A review of Marxist superstructure and religion

[chimx]

The recent anti-theist outburst in the CC seems like a good time for us to reexamine some basic principles of Marxist thought that relates to religion. But I don't want to focus exclusively on religion, but rather I want to look at a more broad topic of Marxist base and superstructure.

As hopefully most of you know, Marx wrote that history unfolds due to production relationships. These production relationships underline the grand movements in history. They determine the shape and form of society. All our actions, all of our societies' actions, are effected by these production relationships. "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

This production relationship, that is, the mode of production, constitutes the base structure in Marxist theory. It is the corner stone of human experience.

But it is not the totality of human experience. A common problem I see far too many people make on these forums is the notion that Marxism equates to economic determinism. That is to say, that the base structure dictates the actions of the rest of society. This simply is not true.

Rather, what Marx posits, is that on top of these production relations, this base structure, lays a top layer which he called a superstructure. This superstructure is often brought up when discussing the role of government in terms of production relations, and it is true, the state is without a doubt part of the superstructure, but it is not the only part of Marx's superstructure. Marx wrote, "The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life."

That is to say, we don't interpret superstructure to mean "the state", but rather it is inclusive to social and intellectual life, as well as the political. That is why we speak of "religion" being part of the superstructure. But we don't stop there. Art, morality, literature, technology is apart of it as well. Superstructure implies the totality of human institutions beyond that of production, be they cultural, political, social, or technological.

To be sure, these institutions, these non-productive relationships, rest upon the base structure. They are molded by production relations. They reflect our current economic paradigm, and they largely (unconsciously) protect the hegemony of the dominant class.

But what I find obscene and anti-materialistic, is to single out religion, as an institution, from the superstructure, and call it reactionary. The morality of religion is dictated by material forces just as much as the morality of art, or the morality of the state.

[La Comédie Noire]

The recent anti-theist outburst in the CC seems like a good time for us to reexamine some basic principles of Marxist thought that relates to religion. But I don't want to focus exclusively on religion, but rather I want to look at a broader topic of Marxist base and superstructure.

As hopefully most of you know, Marx wrote that history unfolds due to production relationships. These production relationships underline the grand movements in history. They determine the shape and form of society. All our actions, all of our societies' actions, are affected by these production relationships. "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.



Fine, but


To be sure, these institutions, these non-productive relationships, rest upon the base structure. They are molded by production relations. They reflect our current economic paradigm, and they largely (unconsciously) protect the hegemony of the dominant class.

Art, morality, literature, it must all be endlessly criticized; we can’t just view it as a harmless or disconnected from material reality. The ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class!



But what I find obscene and anti-materialistic, is to single out religion, as an institution, from the superstructure, and call it reactionary. The morality of religion is dictated by material forces just as much as the morality of art, or the morality of the state.


Has it ever occurred to you that bad ideas can be fetters on the means of production themselves? Think about all the valuable knowledge from stem cell research that was lost because a few god jobs don’t have the stomach for it.


Fetters on the means of production must be burst asunder and from all indications the working classes of first world nations are doing just that. Wouldn’t it be revolutionary of us to help that process along?


Not to mention superstition goes against the Marxist paradigm.


Religion takes the materialism out of historical materialism turning “the history of class struggle” into “the history of god’s hand.” Talk about being anti- materialist!


The very notion discourages progress and critical thought, that doesn’t sound the least bit reactionary to you?

It does to me and as such has no place on the revolutionary left!

[chimx]

Art, morality, literature, it must all be endlessly criticized; we can’t just view it as a harmless or disconnected from material reality. The ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class!

This is what I mean when I say "vulgar Marxism'. I think many people assume that there is a more clear and cohesive connection between base and superstructure than Marx intended. Production relations is the motor of history, but superstructure plays a passive or casual role to some extent as well (why else would we talk about people like Napoleon, Calvin, Luther, Caesar, etc.?)

You shouldn't make the mistake of equating base and superstructure, because there is a significant amount of "interplay".

While superstructure rises from the material conditions of any particular historical epoch, there are degrees of autonomy within it. This is most obvious when we look at the transitional periods between these epochs. For example, look at the reformation in Europe in the 16th century. Europe's rising bourgeoisie broke with with the religious institutions of the Fuedalist superstructure and began identifying with institutions that better served their classes interests. Another great example that is far more specific, and I have cited often on this site, is the disunity in the Catholic church during the French Revolution that saw Catholic bishops side with the old fuedal order, and parish priests side with the rising bourgeoise.

As the mode of production shifts, so shifts societies superstructure. That is the very nature of the superstructure.

And again, let's not limit ourselves to state or religion when we speak of superstructure, because intellectual culture is certainly apart of it. Contrast art, for example during the period of feudal and bourgeois rule. Anyone who has ever stepped foot in London's Tate Art Museum knows that the art of Michelangelo and his contemporaries reinforced the morality of the feudal period by emphasizing the religious culture upon which the superstructure was so reliant.

Now examine Romanticism of the 18th century: the emphasis of individuality, the power of man over god, the rejection of religious institutions (feudal superstructure institutions). It's a clear break in ideology.

But this doesn't mean that we reject art, because it is part of the capitalist superstructure. We are simply critical of art that reinforces the capitalist paradigm. We need to maintain a equal criticism of religion. If it reinforces capitalist hegemony, than of course we need to be critical of it, but we also need to realize that as production relationships shift, societal superstructure will shift with it -- that means religion too.

Simply put, we should not condemn as reactionary aspects of the superstructure which seek to embolden the working class and secure its interests.

