Religious Intolerance

[534634634265]

(heavy sarcasm imminent):rolleyes:

since after the revolution we'll have thought police stopping anyone from thinking spiritual or religious thoughts, what about philosophy? if someone believes in nondualism, or is an existentialist, or a nihilist, will these people be included in our round-up of thought criminals? surely they'll try and argue that they are simply thinking in philosophical terms, how will we counter that argument?

(braced for lots of douchebag replies and a few legit ones whenever this thread blows out of proportion and devolves to screaming and ignorance)

[Bright Banana Beard]

Yes, they are illogical and must be executed! [/sacrasm]

Anti-Religious Zealots reminded me the same actions made by Religious Zealots.

[Niccolò Rossi]

since after the revolution we'll have thought police stopping anyone from thinking spiritual or religious thoughts

Where do you get the idea that post-revolution religion will be banned?


surely they'll try and argue that they are simply thinking in philosophical terms, how will we counter that argument?

I really really hope your joking, I can't tell with your posts any more. Seems you want to be restricted, no?

[pusher robot]

Where do you get the idea that post-revolution religion will be banned?

Have you read the replies in the "should religion be illegal" thread? I think he's addressing this to those people who believed it should be.

Members include:
Razboz
STJ
Cryotank Screams
MrDoom
Big Boss
OneBrickOneVoice (Commie Club Member!)
Atrus
al8
Brick (Commie Club Member!)
ComradeOm
Illus
Sharon Den Angel
Comrade Nedehzda (Commie Club Member!)
comrade stalin guevara

I too would be interested in how they differentiate religion from philosophy or ethics.

** To their credit, most members thought it was a bad and possibly stupid idea.

[Demogorgon]

I cannot abide the religious intolerance on this website. It is part of a larger problem though. People who hold ideas that are marginalised, particularly younger people have a tendency towards wanting to BAN! the ideas that are squeezing them out. It comes down to the "the world would be much better off if everyone thought like me" mentality that certain people have. I understand it, even if I can't stand it, I was the same, maybe five years ago, but people need to grow up and put it behind them. Communism is not going to be an appealing prospect unless it absolutely allows freedom of thought and expression.

[al8]

That's not true. We should not allow freedom of speech to reactionaries, period. Not in the spheres that we control. To do this is do fall into to an illusory bourgeois conception of freedoms. We are systematicly weeded out of public discourse or pushed to the margins - which is entirely understandable and natural by the way - because it serves the interest that be. When it will be the other way around I just think we should be blatantly honest and frank.

And we anti-religionists are not just all BAN! We are just as much in the other direction (ALLOW!) with other things that are banned today, but that's just not for descussion. There are always do's and dont's in any society. I want to smash the old norms and build up the new. So some things like the political rights of established charlatans and their duped accomplices will get a nice big fuck-finger in the face.

[Dystisis]

(heavy sarcasm imminent):rolleyes:
since after the revolution we'll have thought police stopping anyone from thinking spiritual or religious thoughts, what about philosophy? if someone believes in nondualism, or is an existentialist, or a nihilist, will these people be included in our round-up of thought criminals? surely they'll try and argue that they are simply thinking in philosophical terms, how will we counter that argument?
I could condone mass slaughtering of nihilists because I doubt they would care. But I myself am involved in certain aspects of pythagorean ideas about numeration and numbers, which I am sure (mostly out of experience) confuses other people on this board and/therefore falls to their dislike.There is nothing with my philosophical views that interfers with my political views. If there was I would simply alter either into what makes most sense; I do not follow doctrine and it is not what either of my ideologies are about.

[Trystan]

That's not true. We should not allow freedom of speech to reactionaries, period.

That's bullshit, that is. :)

[al8]

One would ban reactionaries speech in the same spirit as one would keep a message-board free of spam. Both is unnecessary clutter that takes space away from real and useful descussion.

[Captain Morgan]

Oh dear...

[Killfacer]

firstly i dont think that black rifle's comparison between religious zealots and anti-thiest zealots is a fair one. When is the last time a anti-thiest zealot blew up something? hmmm.

Personally i find religion irksome and vaugely irritating. But as long as it doesnt effect anybody else in a negative way, then let people get on with it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

since after the revolution we'll have thought police stopping anyone from thinking spiritual or religious thoughts,That's impossible. What is possible is the eradication of the public presence of religion.


what about philosophy?Indeed, what about it? How many philosophers have burnt people at the stake in the name of their philosophy?


if someone believes in nondualism, or is an existentialist, or a nihilist, will these people be included in our round-up of thought criminals?It doesn't matter what this or that reactionary "thinks", it's what they do that matters.


surely they'll try and argue that they are simply thinking in philosophical terms, how will we counter that argument?Again, it's what they do that matters.


Anti-Religious Zealots reminded me the same actions made by Religious Zealots.

Oh really? How many Chrisitians have been killed by atheists? How many "atheist crusades" have there been?

Some of you are so ignorant of the history of religious superstition, it's incredibly worrying.


I cannot abide the religious intolerance on this website. It is part of a larger problem though. People who hold ideas that are marginalised, particularly younger people have a tendency towards wanting to BAN! the ideas that are squeezing them out.

If godsuckers want to preach, there are plenty of websites for them to do so. This is not one of them.


It comes down to the "the world would be much better off if everyone thought like me" mentality that certain people have.I thought it was to keep the level of god-bothering crap to a minimum, myself.


I understand it, even if I can't stand it, I was the same, maybe five years ago, but people need to grow up and put it behind them. Communism is not going to be an appealing prospect unless it absolutely allows freedom of thought and expression.There's no such thing as "absolute" freedom of speech. Everyone and every society has certain standards that requires certain forms of speech be curtailed, violently if necessary.

"Absolute" freedom of speech is a Platonic conception that ignores social reality.

Worryingly, your statement suggests that you would allow freedom of speech for sexists, homophobes and racists.

[chimx]

Worryingly, your statement suggests that you would allow freedom of speech for sexists, homophobes and racists.

Of course.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Of course.

And just why should any of those fuckers have a platform? What is gained by having reactionary ideas given "equal time"?

[Demogorgon]

And just why should any of those fuckers have a platform? What is gained by having reactionary ideas given "equal time"?

You are going to have to explain who you think should get to ban certain speech and who gets to enforce the bans.

I have no desire to live in a totalitarian society where I have to constantly look over my shoulder in case something I like doing or saying gets banned and the thought police come to get me.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are going to have to explain who you think should get to ban certain speech and who gets to enforce the bans.Why, the workers involved of course. If you worked at a paper mill in a communist society, would you be willing for the products of your labour to go towards the printing of a fascist magazine or newspaper? If you were a utility worker in the same situation, would you be willing to provide them with water, electricity, internet access etc?

I wouldn't. I would refuse to have the products of my labour further a cause that is the very antithesis of my own.

And I would expect that workers with an ounce of revolutionary consciousness would think the same.


I have no desire to live in a totalitarian society where I have to constantly look over my shoulder in case something I like doing or saying gets banned and the thought police come to get me.And if you knew anything about my politics, you would know that I would have nothing to do with secret police or any of that statist crap.

And this all leaves my original question unanswered, of course.

Why should any of those fuckers have a platform? What is gained by having reactionary ideas given "equal time"?

