The viability of a non-atheistic Socialist system.

[f0nd004u]

Hey folks, I'm new.

After doing some cursory reading here, I suppose I fit in as somewhat of a moderate here. I'm a deomcratic socialist, an American, and I like what I see in western European countries such as Norway, and would really like to see social justice and heavy economic regulatory policies implemented here.

I'm also not an atheist. I do not consider myself religious, because I hate the connotation. But I do believe in God and it definitely affects how I see the world and what I do about it.

Marx connotes that religion is simply a hindrance to a working communist society, or at least that's my understanding. I'm asking the forum what your opinions are on religion operating in a moderate socialist economy and society.

It seems to me that Socialism and social justice fit well into pure Christian ethics. Jesus told the people who listened to him to give to people who have nothing, and provide for everyone in their society. I know that the philosophy is 2000 years old, but it seems like socialist policies fit that bill pretty well.

I don't think religion is always a positive thing, but the fact of the matter is that in the US, people aren't going to give it up. It's an integral part of their lives, and has been since before the country started. I want to see things change here. Do you all think it's possible for religion and socialist policy to mix?

If I have posted in the wrong forum, please redirect me.

[ZeroNowhere]

Sure, one can be religious and socialist. Also, you don't seem like a socialist, more of a reformist.

[f0nd004u]

I suppose you're correct. I would like hard-core wealth redistribution to happen, but I also want something that would actually work. I try to be realist, because I really do believe that the system here in the US can change within my lifetime, but not necessarily to full socialism.

Which is why I pose this question. People here will always pull the "this country was founded on religion" bullshit out their asses and will always hold fast to their religions. I guess I'm not asking whether the ideologies are compatible on an individual level, but if you can have a government and society that is both religious and socialistic.

Does anybody have any examples countering or supporting this idea? I'll admit that I'm not terribly up on my history; I just have a general idea (I spend all of my time at college writing, not reading history =/).

[politics student]

Every communist country has always had freedom of religious worship.

The USSR had a divide between church and state with the right to worship and production of athiest propaganda.

Secular societies is what we should aim for.

[ZeroNowhere]

Every communist country has always had freedom of religious worship.
What communist countries?


I suppose you're correct. I would like hard-core wealth redistribution to happen,
That's not socialism. :)

[ZeroNowhere]

*Sorry, double post*

[mikelepore]

Marx connotes that religion is simply a hindrance to a working communist society, or at least that's my understanding.

I don't know of any place where Marx says that. He describes religion as an inauthentic or illusory basis for having "the heart of a heartless world", "the spirit of spiritless conditions." He says "religion will tend to disappear" after the historical conditions that generate it are discontinued, in combination with scientific education.

[mikelepore]

what your opinions are on religion operating in a moderate socialist economy and society..... that Socialism and social justice fit well into pure Christian ethics. .

It depends more on one's view of moves history forward. If someone believes that the overall course of history is determined by expulsion form the garden, Noah's flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the covenant with Israel, it's difficult or impossible to reconcile that with the socialist viewpoint. Socialists believe that the main driving force of human history is the directionality in the changes to the tools and systems of economic production.

[al8]

Marx connotes that religion is simply a hindrance to a working communist society, or at least that's my understanding. I'm asking the forum what your opinions are on religion operating in a moderate socialist economy and society.

The Scandinavian welfare model has been a historic exception where partial socialistic mesures were taken up to appease the masses, temporarily curb the harshest facets of capitalism and avert socialist revolution from spreading from the USSR. It's sort of a truce in the class war where the final settlement of score was put on hold. The ruling class has been building itself up and this system is soon at an end. State owned companies are sold for near nothing into the private possession of capitalist wich have bribed (campain contributed) friends in the political system of the state. The Scandinavian societies of Iceland, Faroes, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finnland are all capitalist countries to the core with everything which that implies. Tactical and partial socialistic half-mesures by the ruling class is what it is.