[La Comédie Noire]

This is what I mean when I say "vulgar Marxism'. I think many people assume that there is a clearer and cohesive connection between base and superstructure than Marx intended. Production relations are the motor of history, but superstructure plays a passive or casual role to some extent as well (why else would we talk about people like Napoleon, Calvin, Luther, Caesar, etc.?)
You shouldn't make the mistake of equating base and superstructure, because there is a significant amount of "interplay".



But whom put these people in charge and to what end? Forget about whom Napoleon was and focus on what he did, what was his historical role? I never said there wasn’t an amount of autonomy when it comes to human events, but a lot of those choices don’t matter in the grand scheme of things.


If anything, the reign of Napoleon can be called a failed experiment in Bourgeoisie rule, that set the progress of France back a lot of years, but eventually a republic did form. The Bourgeoisie learned their historical lesson, military dictatorship = unreliable. It was a bad idea that stopped progress and it was reactionary.


Now what does that say about religion? What if it were one of those ideas that delayed progress? Should we not do everything in our power to stop that?


While superstructure rises from the material conditions of any particular historical epoch, there are degrees of autonomy within it. This is most obvious when we look at the transitional periods between these epochs. For example, look at the reformation in Europe in the 16th century. Europe's rising bourgeoisie broke with the religious institutions of the Feudalist superstructure and began identifying with institutions that better served their classes interests. Another great example that is far more specific and I have cited often on this site, is the disunity in the Catholic Church during the French Revolution that saw Catholic bishops side with the old feudal order, and parish priests side with the rising bourgeoisie.


Well let’s put things into a material context, as you know there can be radical and conservative factions of any class. Parish Priests were on the bottom rung of the catholic hierarchy while Catholic Bishops were much higher, thus they saw it beneficial to keep things the way they were while Parish Priests saw the chance for advancement, in other words they had nothing to lose and everything to gain.


Not to mention the fact they’d probably have been beaten to death by their own parish if they tried to tell them “their place”, an on the job hazard they did not share with their superiors.


Simply put, we should not condemn as reactionary aspects of the superstructure which seek to embolden the working class and secure its interests.


I take that as the heart of your argument. It begs the question can religion of any stripe embolden working class interests? Is that what we should be doing as communists, looking for cosmic justifications for our actions?


I don’t think so, I think it would be easier to tell the truth.

[chimx]

Now what does that say about religion? What if it were one of those ideas that delayed progress? Should we not do everything in our power to stop that?

What if.. What if.. What if.. I've already cited examples of how religion has encouraged class progress.


Well let’s put things into a material context, as you know there can be radical and conservative factions of any class. Parish Priests were on the bottom rung of the catholic hierarchy while Catholic Bishops were much higher, thus they saw it beneficial to keep things the way they were while Parish Priests saw the chance for advancement, in other words they had nothing to lose and everything to gain.


Not to mention the fact they’d probably have been beaten to death by their own parish if they tried to tell them “their place”, an on the job hazard they did not share with their superiors.

Again, you are taking a deterministic stance. This is vulgar Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_determinism). Superstructure is about culture, ideas, morality. The parish priests identified with bourgeois ideas, bourgeois culture, and bourgeois morality, and sided with them as such. As the superstructure shifted, so did religion.

It was most definitely not a conspiracy as you make it sound.


I take that as the heart of your argument. It begs the question can religion of any stripe embolden working class interests? Is that what we should be doing as communists, looking for cosmic justifications for our actions?


I don’t think so, I think it would be easier to tell the truth.

There is a famous Marx quote that goes, "I desired there to be less trifling with the label ‘atheism’ (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people."

As materialists we should be bring a materialist conception of human history and class struggle to people. While capitalism remains the dominant economic model of the current era, the superstructure will contain ideas that justify the maintenance of this economic order.

But as class struggle develops and the working class obtains greater power, the superstructure will naturally and unconsciously shift to serve the needs of the rising class power, including religion. That is the material reality of human history.

The path you are suggesting is that of Robespierre -- who thought religion was antithetical to the republic, because of the ties religion had with the old order. He tried to destroy all remnants of Catholic culture from the superstructure that had naturally developed. His reward for that was a first hand look Joseph-Ignace Guillotin's invention. Learn from history.

[La Comédie Noire]

What if.. What if.. What if.. I've already cited examples of how religion has encouraged class progress.
Yes, but what classes were those? As you know, Working class revolution will be very different from Bourgeoisie revolution. For one there won’t be a need to veil brutal exploitation.

Again, you are taking a deterministic stance. This is vulgar Marxism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_determinism). Superstructure is about culture, ideas, morality. The parish priests identified with bourgeois ideas, bourgeois culture, and bourgeois morality, and sided with them as such. As the superstructure shifted, so did religion.

It was most definitely not a conspiracy as you make it sound.

But why did they identify with it? Maybe because it was in their immediate material interests? That includes keeping your head on your shoulders.

How is it a conspiracy to identify with your material interests?


There is a famous Marx quote that goes, "I desired there to be less trifling with the label ‘atheism’ (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people."

But as class struggle develops and the working class obtains greater power, the superstructure will naturally and unconsciously shift to serve the needs of the rising class power, including religion. That is the material reality of human history.

And you call me a determinist?? But I do agree, we should bring the content of philosophy to the people by rigorously criticizing false ideas. Otherwise we may end up getting stuck with a real shitty idea that slows progress down, a trend that has been observed in the United States, which is years behind its western European counterparts in terms of class consciousness.

Do you think it’s a mere coincidence that it’s the most religious first world nation?

Fortunately it is changing, albeit grudgingly so.


The path you are suggesting is that of Robespierre -- who thought religion was antithetical to the republic, because of the ties religion had with the old order. He tried to destroy all remnants of Catholic culture from the superstructure that had naturally developed. His reward for that was a firsthand look Joseph-Ignace Guillotine’s invention. Learn from history.