[Demogorgon]

Why, the workers involved of course. If you worked at a paper mill in a communist society, would you be willing for the products of your labour to go towards the printing of a fascist magazine or newspaper? If you were a utility worker in the same situation, would you be willing to provide them with water, electricity, internet access etc?

I wouldn't. I would refuse to have the products of my labour further a cause that is the very antithesis of my own.

And I would expect that workers with an ounce of revolutionary consciousness would think the same.And what makes you so sure that "the workers" will ban exactly what you want to be banned. You are simply presuming that everyone will think the same as you in a revolutionary situation. I have news for you they won't.

Nobody has a monopoly on deciding what the word "reactionary" means. For instance, I think you, with all your totalitarian crap and opposition to socialism are a reactionary, perhaps the workers should vote to suppress your freedom of speech? How would you like that?


And if you knew anything about my politics, you would know that I would have nothing to do with secret police or any of that statist crap.So you are fond of claiming. But you make constant proclamations that call that into question. You want speech you disagree with banned. You want public expression of religion restricted or removed. You want to remove children from their parents, should their parents teach religious views, you want a post-capitalist society to resume various reactionary practices that most capitalist societies have now done away with, such as capital punishment.

Ironically you even support more central planning than I do, though you don't call it that. That is what energy accounting (on the very off chance it would work) would entail. So you are in no position to call anyone else a "statist".


And this all leaves my original question unanswered, of course.

Why should any of those fuckers have a platform? What is gained by having reactionary ideas given "equal time"?
Only an ultra-authoritarian would ever ask the question of "why should x be allowed?" The starting position should be that everything be allowed, with each individual ban on activity justified. Supporters of free speech do not have to explain why any given form of speech should be allowed. Rather opponents of free speech have to explain why it should be banned.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And what makes you so sure that "the workers" will ban exactly what you want to be banned. You are simply presuming that everyone will think the same as you in a revolutionary situation. I have news for you they won't.I'm assuming that the majority of workers in a revolutionary situation will be communists or anarchists like the members of this board. In fact, let's take a straw poll right now and see how many member of Revleft would be willing to provide for reactionary causes:

Would you support reactionaries? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-you-support-t85823/index.html)

It's only just started, but I'm confident that most will vote "No". If the majority vote is "Yes" then I think we have a serious problem.


Nobody has a monopoly on deciding what the word "reactionary" means. For instance, I think you, with all your totalitarian crap and opposition to socialism are a reactionary, perhaps the workers should vote to suppress your freedom of speech? How would you like that?The fact that there are slight variations in people's personal definitions of the word reactionary are of no concern to me - it's the majority consensus that matters.

I am very much amused that you have the gall to call me, of all people, totalitarian.


So you are fond of claiming. But you make constant proclamations that call that into question. You want speech you disagree with banned.No, I want reactionary speech banned. Not everything I disagree with is reactionary.


You want public expression of religion restricted or removed. You want to remove children from their parents, should their parents teach religious views, you want a post-capitalist society to resume various reactionary practices that most capitalist societies have now done away with, such as capital punishment.How is capital punishment "reactionary"? It might be inadvisable or unjust or cruel... but "reactionary"?

The fact that most capitalist societies find capital punishment too burdensome (What with all the back-and-forth appeals, deferments, etc etc) has no bearing on its application in post-capitalist societies.


Ironically you even support more central planning than I do, though you don't call it that. That is what energy accounting (on the very off chance it would work) would entail. So you are in no position to call anyone else a "statist".What's missing though? The power of command. No particular individual or organisation has the power of violence to back themselves up - who would they call upon? The cops? What cops?


Only an ultra-authoritarian would ever ask the question of "why should x be allowed?"It's not just "X" though. It's a particular set of of political or religious beliefs. Just exactly how is society enriched by having a bunch of Nazis spewing their crap everywhere?


The starting position should be that everything be allowed, with each individual ban on activity justified. You are speaking in terms of abstractions. Why should racists, sexists and homophobes be allowed a public voice?

If we oppose their actions, why not oppose their speech?


Supporters of free speech do not have to explain why any given form of speech should be allowed. Rather opponents of free speech have to explain why it should be banned.How about, "because it's disgusting shit!"?

[Demogorgon]

I'm assuming that the majority of workers in a revolutionary situation will be communists or anarchists like the members of this board. In fact, let's take a straw poll right now and see how many member of Revleft would be willing to provide for reactionary causes:

Would you support reactionaries? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-you-support-t85823/index.html)

It's only just started, but I'm confident that most will vote "No". If the majority vote is "Yes" then I think we have a serious problem.9/quote]That poll is asking whether people would personally work for a reactionary of their own free will. Hardly what is being discussed here. You have the same difficulty that authoritarians always have, not being able to tell the difference between wanting to do something personally and wanting to ban it. I for instance do not want to watch football but do not wish to ban others from doing so. By the same token I do not wish to associate with reactionaries, but do not wish to ban others from doing so.
[quote]
The fact that there are slight variations in people's personal definitions of the word reactionary are of no concern to me - it's the majority consensus that matters.

I am very much amused that you have the gall to call me, of all people, totalitarian.Why not call you totalitarian? You are one of the most authoritarian and control obsessed people on the board after all.


No, I want reactionary speech banned. Not everything I disagree with is reactionary.And are you going to be appointed the great philosopher king who rules what is reactionary and what isn't?

You say that what is reactionary will be determined by consensus. Okay, the consensus amongst any given sample will be that wishing to restrict freedom of expression and association and so on is reactionary. Consequently by consensus you are a reactionary. Should you be banned from spreading your bile?


How is capital punishment "reactionary"? It might be inadvisable or unjust or cruel... but "reactionary"?
Let's see. Either you vest the power of execution in a court system, otherwise known as the state or you invest it in what amounts to lynch mobs. Does either giving the state the power of life or death over people or having lynch mobs strike you as progressive?

Anyway, as it happens, Capital Punishment is reactionary by definition. It has been abolished in almost all Western Countries through the efforts of progressive forces. You wish to undo a progressive reform. That is reactionary.


The fact that most capitalist societies find capital punishment too burdensome (What with all the back-and-forth appeals, deferments, etc etc) has no bearing on its application in post-capitalist societies.Yes in post-capitalist society we are going to be itching to squander our resources on psychological torture and organised murder.


What's missing though? The power of command. No particular individual or organisation has the power of violence to back themselves up - who would they call upon? The cops? What cops?Apparently you haven't thought through any of your views. How for instance is the lovely "energy accounting" plan going to be put into practice when people ignore it for instance? We'll just gloss over this statement until you can come up with something substantial I think.


It's not just "X" though. It's a particular set of of political or religious beliefs. Just exactly how is society enriched by having a bunch of Nazis spewing their crap everywhere?Nope, once again, the onus must always be on the one wanting to ban something to demonstrate their case. Society does not have to be enriched by any activity for it to be legal.


You are speaking in terms of abstractions. Why should racists, sexists and homophobes be allowed a public voice?You still haven't told us why they shouldn't. I might ask why you should be allowed a public voice, should you have to specifically justify yourself? I am opposed to all dictatorship, consequently I am opposed to censorship. That doesn't mean I have to agree with other views or even that I need to do anything to assist them in spreading their message (like drawing attention to them by trying to ban them) but it does mean that I must not infringe upon any peaceful expression of views, no matter what I might think of them.