However even with a modicum of socialistic measures people tend to become slightly better off and thus more irreligious. Either apathetic towards religion or openly atheistic. It's because if peoples lives are shit they start to live in a fantasy-world. Sort of like when lonely kids, those sad fuckers, invent imaginary friends. Religion is organized ignorance based on misery. And it is an organ of reaction and retardation, fighting against every progressive issue imaginable. It is best countered by a combination of secularisation of every part of society, openly atheistic and scientific education and very importantly; making peoples conditions in life not dull, shitty and terrible -- or by other words having people to be proud materially asured erect masters of their own existence.


It seems to me that Socialism and social justice fit well into pure Christian ethics. Jesus told the people who listened to him to give to people who have nothing, and provide for everyone in their society. I know that the philosophy is 2000 years old, but it seems like socialist policies fit that bill pretty well.

I think this is incorrect. The kind of thing you are refering to is cultic and happens all the time in cults. The followers are stript and swindled of their private property and possessions all together so as to do either or both of these things; financially benefit the master directly and/or increase dependence on the masters cult isolating the followers from the outside world. This has nothing to do with socialism. This obfuscatory analogy is but a reguritation of church cult propaganda aimed for left-leaners.


I don't think religion is always a positive thing, but the fact of the matter is that in the US, people aren't going to give it up. It's an integral part of their lives, and has been since before the country started. I want to see things change here.

You cannot say that it is "the fact of the matter" that people in the USA will not give up their religion. People there are giving up their religion all the time to begin with. Even hard core religionist pastors have turn away from it. Dan Barker being a case in point.

Besides with changes in material contitions and quality of life people are bound to change. The net alone, which is a change in material contitions, has increased the reach of irreligious advocacy.

[ZeroNowhere]

Christ died between two thieves. Anyways, the welfare state is in no way 'socialistic', it's simply populism to keep labour movements in check. Of course, it also leads to more skilled laborers that live longer, including the unemployed, thus meaning more competition for higher jobs, thus less wages even for skilled labour.

[politics student]

What communist countries?



Cuba.

[ZeroNowhere]

Cuba.
:D
How is Cuba communist?

[apathy maybe]

For the OP:

Most people with any sense will say something along the lines of: Sure you can be religious, believe in god etc. in a free, state-less, class-less society. You can do what you like, so long as it doesn't harm others.

Actually, then some say that "public" resources wouldn't be used to build places of worship, some say that it is child abuse to indoctrinate children into religion (I tend to agree), and a few other caveats.

But basically, only idiots, and non-sensible person's will say that religion will be out and out banned, with punishments for those who persist in being religious.

As for Marx. He said that religion was like a drug. Used to hide from the realities of life. "And dance and drink and screw. - Because there's nothing else to do. "

[ComradeOm]

Christ died between two thievesSo Jesus was lumpen? ;)


Anyways, the welfare state is in no way 'socialistic', it's simply populism to keep labour movements in checkWhich is the role that religion has consistently occupied throughout history. Is there really one person here who believes that Catholicism, Islam, or Evangelical Protestantism are progressive or otherwise conductive towards a socialist society? Organised religion is simply an enemy of organised labour

[Raúl Duke]

Overall good post al8


You cannot say that it is a "the fact of the matter" that people in the USA will not give up their religion. People there are giving up their religion all the time to begin with. Even hard core religionist pastors have turn away from it. Dan Barker being a case in point.

Besides with changes in material contitions and quality of life people are bound to change. The net alone, which is a change in material contitions, has increased the reach of irreligious advocacy.

Here's a link of an article showing the growth of irreligion, specifically in the 1st world, pointing towards that theological position's possible future dominance:
Link (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html)

[ZeroNowhere]

As for Marx. He said that religion was like a drug. Used to hide from the realities of life. "And dance and drink and screw. - Because there's nothing else to do. "
Cope, more like. Remember, opium was commonly used at the time to relieve pain. Well, it also caused the opium wars, the strange visions of opium eaters, and the problem of parents feeding opium to their children to shut them up.


So Jesus was lumpen?
Could've been. What class do messiahs usually get put into? ;)

[mikelepore]

The kind of "sharing" practiced by Jesus and the disciples was based on begging for charity and then dividing it up.

Socialism is based on taking the concept of public institution, which we already practice in the park, museum, library and school, and extending the principle to the factory, mine, mill, refinery, etc.