Actually he didn’t get the guillotine because he tried to “destroy the remnants of catholic culture” he got the guillotine because he began turning it on his fellow revolutionaries. After all no one really cared when it was the king’s head that was rolling.

[chimx]

Yes, but what classes were those? As you know, Working class revolution will be very different from Bourgeoisie revolution. For one there won’t be a need to veil brutal exploitation.

It will be different in the specifics, but the mechanism for historical change remains intact. Unless you want to stop identifying with Marxism you need to acknowledge this.


But why did they identify with it? Maybe because it was in their immediate material interests? That includes keeping your head on your shoulders.

How is it a conspiracy to identify with your material interests?

It is naive at best and conspiratorial at worst because you imply that there was intent in the priests to defend their material interests. That had nothing to do with it. They were driven by their identification with bourgeois culture and morality.

Also, saying that did so because they feared the guillotine is also anachronistic. Parish priests were some of the earliest defenders of the 3rd estate during the French revolution, long before the rise of the Jacobins.


And you call me a determinist?? But I do agree, we should bring the content of philosophy to the people by rigorously criticizing false ideas. Otherwise we may end up getting stuck with a real shitty idea that slows progress down, a trend that has been observed in the United States, which is years behind its western European counterparts in terms of class consciousness.

Do you think it’s a mere coincidence that it’s the most religious first world nation?

Fortunately it is changing, albeit grudgingly so.

You are again ignoring the nature of Marxist superstructure. All aspects of the superstructure generally seek to secure the mode of production with the dominant class, including religious institutions. But as class struggle develops and the ideas of the new dominant class begin to dominant, the superstructure shifts correspondingly.

You are attacking all religion for being part of bourgeois superstructure. I'm attack religious institutions that are part of the bourgeois superstructure while acknowledging that a proletarian superstructure should not be attacked as being reactionary of antithetical to working people's interests.

As for your correlation between class consciousness and religion, correlation does not imply causation. Modern socialism was born of European intellectualism and has deep historical roots, and I would argue is culturally tied with European culture. America doesn't have that relationship.



Actually he didn’t get the guillotine because he tried to “destroy the remnants of catholic culture” he got the guillotine because he began turning it on his fellow revolutionaries. After all no one really cared when it was the king’s head that was rolling.

If you read about the Thermidorian reaction, many historians agree that it was Robespierre's anti-clerical attacks and advocacy of the cult of the supreme being that was responsible for France to turn against the revolution. See for example The Vendee Revolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_in_the_Vendee). From Wikipedia:


The March 1793 conscription requiring Vendeans to fill their district's quota of 300,000 enraged the populace,[2][3] who took up arms as "The Catholic Army", "Royal" being added later, and fought for "above all the reopening of their parish churches with their former priests."

[chimx]

I would like to add, I'm going to great trouble to include quotations from Marx as well as plenty of historical examples. It would be nice to receive the same in counter arguments, rather than "nu uh, religion is oppressive".

[Hit The North]

But what I find obscene and anti-materialistic, is to single out religion, as an institution, from the superstructure, and call it reactionary. The morality of religion is dictated by material forces just as much as the morality of art, or the morality of the state.There are a number of good reasons why the struggle against religion is prioritised by revolutionaries.

First, religious belief is of a different order of ideological phenomenon compared to literature, painting, music and drama. It has a mundane capacity for social organisation, potent collective motivation and individual sacrifice which the arts rarely ever achieve.

Following from above, religion retains and wields political power in a manner in which art does not. Thus, it is more likely to be religious believers rather than say, German Expressionists who line up with our enemies against us.

In fact, there are many parts of the world where religion plays a front-line role in ruling class hegemonic struggle - from political Islam in the East to the religious right in the United States. So prioritising the struggle against religion over other ideological battles in these circumstances is neither "obscene [nor] anti-materialistic", but tactical.

Personally, living in northern Europe where religion has nearly no political power (with the exception of the Muslim enclaves), I would find it strange to hear someone prioritising the struggle against religion and would have to put their zeal down to having a doctrinaire to their activity.

[chimx]

It has a mundane capacity for social organisation, potent collective motivation and individual sacrifice which the arts rarely ever achieve.

You'll have to elaborate on that and give examples, because I have no idea what you mean. Please bare in mind the role religion has helped in defending and advancing class interests over the past few thousand years when elaborating on this point.


In fact, there are many parts of the world where religion plays a front-line role in ruling class hegemonic struggle - from political Islam in the East to the religious right in the United States. So prioritising the struggle against religion over other ideological battles in these circumstances is neither "obscene [nor] anti-materialistic", but tactical.

That is fine, but it is misdirected if the attack is simply the vague concept of religion (i.e.: the ritualization of spiritual practices). The struggle should be against the capitalist superstructure, including those religious institutions within the superstructure that seek to perpetuate the present production relationships.

I feel as if I have gone over this point already. Let me try approaching it in a different way... What are your thoughts on the Reformation? Did it play a progressive role by advancing the needs of Europe's bourgeoisie?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Is the word "superstructure" still appropriate, as opposed to "crust" and "magnetosphere"?

[chimx]

Well, I know what superstructure means, unlike crust and magnetosphere.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That's because you're a roofer (construction). ;)

[chimx]

What I meant was I don't think there is any problem with the preexisting terminology. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Like I said in my work, comrade, it's broke because it encourages binary and not dynamic thinking. For example, "property rights" and top-down managerial control are legal fictions for the extraction of surplus value.

[La Comédie Noire]

It will be different in the specifics, but the mechanism for historical change remains intact. Unless you want to stop identifying with Marxism you need to acknowledge this.

I never said it wasn’t intact, all I said was it slows that mechanism down, making it harder for people to fight for their class interests.