If we oppose their actions, why not oppose their speech?Because the right to disagree is absolutely vital to a free political system. I am not interested in creating a tyranny where arbitrary restrictions on freedom of expression can be imposed.

"Freedom is always, and exclusively, freedom for the one who thinks differently"


How about, "because it's disgusting shit!"?
So is censorship.

[pusher robot]

So, Noxion, you apparently think it's entirely justified that you, as the provider of needed goods or services, lord your power of production over others in order to compel them to do what you want.

Which, of course, makes you no different than any other capitalist owner.

Consider: suppose that you are the paper producer taking this stand against a "reactionary" publication. Well, what if the lumber suppliers take a similar stand against you? Are you going to stick to your position that the people should be able to decide to whom and under what conditions they will render their labor? Let's make this interesting: suppose the lumber suppliers are the very same publishers you are trying to punish? What then? Oh, hell, let's make this really interesting: suppose the lumber suppliers simply demand that you pay them for their lumber or else they "won't feel like" supplying your mills with lumber. Are you still going to stick to your position? If not, then what, exactly, do you think you're going to do about it?

[534634634265]

this thread has done exactly what i wanted. i'm thrilled. the religious intolerance on this site is ridiculous. demorgorgon sums my thoughts up well, as does pusher_robot.

if you can't tell when i'm being sarcastic or not, maybe you should read more closely, as i generally indicate through text where sarcasm can be read in what i write.:D

to those of you who want to take things to extremes, black_rifle was comparing the written vehemence of zealots to the written vehemence of the anti-theists on this site. many here claim to support free speech and free thought, yet consistently make posts that are counter-intuitive to these supposed freedoms. funny how its only freedom of speech if i share your views on repressing religion eh?

ironically, paper mills DO supply materials to fascists, sexists, and homophobes. freedom of speech once again. you can't combat ignorance through repression, only through education and time.

also, its a bit of an extreme to take supporting religious freedom to being in support of reactionaries. lets do the same with the left, i can say with as much ease that if you support any concept of socialism, anarchism, or communism, that you support all of the following: Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il, Mao Tse Tung, etc.
if we all generalize and exaggerate then no one is really going to discuss anything of merit at all.

[Socialist18]

Even though I'm not religious, I tolerate the religious because religion makes some people happy and I like seeing people happy, Sure its not good to encourage irrational shit and have people believe shit that ain't real but they are going to believe it whether I like it or not so I tolerate it.

[al8]

To those of you who want to take things to extremes, black_rifle was comparing the written vehemence of zealots to the written vehemence of the anti-theists on this site. Many here claim to support free speech and free thought, yet consistently make posts that are counter-intuitive to these supposed freedoms.

That is because there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech even in capitalist countries where freedom of speech is 'guaranteed in law' - you will later find numerous exeptions. Yet genarally it is always spoken of as if it is an absolute freedom. I think that sort of thing is hypocritcal. It may be very easy and practical to say one thing and do another, but I'm all for being blunt. And laying down the lines as they are.

[Dean]

And just why should any of those fuckers have a platform? What is gained by having reactionary ideas given "equal time"?

So that we can bring them out and ruin their presence. It is a lot easier to find a ideological enemy out in the open then when they are hidden away, and instead turn to militancy.

[534634634265]

So that we can bring them out and ruin their presence. It is a lot easier to find a ideological enemy out in the open then when they are hidden away, and instead turn to militancy.
and its not like locking away people who oppose your ideology is going to make them change their mind. if anything, you'll only make their twisted beliefs more popular with the disenfranchised as they see it as a minority belief opposed by the norm. think about how religious tolerance has made so many young leftists vehemently opposed to its continued existence.:rolleyes:

[Dean]

and its not like locking away people who oppose your ideology is going to make them change their mind. if anything, you'll only make their twisted beliefs more popular with the disenfranchised as they see it as a minority belief opposed by the norm. think about how religious tolerance has made so many young leftists vehemently opposed to its continued existence.:rolleyes:

Excuse me? When did I say anything about locking people away for thought crimes?

[disobey]

Religion involves books, usually very old and silly books, often written in bygone languages by rather daft people so there's nothing really we should be worried about.

We should always promote religious tolerance; only when one's actions may harm another does it become a problem (extremism for example) but this goes for any ideology.

However religion is in my opinion divisive, and too often used/useful for social engineering; therefore it is not conducive to a free society and should be eliminated - by "gentle" means of course. Perhaps a leaflet campaign. :D

[Faction2008]

A God cannot be proven to exist so therefore we shouldn't include any of his 'teachings' in political decisions. As this would be such a bad idea as the laws aren't flexible and are usually very barbaric and primitive.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I'm assuming that the majority of workers in a revolutionary situation will be communists or anarchists like the members of this board.
The majority of people at all times in the past, as well as today and quite probably forever, were/are/will be apolitical.

Of course the vast majority of political or ideological people in a revolutionary society will be communists or anarchists. But political or ideological people will always be a minority of society as a whole.

Most people in capitalist society are not ideological capitalists. Most people in communist society will not be ideological communists.


The fact that there are slight variations in people's personal definitions of the word reactionary are of no concern to me - it's the majority consensus that matters.
[...]
No, I want reactionary speech banned. Not everything I disagree with is reactionary.
So let me see if I get this straight:

1. You want "reactionary" speech banned.
2. You think the precise definition of "reactionary" should be determined by a majority consensus.

In that case, what you really want to do is give the majority the power to decide what kind of speech is or is not acceptable. The use of the word "reactionary" is unnecessary, since "reactionary", in this case, can mean whatever the majority wants it to mean.

And by the way, since I believe that all laws should be determined by majority decision, I do agree that, yes, the majority should have the right to determine what kind of speech (if any) is unacceptable. But I won't pretend that it has anything to do with that speech being "reactionary." And I will always cast my vote in favour of the widest possible freedom of speech.


You are speaking in terms of abstractions. Why should racists, sexists and homophobes be allowed a public voice?
Because of the inevitable, endless, and abuse-prone debates around the question of what exactly counts as racism, sexism or homophobia. How do you define racist, sexist or homophobic speech in clear, legal terms?

And for that matter, what about pro-capitalist speech? Why did you leave it out of your list?


How about, "because it's disgusting shit!"?
Lots of things are disgusting shit. I'd go so far as to say that most of the media and most of the internet is composed of disgusting shit.

I wouldn't want to ban it, though.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It may be very easy and practical to say one thing and do another, but I'm all for being blunt. And laying down the lines as they are.
You may soon find out that being "blunt," especially in politics, wins you many enemies and few friends.

[al8]

You may soon find out that being "blunt," especially in politics, wins you many enemies and few friends.

As a local saying goes; If you try to be everybodies friend you become nobodies friend.
If this wins me many instead of few enemies, tough shit, but at least I'm being principled, combatant and true.

I find the biggest problem I have with politics is the friggin' lack of clarity. So I'm all for being blunt and would like to encorage the same with my enemies.

[Chapter 24]

There should be no thought police in any society that is working toward a future that is both state and class free. Any restrictions on thought, belief, or speech is far from being a preferrable method when our goal is the development of a society of class antagonisms. Any use of force by a state in controlling the thoughts of its citizens creates more divisive antagonsims between the lower classes and the ruling hierarchy, and this sort of tyranny should not be advocated in any way by a proclaimed leftist.