I don't see much similarity at all between the two things.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Personally I don't think there should be organized religion in a Communist society as I believe that behind the roots of most conflicts is religious beliefs. Throughout history It has just basically been people having the "my god is better than your god, therefore your beliefs are incorrect" attitude. Of course you would have people standing up against this, starting fights. It's the main reason why I choose to stay away from religion. However, personal religious practice in private would be ok. Just don't have any public organized religion. Bleh. Conflicts waiting to happen.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I don't remember exactly where I heard it, but I remember hearing that in the 19th century the German secret police feared the Christian socialists more than any other group. Most of the athiest communists, socialists, and anarchist were "waiting for the revolution to come", and didn't want to throw their lives away if it wasn't going to mean something. Yet, the Christians were willing to throw their lives away to stop the mechanisms of state and corporate power. I think it was Dostoevsky's Ivan in Brother's Karamazov, but I'm not sure. If someone knows exactly where it's from, I'd appreciate it.

However, it seems to me that now Athiest Communists are the only true Christians left in this sense.

[Rascolnikova]

what about theist communists? Or, god forbid, agnostic ones?

[Revy]

I believe that Marx may have been directing his criticism more at organized religion and how it has been used by the ruling class.

Under socialism (which isn't just the reforms you see in Europe or Canada, as those are capitalist systems), people would be free to believe what they want, and follow what they want. I think people will be less concerned with being a member of organized religion than having their own unique and personal spirituality.

A socialist system would be secular, but wouldn't actively promote atheism. I think even if we saw it necessary to take an anti-religion viewpoint, many people are still religious and would have trouble becoming a socialist if they thought it meant they had to abandon such a personal thing to them. Of course, we should make clear that we do not accept bigotry, chauvinism or prejudice of any kind, even those that are seen as traditionally rooted in religion.

I consider myself as falling under the quirky category of Spiritual Atheist. Meaning, my views of the metaphysical can not be summed up with the word "God" as that connotes a personal God which rules above us all, benevolent and demanding of our adoration. I find such a vision not suitable for my skepticism. Because if God really cared about us, why is there so much suffering? But that's a whole different debate that you can choose not to have.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I believe that Marx may have been directing his criticism more at organized religion and how it has been used by the ruling class.

Under socialism (which isn't just the reforms you see in Europe or Canada, as those are capitalist systems), people would be free to believe what they want, and follow what they want. I think people will be less concerned with being a member of organized religion than having their own unique and personal spirituality.

A socialist system would be secular, but wouldn't actively promote atheism. I think even if we saw it necessary to take an anti-religion viewpoint, many people are still religious and would have trouble becoming a socialist if they thought it meant they had to abandon such a personal thing to them. Of course, we should make clear that we do not accept bigotry, chauvinism or prejudice of any kind, even those that are seen as traditionally rooted in religion.

I consider myself as falling under the quirky category of Spiritual Atheist. Meaning, my views of the metaphysical can not be summed up with the word "God" as that connotes a personal God which rules above us all, benevolent and demanding of our adoration. I find such a vision not suitable for my skepticism. Because if God really cared about us, why is there so much suffering? But that's a whole different debate that you can choose not to have.
To a certain extent, I disagree. I think that communists should advocate for intelligent militant atheism. That is to say, we should examine the materiality of any religious belief and we should ruthlessly root out any that offer any resistance to global liberation. We should ground our position materially in class struggle. In this sense, right wing American protestantism should not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form. However, Catholic Liberation Theology should be understood AS communism. We must always look to the material conditions.

[ComradeOm]

I believe that Marx may have been directing his criticism more at organized religion and how it has been used by the ruling classI disagree. Marx, as with every 19th C revolutionary, obviously railed against organised religion but he differentiated himself by explicitly advocating atheism. This was simply because mysticism/spiritualism, in any form, was fundamentally in conflict with his materialist outlook. And there remain few philosophers, before or since, who have associated themselves with materialism as strongly as Marx

[PostAnarchy]

Cuba.

Sorry but not even defenders of Cuba call it communist..how could it be?

Communism is a classless, stateless society, there is no way Cuba could be called that with any credibility and that's why even its defenders do not. What they do call it is a socialist or worker's state but that of course is very controversial.