Like the Vendee Revolt, although to be fair to them I’m sure they were pretty pissed at the conscription as well as having a love for their priests.

Leave it to you to bring up a catholic revolt and aristocratic counter revolution that not only wasn't class based, but ended up losing to boot.

Fighting in the favor of a dying social order, intended or not, is decidedly reactionary.


It is naive at best and conspiratorial at worst because you imply that there was intent in the priests to defend their material interests. That had nothing to do with it. They were driven by their identification with bourgeois culture and morality.

I’m not making it some big conspiracy it’s just a simple question, why did the parish priests support Bourgeoisie society while the higher clergy supported the ancien regimé?

Clergy were the politicians of their day, you could even call them career Christians. No one became a priest out of pure love for god, that’s for sure.

It would be like claiming Bourgeoisie politicians can fight for the working class sometimes.

Why do they do that and to what end? If you don't ask yourself that then you cease to be critical.


You are attacking all religion for being part of bourgeois superstructure. I'm attack religious institutions that are part of the bourgeois superstructure while acknowledging that a proletarian superstructure should not be attacked as being reactionary or antithetical to working people's interests.
No, I’m attacking religion because it leads to a false world view. Why do you think ruling classes like it so much? Of course it becomes necessary to change or destroy aspects of religion that doesn’t justify your rule, like when early Christians wiped out the worship of all the old gods, but it’s basically been the same.

It splits people into categories other than class (Saved and damned, enlightened and unenlightened, sinner and saint, leader and follower ect.) Like I said in another thread “Ten saved owners are worth more than one damned worker in the eyes of the believer.”
Not to mention the plethora of bad shit that comes with it anyways, like sexism and superstition.

That doesn’t seem fucked up to you?


As for your correlation between class consciousness and religion, correlation does not imply causation. Modern socialism was born of European intellectualism and has deep historical roots, and I would argue is culturally tied with European culture. America doesn't have that relationship.

So then you agree that religion has put a fetter on the consciousness of the United States working class, wonderful.



Also, saying that did so because they feared the guillotine is also anachronistic. Parish priests were some of the earliest defenders of the 3rd estate during the French revolution, long before the rise of the Jacobins.

Believe it or not, I did not mean it as a reference to the guillotine.


I would like to add, I'm going to great trouble to include quotations from Marx as well as plenty of historical examples. It would be nice to receive the same in counter arguments, rather than "nu uh, religion is oppressive".

Well, what would you have me do? Go through the entire history of religion? No matter what I say you’ll just counter it with “Nu hu! Religion has done some good things too!” It’s much easier to take “the good things” you have in mind and show you they’re always in the interests of somebody.


If you read about the Thermidorian reaction, many historians agree that it was Robespierre’s anti-clerical attacks and advocacy of the cult of the Supreme Being that was responsible for France to turn against the revolution.


From the Wikipedia article:



Not all of the conspiratorial groupings were ideological in motivation; many who conspired against Robespierre did so for strong practical and personal reasons, most notably self-preservation. The surviving Dantonists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Danton), such as Merlin de Thionville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Christophe_Merlin) for example, wanted revenge for the death of Danton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Danton) and, more importantly, to protect their own heads.


The Left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics) were opposed to Robespierre on the grounds that he rejected atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) and was not sufficiently radical.


The prime mover, however, for the events of 9 Thermidor (July 27) was a Montagnard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain) conspiracy, led by Jean Lambert Tallien (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Lambert_Tallien) and Bourdon de l'Oise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourdon_de_l%27Oise), which was gradually coalescing, and was to come to pass at the time when the Montagnards had finally swayed the deputies of the Right over to their side. (Robespierre and Saint-Just were, themselves, Montagnards.)



- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermidorian_Reaction#Events


Robespierre was killed because he was an unstable asshole more than anything else. Not only that but some even went against him because he wasn't antitheical enough!

[chimx]

I never said it wasn’t intact, all I said was it slows that mechanism down, making it harder for people to fight for their class interests.

Like the Vendee Revolt, although to be fair to them I’m sure they were pretty pissed at the conscription as well as having a love for their priests.

Leave it to you to bring up a catholic revolt and aristocratic counter revolution that not only wasn't class based, but ended up losing to boot.

Fighting in the favor of a dying social order, intended or not, is decidedly reactionary.

But what you are failing to understand is that it is not religion that is holding back historical progression, it is bourgeois superstructure, which religious institutions fall under.

But not all religious institutions have to identify with bourgeois superstructure. As class struggle develops and proletarian ideas begin to dominate, the superstructure will shift to serve the needs of the new dominant class force: workers.

It is important to politically oppose bourgeois superstructure, not religion generally (at least not for being "reactionary", you can oppose it on a personal level for being irrational).

As for the Vendee, the peasants defense of Catholicism forced France to come to terms with the church. Napoleon stopped the anti-clericalism and had the pope present for when he crowned himself the Emperor. It is a direct cause and effect.


I’m not making it some big conspiracy it’s just a simple question, why did the parish priests support Bourgeoisie society while the higher clergy supported the ancien regimé?

Clergy were the politicians of their day, you could even call them career Christians. No one became a priest out of pure love for god, that’s for sure.

It would be like claiming Bourgeoisie politicians can fight for the working class sometimes.

Why do they do that and to what end? If you don't ask yourself that then you cease to be critical.

I'm fine thinking of them in terms of political figures, if that helps things. Political figures want to defend the rights of their constituency. In this case it was Frances ascending bourgeoisie. But one can hardly claim that is their sole reasoning. This is the social/cultural community that they are coming from and they identified with the new ideas and morals of this growing force in France. That is why they were some of the most die-hard defenders of the 3rd estate.