[Decolonize The Left]

since after the revolution we'll have thought police stopping anyone from thinking spiritual or religious thoughts,

Unnecessary. No one is arguing for 'thought police,' nor is it feasible, desirable, or rational.


what about philosophy? if someone believes in nondualism,

Non-dualism, or the belief that there is no such thing as 'two entities: the mind and the body,' is entirely logical and rational. I don't zee why this would be viewed negatively by anyone... it makes perfect sense.


or is an existentialist, or a nihilist, will these people be included in our round-up of thought criminals?

Existentialism and nihilism are so far removed from religious belief, your analogy is terrible.

Allow me to explain.

Religious belief (that is the organized belief in a supernatural being) is based on religious texts. Let us take the Bible for example. The Bible was written by over 200 people over the course of more than a 1000 years. It is full of contradictions, illogical claims, absurd statements, and completely unjustified statements. And yet, despite this, religious believers wish to claim it the "word of God." And on top of that, they wish to claim this God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-benevolent.

Let's review for clarity: a book written by human beings (more than 200 of them), over thousands of years, which is self-contradictory is 'proof' of an all-powerful being (which no one can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell)?

On the other hand, philosophy begins with something knowable - reality. It endeavors to explain the human condition and situation, but unlike religion it does so through logic and reasoning. Why? Because these are faculties available to all human being and can be verified, improved, and changed. Philosophy requires something which religion hates, justification.

Let's review for clarity: many books, written by human beings, over thousands of years, which are logical and rational, explain our situation as human beings.

Now, you see the difference? Philosophy is rooted in reality - religion in fantasy. Should it be banned? Of course not, that's ridiculous and hateful. BUT, one should endeavor to explain the absurdity of religious belief. It is highly harmful to the individual.

- August

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Religious belief (that is the organized belief in a supernatural being) is based on religious texts.
Well, no, not really. The religion is always older than the text. Christianity existed before the New Testament was written. Judaism existed long before the Old Testament was finished, and maybe even before the Torah was written (though we don't know that). Likewise with Buddhism and Hinduism. Only Islam may be said to have begun after the Quran was written, though that is also debatable.


Let's review for clarity: a book written by human beings (more than 200 of them), over thousands of years, which is self-contradictory is 'proof' of an all-powerful being (which no one can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell)?
Of course not. No serious theologian ever claimed that the Bible by itself could prove the existence of God.


BUT, one should endeavor to explain the absurdity of religious belief. It is highly harmful to the individual.
For the sake of the argument - why? Even assuming that religion is false, I see no reason to think that any false belief is a priori harmful to the individual.

[Decolonize The Left]

Well, no, not really. The religion is always older than the text. Christianity existed before the New Testament was written. Judaism existed long before the Old Testament was finished, and maybe even before the Torah was written (though we don't know that). Likewise with Buddhism and Hinduism. Only Islam may be said to have begun after the Quran was written, though that is also debatable.

Perhaps, but the sole effort to justify religion is the book itself.


Of course not. No serious theologian ever claimed that the Bible by itself could prove the existence of God.

Well we know the existence of God can't be proved... but many religious individuals offer justification for their belief (beyond blind faith) which involves the texts themselves.


For the sake of the argument - why? Even assuming that religion is false, I see no reason to think that any false belief is a priori harmful to the individual.

Happy to have this discussion. Firstly, my claim does not involved the false nature of the belief, rather what the belief entails.

All monotheistic religions involve the superiority of God to the human being. This is achieved through various explanations depending on the religion. Hence monotheistic religions (and for the most part polytheistic religions as well, but we shall focus on the former) inherently involve the devaluation of the human being.

Furthermore, monotheistic religions all posit an afterlife. This inherently devalues the present life, as it is something to be endured rather than celebrated. This creates a negative association to this life in comparison to the afterlife (which is merely posited and has no justification). Hence monotheistic religions deny the value of life, by positing something 'better.'

- August

[Demogorgon]

Perhaps, but the sole effort to justify religion is the book itself.


Not at all. The relation of any religion to its main religious text is tenuous at best. The vast majority of followers of any religion will never have read the religious text and many religions actively discourage their followers from doing so. The Catholic Church for instance only approved of translations of the Bible in the sixties and of course most branches of Islam frown heavily upon translations of the Koran (which being as it is in Classical Arabic is utterly incomprehensible to most modern readers without training).

If you look at what religions do to justify their faith, you will not see their holy text mentioned very often. For instance if you were to get into discussion with a Catholic theologian on the subject of the existence of God and the validity of the church they probably wouldn't mention the Bible at all and if they did, they would claim that their faith justified the book and not the other way round.

There is a tendency in more Conservative forms of Protestant thought to claim that each person has a personal relationship with God and that God is revealed to them through scripture. The theory being that religious hierarchy is hence not acceptable as a single person armed with scripture has as strong a claim to correct interpretation as any theologian. For that reason you will see fundamentalist protestants go back to the bible to justify their position, but that is an anomaly in religion and certainly not how they normally work.

Personally, and here I go beyond discussing theological fact and give a personal opinion, I believe that fundamentalist Protestantism is centered around worship of scripture itself rather than worship of a God in abstract terms (as religion more frequently is). That is why they go back to the Bible so often, it effectively is their God, or at least a manifestation of it. That would explain why they are so fixated on the Bible whereas religion usually isn't too closely tied to its Holy Books. It would be interesting to see if I am right about that.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Happy to have this discussion. Firstly, my claim does not involved the false nature of the belief, rather what the belief entails.
Excellent. :) Note, however, that there are very few beliefs common between all religions, except perhaps the belief in the existence of something supernatural, which does not, by itself, lead to any conclusions at all. I think the belief in an afterlife may also be common to all religions, but "afterlives" can be very different from one religion to the next.


All monotheistic religions involve the superiority of God to the human being. This is achieved through various explanations depending on the religion. Hence monotheistic religions (and for the most part polytheistic religions as well, but we shall focus on the former) inherently involve the devaluation of the human being.
That doesn't follow at all. The existence of a being superior to humans has no bearing on the value of the human being or human life. I could just as easily postulate the existence of some highly advanced alien species. Does that devalue the human being? Transhumanists believe that it will soon be possible to create lifeforms that are physically and intellectually superior to normal humans. Would that devalue the human being?


Furthermore, monotheistic religions all posit an afterlife. This inherently devalues the present life, as it is something to be endured rather than celebrated. This creates a negative association to this life in comparison to the afterlife (which is merely posited and has no justification). Hence monotheistic religions deny the value of life, by positing something 'better.'
Hmmm, at face value this argument seems to have more merit, but then there is a problem: it logically implies that any kind of future devalues the present. What is the difference between faith in the afterlife and the equally unprovable faith that you will live 20 more years? Or the faith that you will still be alive next week? Religion may be accused of giving people an irrational hope that the future will be better than the present - but you don't need religion for that, and I would not want to live in a world without such hope.

So your argument must be rejected unless you wish to make the case that all faith in a better future - which implies that some sacrifices must be made in the present to achieve that future - is bad.

