view. I would actually claim that it gave birth to it. It was the christian movement with its doctrine of the autonomy of the world and its attack on the gods that made scientific rationalism possible. The Christian God was the God to end all gods. The christian philosopher above all, Thomas Aquinas is much more a materialist than most contemporary philosophers.

Also from a christian standpoint states, nations, money etc. are all false idols that we should not care so much about. What we should care about is living together in love. Christianity is still the only true world religion that transcends ethnicity and culture.

Christians believe that the executed body of a man who was executed as a political threat because of his solidarity with the poor and dispossessed is the only authentic image of God.

The christian utopia is a loving community of mankind where no one is more than anyone else. It's communism basicly.

But does christianity legitimize class struggle and political violence in order to make way for the kingdom of God? Liberation theology clearly does. But also a quite orthodox and highly respected dominican scholar such as Herbert McCabe claims that "there are circumstances in which even violence itself – by which I mean killing people – is not only compatible with Christian love but demanded by it".

Obiously the Church is corrupted and compromised, but I see no reason why christians could not be great revolutionaries. Christians have played a more central part than atheist marxists in revolutionary movements in Africa and Latin America, which Fidel Castro has often recogniced.

Where I live young christians are very nice and decent people, most often very "politically correct" with strong opinions for feminism and against racism and class oppression, not at all bigoted or irrational. I think the revolutionary left should reach out a hand to them.

As for other religions my knowledge is very small. I know a few new age followers and even though they often have beautiful ideals that is close to communism they do not believe in an autonomous material world like christians do, and they put a lot of hope to mystical forces and "spiritual awakening" instead of practical, down-to-earth stuff such as organizing a strike. Their philosophical idealism must be combatted before they can become comrades in the struggle. They must not give up their spirituality, but they must see that change (including a spiritual awakening) can only come through praxis and particullary revolutionary praxis grounded in the working class.

nor-commie

23rd January 2014, 06:04

Relgion is a disease, but we can't force the people to stop believe in religion, but we can stop letting them affecting and converting the rest of the society...

CPN

8th April 2014, 04:00

If you allow Religion within Communism it's not even Communism anymore it's just Religious Socialism. Burn the Churches,Temples and Mosque make the people fear Religion not follow it.

MarcusJuniusBrutus

7th May 2014, 07:51

I did not answer because all the answers presume an animosity between communism and religion. While Marxism is certainly atheistic and materialist, not all communism is Marxist or even modern. There have been numerous Christian, communal societies throughout the Middle Ages and into modernity. Consider the Beguines of the 13th c. in western Europe or the Shakers of the 19th c. USA. Even some of the followers of Stalin and Mao seemed to take atheism more as an article of faith than for any reasons associated with scientific skepticism.

Marxist-Islamist

9th August 2014, 08:33

motion denied

9th August 2014, 16:26

a bunch of first world petty bourgeoisie kids don't like religion.

That's some plain bullshit right there, pal.

JahLemon

9th August 2014, 18:13

Number 3 seems like the most rational choice. It allows people to do what they want as long as other people aren't forced into their beliefs.

argeiphontes

10th August 2014, 02:04

Regardless of whether you guys believe it -should- be compatible or not, It simply is.. You'd have to start kicking out thousands and thousands of revolutionary comrades & Martyrs all over the world from the movement just because a bunch of first world petty bourgeoisie kids don't like religion.

We don't need a debate on this, it's a reality and you can choose to accept it or not.

I don't think it's based on anything solid, which I why I started a more theoretical thread about this. What does a theory of society and social change have to do with metaphysics? Absolutely nothing. The problem is that Marxism itself becomes a religion to take the place of the religions in people's lives.

Invincible Summer

12th September 2014, 23:00

If you allow Religion within Communism it's not even Communism anymore it's just Religious Socialism. Burn the Churches,Temples and Mosque make the people fear Religion not follow it.

If you allow musical preferences within Communism, it's not even Communism anymore it's just Showtunes Socialism.

...

Do you see how silly that sounds? I don't get why so many on the revolutionary left have an issue with people's personal spiritual beliefs, so long as they don't interfere with the goals of revolutionary communism.