So then you agree that religion has put a fetter on the consciousness of the United States working class, wonderful.

I'm saying bourgeois superstructure, which includes bourgeois religious institutions has hindered working class struggle. But as class struggle develops and workers obtain more and more real political power, you will see the superstructure shift, in parts, to serve the needs of the rising class power. This includes religion.

This is the material context we need to think about to understand the popularity of things such as liberation theology (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/world/americas/07theology.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5089&en=34f757c655dbef9f&ex=1336190400&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss) (good link, I suggest you read it)


The Left were opposed to Robespierre on the grounds that he rejected atheism and was not sufficiently radical.

"The Left" means the Jacobin political left. If anything this is more telling of how culturally out of touch Jacobins in Paris were from the rest of the country.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This is not a political party, a workplace, a town square or a protest. It is a discussion board for "revolutionary leftists." Our policies, discussions and approach here differ accordingly (or should).

Attempting to apply the rules we've set here to a "real life" situation (and vice versa) would be the equivalent of going up to a random teenager on the street to ask her what she thinks the class nature of the USSR under Brezhnev was.

In general though, it is true that religion is a result of existing conditions. Religion disappears when its material basis does.

[chimx]

First off, I didn't mean for this discussion to directly correlate too much with the current policy discussions. I just wanted to have a good conversation about Marxist theory. But anyway...


This is not a political party, a workplace, a town square or a protest. It is a discussion board for "revolutionary leftists." Our policies, discussions and approach here differ accordingly (or should).

I agree, provided we don't pigeon hole what we mean by "revolutionary leftists" too much. But is this a roundabout way of saying you don't think a religious person can be a revolutionary leftist, or am I reading too much into this comment?

How do you interpret people and movements such as the anarchist/wobbly Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement? Do you see that as being institutionally attached to bourgeois superstructure, or do you see it as the consequence of class struggle and working peoples unconsciously appropriating institutions that had been attached to bourgeois superstructure? I see it as the latter personally and often consider political attacks as unnecessary sectarianism.

[La Comédie Noire]

But what you are failing to understand is that it is not religion that is holding back historical progression, it is bourgeois superstructure, which religious institutions fall under.

Well that’s assuming that there are religions that don’t fall under the Bourgeoisie super structure or that someday there will be religions that don’t. I can give you that, but like I said before, religions actively seek to be institutionalized, every last one of them. Having an outlet in the media or even better having state power allows you to spread the word.


But not all religious institutions have to identify with bourgeois superstructure. As class struggle develops and proletarian ideas begin to dominate, the superstructure will shift to serve the needs of the new dominant class force: workers.

The only problem I see is that some ideas down play class struggle, no matter what they claim.

Take Confucianism and the rise of the merchant class in China for instance. As you may know China had the historical pre conditions for Capitalism long before Europe did, they were about 400 years ahead if I remember correctly, but it never happened.

Why? Some historians claim it was their inability to spread scientific ideas and fight the feudal ideology of Confucianism. The old order held on due to extreme social and economic control of the Merchants. Where as in Europe the Feudal super structure was broken up and readily challenged everywhere.

Christians seek to do to the same thing to the working class in this country. They want to limit our political breathing room and everyone else’s who don’t agree with them. It’s the same thing the Muslims want to do to the youth in France “stop this senseless rioting god damn it and pick up the sword for Allah!”

When the religious take up a social cause it’s not because they want to promote class consciousness it’s because they want to spread god’s word.



It is important to politically oppose bourgeois superstructure, not religion generally (at least not for being "reactionary", you can oppose it on a personal level for being irrational).

There are a lot of things I oppose in my personal life I also oppose for being reactionary; politics is a personal thing in and of itself. That is why it’s so hard to be both religious and a part of the revolutionary left.

“You can oppose homosexuality on a personal level for being “wrong”, just as long as you keep it out of the struggle.”

Not going to happen.


As for the Vendee, the peasant’s defense of Catholicism forced France to come to terms with the church. Napoleon stopped the anti-clericalism and had the pope present for when he crowned himself the Emperor. It is a direct cause and effect.

Well so what? The pope was only there as a symbol rather than an actual arbiter of power, otherwise he probably would’ve crowned the new monarch himself.

“The relations of the Pope with the French Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution) and Napoleon, as with ideological liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) itself, oscillated between direct opposition and forced coexistence.”

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_power)

The clergy lost their class war.


I'm fine thinking of them in terms of political figures, if that helps things. Political figures want to defend the rights of their constituency. In this case it was Frances ascending bourgeoisie. But one can hardly claim that is their sole reasoning. This is the social/cultural community that they are coming from and they identified with the new ideas and morals of this growing force in France. That is why they were some of the most die-hard defenders of the 3rd estate.

Granted, but they may find nothing to identify with in a genuine proletarian revolution.


This is the material context we need to think about to understand the popularity of things such as liberation theology (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/world/americas/07theology.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5089&en=34f757c655dbef9f&ex=1336190400&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss) (good link, I suggest you read it)

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1993/mar1993p7_787.html (http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1993/mar1993p7_787.html)

As the link suggests most of the Christian base communities are neither political nor wide spread.

And from the lion’s mouth itself:


Marxism was an atheistic and anti-Christian ideology that stood for violence to achieve their goals; it has no place in genuine liberation theology.

-http://latter-rain.com/freedom/libthe.htm (http://latter-rain.com/freedom/libthe.htm)

Besides even the effective ones never did anything that effective and all of them, effective and ineffective alike, kept the church hierarchy and their disgusting views intact.


How do you interpret people and movements such as the anarchist/wobbly Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement?