[534634634265]

@ Dean, i never said YOU said we should lock people up, Al8 did. i should quote more extensively and be more precise in the future. also, im so very happy kwisatz is in this debate now, he always seems to know his shit very clearly.

i don't claim all on this site are anti-theistic extremists, or authoritarian statists, but enough are to make it ridiculously difficult to espouse beliefs contrary to theirs.

my thoughts on all of this is that,
while the concept of an organized religion may be foreign to you, its not by its very nature an evil. no unitarian universalists have commited crimes in the name of their god, nor have buddhist, or taoist. religion and spiritual belief are two separate things. religion is the hierarchical and hegemonic organization, while spiritual beliefs are an individuals beliefs concerning their spirit and its future, past, and present. i would consider myself very spiritual, but my beliefs certainly wouldn't fall into any mainstream religions ideals. this dual standard where its ok to possess different political views, or different issues-based views, but no religious or spiritual views at all is ridiculous.

[al8]

My beef with all religion is not that it's "all evil", but more that it is simply wrong, idiodic and an unjustifiable waste of valuable time. Believe it or not I was a New Ager at one point and know well how you would self conceptualize yourself Cractlogic, as a spiritual practitioner with peaceful beliefs. But that is all misconseption and foolery. There is no such thing as spirit and therefore spiritual makes no sense. The same goes for spritual practices that are based on the ignorant and rediculously outdated understanding of how the body and brain works, such as meditation, chants, prayers, fasting, hyperventilation and etc.
Relgion, faith, spiritual beliefs is a sophisticated set of foolery that tolls unfair amounts of time and effort for the duped to get free of. That why I'm all against giving the virus to defenceless children to begin with and militant against it in all other fashion. For this is time stolen by superstition from people which they could've actually spent developing themselves.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

My beef with all religion is not that it's "all evil", but more that it is simply wrong, idiodic and an unjustifiable waste of valuable time.
Think of it as entertainment then. Many forms of entertainment are idiotic. Many others seem to me like an unjustifiable waste of valuable time - I can't imagine why people waste their time with collectible card games, for example. And the fanboys for the various games, music bands or sports can be really annoying. In fact, some sports "fanboys" - football hooligans, for example - are not just annoying, but outright violent.

But to ban an activity that other people enjoy, just because I think it's a stupid waste of time? That would be utterly ridiculous.


For this is time stolen by superstition from people which they could've actually spent developing themselves.
Oh come on, "developing themselves?" What does it mean to "develop yourself", if not to spend time doing things that you enjoy or find important? If people want to go to church instead of playing football or watching TV or playing World of Warcraft - well, who cares?

[Dean]

@ Dean, i never said YOU said we should lock people up, Al8 did. i should quote more extensively and be more precise in the future. also, im so very happy kwisatz is in this debate now, he always seems to know his shit very clearly.

i don't claim all on this site are anti-theistic extremists, or authoritarian statists, but enough are to make it ridiculously difficult to espouse beliefs contrary to theirs.

my thoughts on all of this is that,
while the concept of an organized religion may be foreign to you, its not by its very nature an evil. no unitarian universalists have commited crimes in the name of their god, nor have buddhist, or taoist. religion and spiritual belief are two separate things. religion is the hierarchical and hegemonic organization, while spiritual beliefs are an individuals beliefs concerning their spirit and its future, past, and present. i would consider myself very spiritual, but my beliefs certainly wouldn't fall into any mainstream religions ideals. this dual standard where its ok to possess different political views, or different issues-based views, but no religious or spiritual views at all is ridiculous.
I think you should read my last blog entry.

[Bud Struggle]

I think you should read my last blog entry.

Great Blog. :thumbup:

Note to the general Revleft public: if Communism ever does succeed in the real world--it will be due Dean and people like him, with his sense of compassion and sense of fairness--not because of Marx spouting ideologues.

[MarxSchmarx]

. This inherently devalues the present life, as it is something to be endured rather than celebrated. This creates a negative association to this life in comparison to the afterlife (which is merely posited and has no justification). Hence monotheistic religions deny the value of life, by positing something 'better.'

Exactly. Humanism qua humanism is assured only when human life sui generis is viewed as the highest value. Recognition of the utmost sacredness of present "here on earth" life should be the premise of all socialist politics. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

But like I said,


[This argument] logically implies that any kind of future devalues the present. What is the difference between faith in the afterlife and the equally unprovable faith that you will live 20 more years? Or the faith that you will still be alive next week? Religion may be accused of giving people an irrational hope that the future will be better than the present - but you don't need religion for that, and I would not want to live in a world without such hope.

So your argument must be rejected unless you wish to make the case that all faith in a better future - which implies that some sacrifices must be made in the present to achieve that future - is bad.

And if you think that we should live for the present, how exactly do you reconcile this attitude with the reality of a long class struggle that requires sacrifices?

[Bud Struggle]

Exactly. Humanism qua humanism is assured only when human life sui generis is viewed as the highest value. Recognition of the utmost sacredness of present "here on earth" life should be the premise of all socialist politics. Nothing more and nothing less.

God post and good premise. One could take that as anti-death peanilty, which you may have no problem with --but then you get into abortion--especially late term....Ouch.

One should take all life as being special--sacred, if you will--and THEN build your morality on that. That's Communism at it's best.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

One should take all life as being special--sacred, if you will--and THEN build your morality on that.
I certainly agree that life in general - Life as a phenomenon, or the biosphere if you will - has inherent value, but if you think every single life is sacred, good luck finding something to eat that wasn't alive once.

[Bud Struggle]

I certainly agree that life in general - Life as a phenomenon, or the biosphere if you will - has inherent value, but if you think every single life is sacred, good luck finding something to eat that wasn't alive once.

Edit: HUMAN life. :)

[534634634265]

@Al8's post...im blown away you didn't respond with vitriolic one-liners.:thumbup:

still though, i wouldn't even classify what i believe as "New-Age" as thats generally a negative term applied to psueo-science religions like scientology. my beliefs on spirit stem from my philosophical outlook on life, and as such an extension, its as ridiculous for you to limit my spiritual freedom as it is for you to limit my philosophical freedom. thats why in the OP i referred to philosophies as restricted ideologies. an individuals spiritual/religious beliefs are both part of, and an extension of, their philosophical outlook. the philosophy of materialism and situationalism doesn't make you less of a blindly faithful person, you just put your "faith" into a different ideal.

i agree with both Schmarx and Kwisatz. life is a beautiful and amazing thing, and you should respect it when you partake of it. its not morally wrong to eat meat, or plants, or turn plants into paper and rubber, but when you lose sight of what your trading off (the natural vs. the artificial) you see problems arise. just my thoughts on the subject.

[534634634265]

Edit: HUMAN life. :)
what, you can't eat people?:D

[BurnTheOliveTree]

the philosophy of materialism and situationalism doesn't make you less of a blindly faithful person, you just put your "faith" into a different ideal.


Those philosophies are grounded in reason, not faith. Stop pretending that your beliefs have legitimacy by saying that they are equal to materialism. Also, what you believe in is decidedly new age. Spirits and that fuzzy "all religions are describing the same thing" stuff is almost cliche new-ageism.