Although Christians/Muslims/Sikhs/Jains/Buddhists/Jews may be large social groups, the beliefs of individuals within each group are not necessarily as counter-revolutionary as some make them out to be.

thecynicalpotat2

30th October 2014, 22:24

No, I'd say communism and the Bible aren't mutually exclusive.

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
-Matthew 19:24

Dave

31st October 2014, 06:43

Communism is a political religion. It relies on group belief in dogma and doesn't tolerate dissent. Religion to Communism is like how Islam was to medieval Christianity and vice versa - a competing ideology for people's hearts and minds

McGuigz

23rd February 2015, 05:53

How could you possibly every justify organised religion? It needs to be destroyed the exact same as all other ridiculous authoritarian regimes. Its poison, it makes people think they are more important than others, the planet and the world. They start wars, segregate people, create discrimination. How can people believe that the world was built for them? A materialistic outlook is far more important, real things, other people, experience you can literally comprehend are the most important thing. If the world changed religion needs to be one of the first out of the door in order to move humanity forward for our social evolution.

Viktor89

23rd February 2015, 16:28

No influence, no power, no organized religion. But if someone wants to believe in "god" I don't really care, just don't let them recruit others or spread their bullshit to the people.

Guardia Rossa

18th May 2015, 21:10

Honestly? Shoot prophets, burn churches, allow non-institutionalized (without temples, just praying at home and such) religion.

Usawa

30th September 2015, 20:21

I've never understood why people believe that communism and religion are mutually exclusive. Not all communists are Marxists. I think that you can make a good religious argument for communism or some kind of voluntary gift economy. Generosity and compassion for the poor is a common theme in the New Testament, there are some passages that seem to completely support communism (too lazy to look for them right now)

1. Can you be a revolutionary and still be part of a large religion (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)?

I don't think that you can practice any of these religions and not be opposed to violence and 'revolution' as I understand the term implies violence. I don't know under what circumstances Christians, Buddhists, Jains and Hindu's consider violence to be necessary. I don't think Jains or Buddhists would accept it at all, especially not Jains. I'm not an expert on these faiths even though I was a born again Pentecostal up until 12.

2. Can you be a revolutionary and be part of an "alternative" religion (e.g. Paganism, neo-Paganism, New Age, etc)?

'New Age', to me, vaguely implies some kind of anti-violence and pro-universal compassion stance so I don't know when or if a 'New Age' person would or could view revolution as a necessary evil.

3. Could a revolutionary believe in the supernatural (UFOs, the occult, etc)?

I think so.

Since most of us are atheists, here are several other interesting discussion topics regarding atheism (not believing in deities).
1. Do you have to be a materialist to be an ideologically true revolutionary (not all atheists are materialist).

I don't think so.

2. Could a religious atheist be a revolutionary (e.g. some Buddhist sects, some Hindu sects and some "alternative" religions have atheistic followers)?

I think so if a 'revolutionary' is someone who wants a radical change without necessarily advocating a violent overthrow of existing governments, especially not democratic governments.

3. Which is more important: (1) Not believing in a deity, or (2) Not being part of an organized religion - or a combination of the two?

I don't think not believing in some kind of a deity is important at all. I think that organized religion causes a lot more harm than just a generalized belief in some kind of a higher power. Just believing or not believing in a god doesn't say anything about a person's values. Christians not only believe in the god of Abraham, they accept his value judgments and him as an authority on what is right and wrong (Lucifer and the other fallen angels, while they literally believe in Jehovah, do not). Someone could believe the matter of fact claims that Christianity makes are true without actually worshiping God, obeying him or agreeing with his value judgments. When it comes to accepting a god as a moral authority and not just matter of factly believing in one what matters is what kind of a god people 'support'.

I do have somewhat of an issue with basing moral decisions on what a god would consider good and bad or right and wrong, 'somewhat' for other people and absolutely for myself. I think there's a moral imperative to improve the lives of all sentient beings whether God agrees with this or not.

For the record, atheism isn't synonymous with materialism. I'm a non-theist (agnostic atheist although I don't believe an all powerful compassionate god who allows sentient beings to suffer is logically possible) but I'm not a materialist. I'm the exact opposite, I believe the physical world is an illusion and consciousness is the only 'thing' that exists.