A Catholic organization founded by the "Servant of God" Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin in 1933. Its aim is to "live in accordance with the justice and charity of Jesus Christ." One of its guiding principles is hospitality towards those on the margin of society. To this end there are over 185 local Catholic Worker communities providing social services.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Worker_Movement

Radical worker's organization or charity house?

[chimx]

Well that’s assuming that there are religions that don’t fall under the Bourgeoisie super structure or that someday there will be religions that don’t. I can give you that, but like I said before, religions actively seek to be institutionalized, every last one of them. Having an outlet in the media or even better having state power allows you to spread the word.

Well, as I've said, I think you can find periods in capitalism that have seen religious institutions begin to shift. They reached the precipice but were forced to turn back as class struggle weakened. Catholic Worker and Liberation Theology are examples of the superstructure shifting to start serving the needs of working peoples rather than property owners. I'm not saying that this was a complete transformation, but the beginning of such.

There is a great Marx quote from the 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: "[P]roletarian revolutions, like those of the nineteenth century, constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of their own goals – until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out: Hic Rhodus, hic salta!"

Revolution is not a constant crescendo of increased struggle. It waxes and wanes, and as such, we see a corresponding change in superstructure. Unfortunately, we in the west are at an unfortunate low point in terms of class struggle, but it is important to think outside of our own world, our own moment in time. I am arguing that as class consciousness again grows and struggle continues, we will naturally (again) see a shift in these institutions part of bourgeois superstructure. As worker power grows, a superstructure will begin to appear to empower history's new dominant class.

I mean, I don't think anybody actually believes that superstructure changes overnight. Right?

As for religion, I agree that they gravitate towards institutionalization. I would argue that is one of the defining qualities of religion, which I think is the ritualization and institutionalization of a communities spiritual beliefs.

But there are many institutions that are part of bourgeois superstructure, not just religion. As property relations shift, superstructure will shift. Historically this has always happened. Again, look at The Reformation. Catholicism was an extremely rigid institution, but that did not stop history from advancing forward. As property relations changes, superstructure changed and religious institutions grew out of the feudal superstructure to better serve the interests of Europe's new rising class power.


The only problem I see is that some ideas down play class struggle, no matter what they claim.

Take Confucianism and the rise of the merchant class in China for instance. As you may know China had the historical pre conditions for Capitalism long before Europe did, they were about 400 years ahead if I remember correctly, but it never happened.

Why? Some historians claim it was their inability to spread scientific ideas and fight the feudal ideology of Confucianism. The old order held on due to extreme social and economic control of the Merchants. Where as in Europe the Feudal super structure was broken up and readily challenged everywhere.

Well, some historians may argue that, but that is a very un-Marxist view. Superstructure does not determine how historical epochs falls and rise. That is the very essence of idealism.


Christians seek to do to the same thing to the working class in this country. They want to limit our political breathing room and everyone else’s who don’t agree with them. It’s the same thing the Muslims want to do to the youth in France “stop this senseless rioting god damn it and pick up the sword for Allah!”

When the religious take up a social cause it’s not because they want to promote class consciousness it’s because they want to spread god’s word.


Again, you aren't looking at this through a materialist lens. It isn't about Christians or Muslims, it is about bourgeois superstructure -- i.e. bourgeois religious institutions which operate to elongate bourgeois economic dominance.

[Hit The North]

Take Confucianism and the rise of the merchant class in China for instance. As you may know China had the historical pre conditions for Capitalism long before Europe did, they were about 400 years ahead if I remember correctly, but it never happened.

Why? Some historians claim it was their inability to spread scientific ideas and fight the feudal ideology of Confucianism. The old order held on due to extreme social and economic control of the Merchants. Where as in Europe the Feudal super structure was broken up and readily challenged everywhere.

This a fairly idealistic argument, though. Max Weber examined this question and argued that it was the lack of a rationalistic ideology which held back the development of capitalism. He argued that the presence of aesthetic Protestantism (particularly Calvinism) provided the rationistic ideology, or "spirit of capitalism" in Northern Europe which enabled capitalism to develop in the West.

A Marxist approach, I believe, would be to focus first on differences in the pre-capitalist mode of production in China and Europe. In particular the property relations between the Asiatic mode of production and Feudalism where the latter stimulated relations based on private ownership and the former preserved the collectivist power of the State which dominated production relations and applied a break on the further development of private ownership. Crucially, the ideological would emerge as more or less coherent reflections upon these material relations.

[La Comédie Noire]

Excuse me; I should’ve added how the ruling class enforced this:


The political superstructures of the successive Chinese dynasties from the Ch'in (around 300 BC) onwards were large, costly and highly cohesive, centered on structures of bureaucratic control that survived at the core of large local states even during times when the central empire collapsed. This necessarily restricted the space in which members of the merchant class could develop their own independent political presence. In the T'ang period (around AD 700) the state kept tight control over the cities to prevent their inhabitants exhibiting any independence--walls divided the cities into separate wards, and police patrolled the streets at night to prevent people moving around. The old ruling class remained in control, cramping further development of the forces of production while wasting a vast proportion of existing output, until the state could no longer sustain itself and went into crisis.

- http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj102/harman.htm


There was an amount of “Interplay” between the super structure and Infrastructure resulting in the merchants losing their class war.

It could easily happen to us folks in the United States:


And yet the powerbrokers in the Christian right have moved from the fringes of society to the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Forty-five senators and 186 members of the House before the last elections earned approval ratings of 80 to100 percent from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups -- the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council. President Bush has handed hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid to these groups and dismantled federal programs in science, reproductive rights and AIDS research to pay homage to the pseudo-science and quackery of the Christian right.


- http://www.alternet.org/story/47679/

Religion has a mind numbing effect and could easily set back progress years.



[P]roletarian revolutions, like those of the nineteenth century, constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of their own goals – until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out: Hic Rhodus, hic salta!