-Alex

[534634634265]

Those philosophies are grounded in reason, not faith. Stop pretending that your beliefs have legitimacy by saying that they are equal to materialism. Also, what you believe in is decidedly new age. Spirits and that fuzzy "all religions are describing the same thing" stuff is almost cliche new-ageism.

just like i believe my beliefs are grounded in reason.
and as kwisatz haderach stated earlier, all religions are describing the same thing. the promise of a better life in the future. its the same promise Moses offers in "animal farm". that because your life is toil and suffering now, you're earning a lifetime of ease and comfort down the road. personally, i'd rather believe in "fuzzy spiritual stuff" than found my existence solely on the shit that i own and see around me. come off your bullshit high horse stance, philosophical elitism is probably the lamest kind.:closedeyes:

[Jazzratt]

just like i believe my beliefs are grounded in reason.
and as kwisatz haderach stated earlier, all religions are describing the same thing. the promise of a better life in the future. its the same promise Moses offers in "animal farm". that because your life is toil and suffering now, you're earning a lifetime of ease and comfort down the road. personally, i'd rather believe in "fuzzy spiritual stuff" than found my existence solely on the shit that i own and see around me. come off your bullshit high horse stance, philosophical elitism is probably the lamest kind.:closedeyes:

Believing something because it is comforting does not seem much like a reasoned position to me.

[534634634265]

Believing something because it is comforting does not seem much like a reasoned position to me.
i fear to make assumptions about what you might believe jazzratt.:)

i was equating the faith held by communists that man can unify and work for a common good with the faith that i hold. you have as much or as little to base that faith on as i have to base my faith on. also, believing something because it is comforting is what we all do. we all take comfort in the "rightness" or accuracy of our beliefs, or we wouldn't espouse them.

[Comrade Rage]

also, believing something because it is comforting is what we all do. we all take comfort in the "rightness" or accuracy of our beliefs, or we wouldn't espouse them.That's a little different from what we do. See, religious people purposely believe in something, in the face of NO PROOF WHATSOEVER IN THOUSANDS OF YEARS, for the expressed purpose of denying that there may be no afterlife.

That's a lot different than someone believing that their own views are correct, which is something we all do.

[534634634265]

That's a little different from what we do. See, religious people purposely believe in something, in the face of NO PROOF WHATSOEVER IN THOUSANDS OF YEARS, for the expressed purpose of denying that there may be no afterlife.

That's a lot different than someone believing that their own views are correct, which is something we all do.
Ahhh, but no one has proven to me that what i believe is wrong, and i don't believe in any sort of an afterlife. i simply believe my views are correct. that doesn't prevent yours from being correct also. beliefs are subjective.

[Jazzratt]

i fear to make assumptions about what you might believe jazzratt.:)

:confused: Uh...okay?


i was equating the faith held by communists that man can unify and work for a common good with the faith that i hold. you have as much or as little to base that faith on as i have to base my faith on.

Well there is evidence that people are capable of cooperating, I think that gives a little more basis for the "faith" of communists.


also, believing something because it is comforting is what we all do. we all take comfort in the "rightness" or accuracy of our beliefs, or we wouldn't espouse them.


There is a difference between the comfort of being right and believing something because you find it personally comfortable.

[534634634265]

ahh, but what im saying is,
your basing the faith that your beliefs are right on the fact that some people can cooperate. i have my doubts about ALL people being able to do so, since its hard enough to get something everyone agrees on, let alone would be willing to work for.

i base the faith that my beliefs are right on the fact that this world exists, that we are part of it, and that we evolved beyond simple tribes. sort of existentialist, but i can live with that. i believe in nondualism and existentialism(though even existentialism is a dualistic notion, countered by un-existence).
i think that our existence is only what we make/let it be, can only be defined as we wish to define it, and that we all share a common humanity or "human spirit".

[Bud Struggle]

Believing something because it is comforting does not seem much like a reasoned position to me.

I would dare say that is why 75% of of the people on RevLeft believe in the "Revolution." :)

[al8]

Crackedlogic, get real! You fully admit you disregard truth for fake comfort. Then you espouse nonsense as true because it's comfortable. Stop deluding yourself!

[al8]

I would dare say that is why 75% of of the people on RevLeft believe in the "Revolution." :)

There is nothing to belive in in that sense of useing faith. We can use reason to deduct the plausability of a revolution. Besides there have been revolutions and 'popular unrests' before. So this has no comparability to an afterlife, angels, god and all the other things that never happen, never are, that never manifest exept in the fanciful lies and delusions of superstitious people.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There is nothing to belive in in that sense of useing faith. We can use reason to deduct the plausability of a revolution.
Right, but we cannot use reason to determine if you or I will still be alive to see the revolution.

If you believe that the revolution will happen in your lifetime, that (for example) is a matter of faith.

[al8]

It still isn't propper procedure to do so. That is, haveing to use faith to determine anything. If we are to know either way if revolution is pending we must use reason and not wishful thinking.

I say for myself that I don't need certainty that revolution will happen in my lifetime I am more or less content to do pre-figurative stuff until the possible time occurs.

[Bud Struggle]

There is nothing to belive in in that sense of useing faith. Faith is faith. Your Marxism to me is my Catholicism to you.


We can use reason to deduct the plausability of a revolution. Yea. I saw revolutions come and I saw revolutions go. I've seen Communism come and I've seen Communism go. There's as much chance of Communism comming as Jesus.



Besides there have been revolutions and 'popular unrests' before. So this has no comparability to an afterlife, angels, god and all the other things that never happen, never are, that never manifest exept in the fanciful lies and delusions of superstitious people.

There has been plenty of unrest, there have been plenty of revolutions--but no real Marxism. One could make a case that Christian and Marxist religions are delusions of superstitious people.

[al8]

Faith is faith. Your Marxism to me is my Catholicism to you.

Marxism is as much a faith as baldness is a haircolor.


There has been plenty of unrest, there have been plenty of revolutions--but no real Marxism. One could make a case that Christian and Marxist religions are delusions of superstitious people.

Not unless you want to play loose with terms.

[Jazzratt]

Marxism is as much a faith as baldness is a haircolor.

Thinking of atheism there, mate. Marxism is a series of interlocked evidence based analyses and hypotheses, so if we use the hair colour analogy I would say something like "Marxism is as much a faith as downwards is a hair colour" - faith and Marxism just aren't linked things.

[Bud Struggle]

Marxism is as much a faith as baldness is a haircolor.Same as any Christian fundamentalist would say about Jesus.


unless you want to play loose with terms. I've seen plenty of revolutions in the last centruy, some bring some sort of Socialism, some bring Fascism, some bring Capitalism. I've seen lots of dictators, a few Democracies.

But never Communism.

Marxism requires faith.

[al8]

Thinking of atheism there, mate. Marxism is a series of interlocked evidence based analyses and hypotheses, so if we use the hair colour analogy I would say something like "Marxism is as much a faith as downwards is a hair colour" - faith and Marxism just aren't linked things.

No, you right. I thought in would do. On afterthought I see it's not a comprehensive enough analogy. I revise; Marxism is as much a faith as a helmet is a haircolor.

I think that gets the jist of what I'm saying its far from hair or haircolor but its still somehting you have on your head.

[al8]

Same as any Christian fundamentalist would say about Jesus.

Explain. Would a christain say; "Jesus is as much a faith as baldness is a haircolor"? That makes no sense. Don't you mean christianity.

Even so he would be obfuscating, since christianity is a faith, it is based on faith. And every honest christian admits that.

[Bud Struggle]

Explain. Would a christain say; "Jesus is as much a faith as baldness is a haircolor"? That makes no sense. Don't you mean christianity. That would be fine.