Ah yes, you have brought up one of my favorite quote's by the old man himself, but it says nothing about the Catholic Worker's Movement.

We know how catholics act in time's of working class struggle:

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/historicalanalysis/catholicism_and_fascism.html



As for religion, I agree that they gravitate towards institutionalization. I would argue that is one of the defining qualities of religion, which I think is the ritualization and institutionalization of a community’s spiritual belief.


And if that belief happens to be irrational, dangerous, or just plain stupid then what?



I am arguing that as class consciousness again grows and struggle continues, we will naturally (again) see a shift in these institutions part of bourgeois superstructure. As worker power grows, a superstructure will begin to appear to empower history's new dominant class.


Would you agree it could naturally gravitate towards an out right opposition to all superstition?

[chimx]

Would you agree it could naturally gravitate towards an out right opposition to all superstition?

No. I'm saying this is historically impossible. As Marx says, and NHiA points out above, religion is the consequence of material facts: class division. Religion will not begin to wither away until the material basis for religion has been removed.

What I am saying is that you can not stop the progression of history. Bourgeois superstructure will be replaced by a proletarian superstructure. It is a material fact that this will include religious institutions. If you politically attack proletarian superstructure as being reactionary, then you undermining working class struggle.

But again, it doesn't matter if anti-theists oppose religion. At worst they will slow history's progression, but you can't stop it. To think otherwise is idealism. Proletarian superstructure will develop regardless of your anti-theism. That is why we call ourselves materialists.

[La Comédie Noire]

No. I'm saying this is historically impossible. As Marx says, and NHiA points out above, religion is the consequence of material facts: class division. Religion will not begin to wither away until the material basis for religion has been removed.

Religion was created before class society and has demonstrated an incredible staying power. Where ever it has been banned it has somehow managed to creep back, except for Western Europe where it seems to be withering away on it's own without getting rid of class distinctions.

Their consciousness is much more revolutionary than our’s in the United States, wouldn’t you agree?



What I am saying is that you cannot stop the progression of history. Bourgeois superstructure will be replaced by a proletarian superstructure. It is a material fact that this will include religious institutions. If you politically attack proletarian superstructure as being reactionary, then you undermining working class struggle.
But again, it doesn't matter if anti-theists oppose religion. At worst they will slow history's progression, but you can't stop it. To think otherwise is idealism. Proletarian superstructure will develop regardless of your anti-theism. That is why we call ourselves materialists.


Well it depends on what you mean by “Proletarian super structure” If there was a commune that gave human sacrifices to Christ and made sure woman felt the pain of original sin through birth (denying them anesthesia) then I’d want to put a stop to that.

The question is if religious people want to be part of post capitalist society will we let them take their disgusting beliefs with them?

Not like I think there will be many serious religious people left when revolutions begin occurring anyways.

As for religion itself, it slows down history by causing people to make bad decisions. Hunger strikes, civil disobedience, public prayer circles, and propaganda through church sermons are all crappy tactics, but there isn’t much in the arsenal of the religious revolutionary.

After all how can there be when you adhere to a belief that opposes violent struggle in earthly matters?

When we say slows down progress in a historical sense we can mean anything from decades to centuries. For us mere mortals that’s an intolerably long time! I’d like to be able to jump for joy without breaking my ankle or at least not be in a coffin when proletarian revolutions occur!

[chimx]

Religion was created before class society and has demonstrated an incredible staying power. Where ever it has been banned it has somehow managed to creep back, except for Western Europe where it seems to be withering away on it's own without getting rid of class distinctions.

You can believe that, but then you are rejecting a basic tenet of Marxism.


Their consciousness is much more revolutionary than our’s in the United States, wouldn’t you agree?


As for religion itself, it slows down history

The superstructure of the dominant class "slows down" history. The superstructure of the ascending class speeds history up. I've cited examples already of religion acting as a progressive force.

I don't think that there is causation between the two.

[La Comédie Noire]

The decreasing number of believers in Western Europe is a documented fact, even the sons and daughters of Muslim immigrants are beginning to drop that shit like a hot potato.

They aren’t over throwing their masters just yet but they’re getting there. An important stop on that road is the abandonment of all false ideas which serve to cloud a person’s conception of reality.

I think as people begin to reject the concept of a divine authority it causes them to question all authority and their material reality. The rejection of superstition is a symptom of critical thinking; it means one is thinking very hard about society and the way it works.

Superstition, being the weakest of the old ideas, is the first to go, while ideas such as sexism and nationalism are a little more persistent. Do you know how hard it was for me to believe not everyone thought George Washington was a great revolutionary when I first came here?

I can guarantee our religious comrades here will either abandon leftism all together or reject superstition entirely. It can’t be both, the materialism of

Marxism and the mysticism of religion will collide with all the allure of a butter and chocolate sandwich.

The idea that rising proletarian super structure could be atheistic and secular never occurs to you.

You’ve given me examples of the lower sections of the catholic clergy supporting the French revolution and charity indoctrination organizations shelling out food, but you’ve said nothing of actual working class revolution.

Working class revolution is different from Capitalist Revolution; it is the abolishment of all hierarchy, not the replacement of it with another. Something the religious frown upon.

[chimx]

The decreasing number of believers in Western Europe is a documented fact

You are seeing a decrease of followers of religious institutions in some countries that have been traditionally secular in nature, such as Sweden. But this is more of a shift from monotheism and traditional Christian beliefs towards deism. The only western European state is significantly atheist that I can think of is France, which is again, traditionally secular. On the other hand, other states have seen a sharp rise in secular beliefs, such as Russia, Ukraine, and other eastern European nations.

But none of this matters, as correlation does not imply causation.

As for the rest of your arguments, it's become clear that you are not a materialist or a Marxist. This thread was intended to discuss Marxist theory.

[La Comédie Noire]

You are seeing a decrease of followers of religious institutions in some countries that have been traditionally secular in nature, such as Sweden. But this is more of a shift from monotheism and traditional Christian beliefs towards deism. The only western European state is significantly atheist that I can think of is France, which is again, traditionally secular. On the other hand, other states have seen a sharp rise in secular beliefs, such as Russia, Ukraine, and other eastern European nations.

Don't forget Sweden(85%), Denmark(80%), Germany(49%), Norway(72%), Britain(44%), Finland(60%) and of course the aformentioned France(54%).

- http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Once again, the idea that rising proletarian super structures could be atheistic and secular never occurs to you.

One wonders why.

It's also interesting to note I have gone from being a vulgar materialist who failed to notice the interplay between base and super structure, to an idealist who emphasized the super structure too much, to not a Marxist at all.

Perhaps I am putting too much importance on the issue of religion, as material conditions change it might just wither away, like it's doing in Western Europe.

But it's better to tell these people straight to their faces' they have disgusting and ignorant beliefs then to just let it slide. Just as we don't let up on sexism, racism, or wage slavery.

We've got to try our hardest to hasten the day of working class revolution, attacking ignorant ideas is part of that.

[chimx]

It's also interesting to note I have gone from being a vulgar materialist who failed to notice the interplay between base and super structure, to an idealist who emphasized the super structure too much, to not a Marxist at all.

I'm sorry you are ideologically inconsistent. :(

[La Comédie Noire]

I'm sorry you are ideologically inconsistent. :(


I could very well have come across that way and if I did then I am the one who apologizes.

However I feel I have consistently argued throughout this entire thread that irrational ideas can be fetters on revolutionary consciousness itself. One cannot think critically about material reality if they do not see it clearly. Religion can be both an indicator and a cause of ideological backwardness.

In places, such as Western Europe, this is a declining problem, where as in the United States it is still a big problem. Many of the rural and working poor are being drawn in by the Christian Right instead of the Left, which admittedly is almost nonexistent in this country.

Where does Marxism come in on this? Well as you said it's the interplay between the base and super structure. Changes in material condition change consciousness, but not always in the direction we want it to go.

It can always set things back a few decades, as was the case with the dictatorship of Napoleon. Marx made no guarantees, there's always a chance you will lose your class war.

Take Germany for instance, the German Working class was very radical, growing even more so in the face of the economic depression. Unfortunately, it ended up being crushed under the jack boot of Fascism. To argue that was historically inevitable would be absurd; there were many factors that lead to the down fall of the workers.

It was one of many possible outcomes that the margins of the material conditions permitted.

The Christian Right in this country could do the same thing, after all they already hold important positions in the Government and have 5 major TV networks devoted to their religion.

You've argued we should only attack religions that are part of the Bourgeoisie super structure, but the problem is they all have the potential to be part of it. In the United States its Christianity, in India it's Hinduism, in Japan it's Buddhism ect. Like I said religions actively seek to be institutionalized and what they do when they’re official state religions is often unspeakable.

[chimx]

However I feel I have consistently argued throughout this entire thread that irrational ideas can be fetters on revolutionary consciousness itself

Let's elaborate on what you mean by revolutionary consciousness. What is the material reality that is pertinent to class struggle? I would argue that whatever happens after you die has absolutely no inherent bearing on class struggle. In the past, bourgeois superstructure has pushed the religious "pie in the sky" ideal, but it is very easy to imagine religious institutions without this ideal. Many have dropped it for centuries.

What is important for class struggle is acknowledging production relationships that leave employers exploiting employees. How does religion generally, be it hindu, christian, buddhist, etc. inhibit this class consciousness, as opposed to bourgeois superstructure? I have not heard an adequate answer to that.


In places, such as Western Europe, this is a declining problem, where as in the United States it is still a big problem.

For the millionth time. Never have you shown how a decline in religion causes an increase in class consciousness. All you have provided is the false idea that class consciousness is greater in Europe. In reality, union density is dropping in almost every European state. France, the most atheistic state in Europe has seen a drop of union density by almost 15% since 1970 (while the United States has only seen a drop of 11%). source (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/01/art3abs.htm)


Take Germany for instance, the German Working class was very radical, growing even more so in the face of the economic depression. Unfortunately, it ended up being crushed under the jack boot of Fascism. To argue that was historically inevitable would be absurd; there were many factors that lead to the down fall of the workers.

It was one of many possible outcomes that the margins of the material conditions permitted.

Superstructure can delay or speed up, to a certain extent, the process of historical progression, but it can't stop it. I tried to make this point above.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

"That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party. We shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential for us to combat the inconsistency of various “Christians”. But that does not mean in the least that the religious question ought to be advanced to first place, where it does not belong at all; nor does it mean that we should allow the forces of the really revolutionary economic and political struggle to be split up on account of third-rate opinions or senseless ideas, rapidly losing all political importance, rapidly being swept out as rubbish by the very course of economic development.

"Everywhere the reactionary bourgeoisie has concerned itself, and is now beginning to concern itself in Russia, with the fomenting of religious strife—in order thereby to divert the attention of the masses from the really important and fundamental economic and political problems, now being solved in practice by the all-Russian proletariat uniting in revolutionary struggle. This reactionary policy of splitting up the proletarian forces, which today manifests itself mainly in Black-Hundred pogroms, may tomorrow conceive some more subtle forms. We, at any rate, shall oppose it by calmly, consistently and patiently preaching proletarian solidarity and the scientific world-outlook—a preaching alien to any stirring up of secondary differences." - Lenin