Even so he would be obfuscating, since christianity is a faith, it is based on faith. And every honest christian admits that.

Christianity is a faith in things unseen--for who among us has ever seen Christ? Marxism is a faith in things unseen--for who among us has ever seen a true Marxist state?

Some say Christ cannot exist--yet people believe. some say a true Marxist state cannot exist--yet people believe.

Christianity promised a better life for us all after the second comming. Communism promised us a better life after the Revolution. Both Christianity and Communism are just whiling the way the unpropicious years till their respective "big days" with analitical musings and internal houskeeping (Revleft being a veritable maid service for Communism) in the same way.

And for the coming of one or the other or neither or both days--we pray. :)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I've seen plenty of revolutions in the last centruy, some bring some sort of Socialism, some bring Fascism, some bring Capitalism. I've seen lots of dictators, a few Democracies.

But never Communism.

Marxism requires faith.
It requires faith to have absolute confidence that communism will indeed exist one day. It requires faith to believe that the victory of communism is certain.

But such a belief is by no means an essential element of Marxism. Communism is not a certainty. We might still blow ourselves up in a nuclear war, or get hit by an asteroid, or, as Marx pointed out...


Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. [emphasis mine]
..."common ruin" is still an option.

Having said all that, I have no problem admitting that I do hold faith (or hope; they're the same thing) that humanity will avoid the common ruin of the contending classes and achieve communism.

[Demogorgon]

Faith is faith. Your Marxism to me is my Catholicism to you.

Yea. I saw revolutions come and I saw revolutions go. I've seen Communism come and I've seen Communism go. There's as much chance of Communism comming as Jesus.

There has been plenty of unrest, there have been plenty of revolutions--but no real Marxism. One could make a case that Christian and Marxist religions are delusions of superstitious people.
I am willing to grant that certain people here use Communism as a surrogate religion. They are often easy to spot, them being the ones most disparaging about religion. However Marxism as a whole does not require faith, because Marxism is not primarily about what will come to be, but about what is. Marx gave a detailed analysis of how capitalism works, how the progress of history unfolds and a good many other things. There is no faith involved in any of these things, you either agree with him or you disagree with him, either way you have given an opinion on an interpretation of what is.

The bit that you say is faith is the notion that a revolution will come. Some people do use this as an article of faith, but I don't and Marx didn't, and anyone who understands Marx doesn't either. Rather I accept the notion that things don't remain the same, there is always pressure for change and so forth. It stands to reason that unless we become extinct first, eventually the change will push us towards a worker run society.

That isn't a certainty of course. Marx has often been criticised for his slogan of "socialism or barbarism", but it is essentially correct. Either the underlying conflict in society will cause society to progress or else those who wish to prevent change will prevail and the conflict will find other outlets causing society to regress back into who knows what. Obviously I would rather the former was correct.

For those who are skeptical of this and say that it has been a century and a half since Marx and neither socialism nor barbarism has prevailed, I would point out that we are seeing rumblings. Socialism hasn't come, but barbarism is showing some signs. War is extraordinarily more destructive than it was in Marx's day for instance. I am convinced that the reason technology has been directed to such a great extent towards killing people is because of the kind of pressure in society we are talking about. It is far from too late to reverse the trend, but I do think that if socialism is not achieved, we will eventually tear ourselves apart in very bloody conflict indeed.

[pusher robot]

War is extraordinarily more destructive than it was in Marx's day for instance. I am convinced that the reason technology has been directed to such a great extent towards killing people is because of the kind of pressure in society we are talking about.

But is war really more extraordinarily destructive now as compared to in history? I challenge this assumption; by my reckoning, annual absolute battle deaths have been decreasing since WWII even while global population has been increasing, meaning that the actual probability of death by war has been shrinking even more rapidly. Technology has made war less destructive because the amount of force necessary to achieve military objectives has been getting close to absolute minimums. If you believe otherwise I must ask you to provide sources.

[Lynx]

But is war really more extraordinarily destructive now as compared to in history? I challenge this assumption; by my reckoning, annual absolute battle deaths have been decreasing since WWII even while global population has been increasing, meaning that the actual probability of death by war has been shrinking even more rapidly. Technology has made war less destructive because the amount of force necessary to achieve military objectives has been getting close to absolute minimums. If you believe otherwise I must ask you to provide sources.
Yes, but the military objectives have gotten less ambitious. In a world of 6 billion+ people, attempting to conquer regions WW2 style would result in proportionately larger casualties.
The civil war in Congo, largely ignored by western media, was the most recent example.

[Lynx]

I wish to add there is a difference between faith and assumption.

[pusher robot]

Yes, but the military objectives have gotten less ambitious. In a world of 6 billion+ people, attempting to conquer regions WW2 style would result in proportionately larger casualties.
The civil war in Congo, largely ignored by western media, was the most recent example.

What? How was WWII anything like a civil war? Not only that, but a civil war in an utterly impoverished nonindustrial nontechnological society? Your analogy doesn't make any sense.

Regardless, it's irrelevant. The claim is that increasingly large levels of military destruction are evidence that Marxism is objectively correct. If the increasingly large levels of military destruction do not exist for any reason then this would seem to suggest the opposite conclusion.

[Lynx]

What? How was WWII anything like a civil war? Not only that, but a civil war in an utterly impoverished nonindustrial nontechnological society? Your analogy doesn't make any sense.
It began as a civil war, but was followed by another war that involved eight countries. It was known as Africa's World War. It is the only war analogous to WWII due to the scale of the conflict and the number of casualties.


Regardless, it's irrelevant. The claim is that increasingly large levels of military destruction are evidence that Marxism is objectively correct. If the increasingly large levels of military destruction do not exist for any reason then this would seem to suggest the opposite conclusion.
Conflicts today are usually for control of resources or border disputes. Oil and water are predicted to be the focus of future conflicts. Nuclear proliferation might also trigger military violence. If the world manages to get past the energy and environmental challenges we are seeing today without excessive bloodshed then the barbarism prediction will have been wrong.

[pusher robot]

If the world manages to get past the energy and environmental challenges we are seeing today without excessive bloodshed then the barbarism prediction will have been wrong.

I'm fairly optimistic. Even if I adopt a strictly Marxist analysis, full-scale total war has the potential to be so devestatingly catstrophic that the ruling capitalist elite will seek to avoid it at all costs. The days when war - real, balls-out, full-scale warfare, not puny police actions - could be profitable for anybody are long gone.

[534634634265]

I'm fairly optimistic. Even if I adopt a strictly Marxist analysis, full-scale total war has the potential to be so devestatingly catstrophic that the ruling capitalist elite will seek to avoid it at all costs. The days when war - real, balls-out, full-scale warfare, not puny police actions - could be profitable for anybody are long gone.

if you think no one profits from war, or "police action" then your oblivious to the military industrial complex. lockheed martin, pratt & whitney, boeing, anyone who makes weapons or machinery. or processes fuel for those machines. fuck, in my home town is a fairly large factory that only makes parts of circuit boards, but those parts end up in guided missiles, so they even profit from war. the only people who DON'T profit from war are the average citizens, watching their country become a hellish landscape full of unexploded ordinance and stray bullets.

[Bud Struggle]

if you think no one profits from war, or "police action" then your oblivious to the military industrial complex. lockheed martin, pratt & whitney, boeing, anyone who makes weapons or machinery. or processes fuel for those machines. fuck, in my home town is a fairly large factory that only makes parts of circuit boards, but those parts end up in guided missiles, so they even profit from war. the only people who DON'T profit from war are the average citizens, watching their country become a hellish landscape full of unexploded ordinance and stray bullets.

In most ways these companies do quite well without a war. There's always new planes and ships being built and bought. Even without a war the army still maches and the navy still sails. And without a war there is no chance of any weapons system "failing". everything works fine--bills are paid and everybody lives a happy life.

[pusher robot]

if you think no one profits from war, or "police action" then your oblivious to the military industrial complex. lockheed martin, pratt & whitney, boeing, anyone who makes weapons or machinery. or processes fuel for those machines. fuck, in my home town is a fairly large factory that only makes parts of circuit boards, but those parts end up in guided missiles, so they even profit from war. the only people who DON'T profit from war are the average citizens, watching their country become a hellish landscape full of unexploded ordinance and stray bullets.

Yes, well, do I need to point out the obvious fact that we are not engaged in a major war. The type of war that Demogorgon fears, the kind with massive civilian and military casualties, is not happening and would not be profitable even for the defense contractors. It's hard to turn a profit when your factories are being bombed to smithereens, your resources become ridiculously scarce, and your surplus revenues are confiscated by the government.

[Demogorgon]

Yes, well, do I need to point out the obvious fact that we are not engaged in a major war. The type of war that Demogorgon fears, the kind with massive civilian and military casualties, is not happening and would not be profitable even for the defense contractors. It's hard to turn a profit when your factories are being bombed to smithereens, your resources become ridiculously scarce, and your surplus revenues are confiscated by the government.
As capitalism stretched itself in the beginning of the twentieth century it engaged in two wars of extraordinary destruction, the likes of which had never been seen before. It hasn't happened again so far because there are all sorts of safeguards in place to stop war between major powers and hopefully they will hold for as long as possible.

However, simply compare the small wars you refer to with the small wars of Marx's day. In the nineteenth century these wars generally involved colonial powers looking to impose themselves on certain territory. Even as things got quite a bit nastier, it still largely involved only combatants being put in severe risk. These days, in a comparable conflict like Iraq, thousands upon thousands of civilians have been killed, the cities devastated, huge numbers of people displaced and so on. And this is in a conflict that is pretty localised. That is what I mean by increasing barbarism.

[pusher robot]

However, simply compare the small wars you refer to with the small wars of Marx's day. In the nineteenth century these wars generally involved colonial powers looking to impose themselves on certain territory. Even as things got quite a bit nastier, it still largely involved only combatants being put in severe risk. These days, in a comparable conflict like Iraq, thousands upon thousands of civilians have been killed, the cities devastated, huge numbers of people displaced and so on. And this is in a conflict that is pretty localised. That is what I mean by increasing barbarism.

Really? I find this fascinating. So, all those Native Americans, all "combatants" in your view then? All the Irish forced by famine to flee their country, all "combatants" who deserved their fate I suppose. And certainly, when the British burned all those Burmese villages it was because of all those women and children "combatants," am I right?



As capitalism stretched itself in the beginning of the twentieth century it engaged in two wars of extraordinary destruction, the likes of which had never been seen before.


"Capitalism" engaged in two wars of destruction? Come on, it's like you're not even trying.

[Demogorgon]

Really? I find this fascinating. So, all those Native Americans, all "combatants" in your view then? All the Irish forced by famine to flee their country, all "combatants" who deserved their fate I suppose. And certainly, when the British burned all those Burmese villages it was because of all those women and children "combatants," am I right?
The Irish trouble was caused by economic failure and famine. Britain was by no means a benevolent colonial master, but it did not commit genocide. And as for native Americans, well a lot were massacred of course, but disease and the ike killed more still.

Nobody can deny that civilians were killed in past conflicts, that is not the point. The point is that only in the twentieth century has the degree of destruction visited upon those not involved in fighting reached this scale.


"Capitalism" engaged in two wars of destruction? Come on, it's like you're not even trying.
It would be more correct to say capitalist countries, but yes, capitalism is almost entirely to blame for both conflicts. The first world war of course was caused by the European Power's colonialism and the arms race that ensued which was part of capitalism at the time.

The Second World War was in many ways a continuation of the first war and where new factors came into play, they were again capitalist caused. The rise of fascism for instance was a direct result of attempts to find something that could drive off the rising tide of communism and preserve capitalism for instance.

[pusher robot]

Nobody can deny that civilians were killed in past conflicts, that is not the point. The point is that only in the twentieth century has the degree of destruction visited upon those not involved in fighting reached this scale.


Fine. But history did not end in 1945. It's been some 6 decades now, and while communism and socialism as a ruling ideologies have collapsed, the number of war dead has gone down and down - not just in relative but also absolute numbers - even while our capability to wreak destruction has gone up and up. Not only that, but existential threats have gone down too, from a peak in the sixties. You can't simply hand-wave this fact away as some kind of temporary anomoly.


It would be more correct to say capitalist countries, but yes, capitalism is almost entirely to blame for both conflicts. The first world war of course was caused by the European Power's colonialism and the arms race that ensued which was part of capitalism at the time.

All you are doing here is saying, "the war happened while capitalism existed; ergo capitalism caused the war."

[Kwisatz Haderach]

All you are doing here is saying, "the war happened while capitalism existed; ergo capitalism caused the war."
Actually, the argument is "the war happened while capitalism existed AND it is likely that it could not have happened in the absence of capitalism; ergo capitalism caused the war."

[Raúl Duke]

I probably didn't vote in that poll (or don't remember)...

I don't think It'll be necessary to illegalize (as in putting people to jail because of an idea). Currently, I read a report that states that there's been an increase in irreligiosity in the advanced capitalist nations were a communist revolution should take place. This trend toward disbelief is moving slowly (especially in the U.S.) but it moves nonetheless and non-theist groups/etc are helping towards that effort. Most likely, in my opinion, a communist revolution would take place after religion has been discredited by the majority of the population. What I think should be done is after the revolution in respect to the renmants of superstition is to prohibit public display of religion (as in religion is a private matter done in the confines of one's home or that of a friend. Or they can request a facility to do their worship but nothing fancy of course. Their old churches will be transformed for other uses, etc.) and to disallow it's dissemination in public and, although harder, to children. No need for personal violence of anybody. Of course, this is only possible if there's an irreligious majority in this communist society.

If a religious majority creates a communist society then it'll be different of course...but I doubt they'll be able to do it or that I'll last long (of course, they can always suprise me).

In our current society we, as radicals, should not "pay respects" to religion and should not be afraid of showing our irreverence towards it. I also have no problems with communists attacking (in the realm of ideas that is; not physically/violently) religion since in my opinion socially discrediting religion is a pre-requisate to communism (and since communists are the "mid-wives of the new society"; we should do anything to speed up the trends, since increasing irreligiosity is a trend in advanced capitalist societies, that lead to this new society.).


if someone believes in nondualism, or is an existentialist, or a nihilist, will these people be included in our round-up of thought criminals?Nope, although I don't understand why a non-dualist would be on the list.
I thought materialists were monists (non-dualists)