Remove Chimx from the HPG?

The road your traveling down with this question is one of sectarianism and has been something isolating leftists for decades, from other leftist organizations as well as working peoples.

I really wonder why you insist on belonging to this group, chimx.

Tell me honestly, is it because you agree with what we are saying, or is it to oppose our views from within? Or did you perhaps only join to get read access to the group forum, as it wasn't viewable for you at that time?

I am not accusing you of being a primitivist, neither am I saying that you don't fill the atheist requirement. But the point of this group is to combat the forces of reaction and regression, to 'take a firm stance against them'.

Your constant defence of primitivists/primitivism sympathisers, various forms of 'green thought', and now also organised religion (tolerance towards religion in general is one thing, this is something else), are not at all considered unacceptable on this board or this movement. All fine and dandy!

But do you honestly feel that's appropriate for a member this group -- do you really think that you belong in the HPG? Because if not, the honest thing would be to resign your group membership.

A discussion group for all progressive comrades on RevLeft, CC-members or not, who firmly take the anthropocentric position against capitalism/the price system, religious superstition, bioconservatism in any of it's forms, neo-luddism, primitivism and any other attempts/tendencies to halt or regress development.

We are leftists of the variety that always puts the well being, pleasure and freedom of the human being in the center in a rational, socialistic, anthropocentric fashion and shuns technophobia as madness -- whether they otherwise be anarchists, marxists of any variety, or technocrats. A wish to combat reactionary forms of bioconservative or 'green' influence within the left is a uniting trait for the group though.

We are a group of comrades who recognise human progress, material abundance and technological development, but also a society dominated by a completely rational mindset, as essential requirements for the building of a truly equal, classless society. This means atheists only.

The group is not meant to be exclusively for transhumanists, even though a great part of the membership may end up being H+ -- after all, our goal is the total liberation of mankind from both material, biological and moralistic limitations. All the 'old crap', like one of my favorite authors used to call it, must go if mankind is to reach it's full potential!

its strange that you dont seem to see that religion has always been a force of reaction and a true cancer of society.

I have already illustrated that this isn't true using historical examples.

And to quote myself Sentinel, in the poll regarding my admittance:

I am not a luddite. I am a strong advocate of technology. I used to study computer science for that reason (pity I'm bad at math as it turns out). I think communisms greatest chance of success lays in a society where scarcity is minimized, and developing technology is the best way to ensure this.

I am opposed to primitivist praxis of halting and regressing any development for this reason. Like I have always said, I think primitivism is ultimately a flawed and genocidal cause, but I like it for its critiques of capitalism and industrialism as it exists today, and I think it is worth reading for this facet and this facet alone.

I do not think that environmentalism is inherently antithetical to your ideas of anthropocentricism. My work with environmentalism in the past had nothing to do with mysticism or worshiping "gaia" or some hippie shit like that. It is my opinion that maintenance of the planet is important for human survival and future human development. I think that it is wise to be careful of pushing underdeveloped technologies (especially within the context of capitalism) before we have a firm understanding of any potential consequences to human habitat.

I would like to reiterate, cause it is a pretty central line in what I do believe political, that I think further developing human technology is the best chance for dismantling capitalism as it often destroys scarcity.

Yes I am an atheist, but I also know a lot of religious people. I've seen how atheistic self-righteousness is very off-putting. Countless religious people work very hard for the betterment of oppressed peoples lives.

Like I said, this is not about your personal views, but what your approach is towards views this group considers reactionary. This group was, after all, to a large degree formed to unite comrades who see certain influences within the left as a problem and oppose them.

So, do you wish to combat green influence within the left? It's part of the membership criteria, do you think you fill it? Also, the group self-introduction clearly states that promotion of atheism is one of the group goals, yet you oppose that as 'self-righteous' and 'alienating'?

Obviously you don't have to as radical an atheist as I am, or the others who voted militant in this poll. There wouldn't be a point with the poll if differing opinions within a certain frame weren't accepted.

But your defense of organised religion as progressive, and opposition to the promotion of atheism is (like I already said), something different, as is your constant defense of primitivists and 'greens'.

Either way, your positions are valid leftist ones, and I respect and even like you chimx. But the very values this group was formed to represent aren't meant to disputed inside it -- it exists as a medium to discuss issues within our approach.

Do the honorable thing and resign, and we'll debate these issues in S&E, Religion, and so forth instead.

But your defense of organised religion as progressive

I said it can be progressive and has been progressive at times. It has probably done more fucked up shit than good in our life times. But I also don't think religion is some evil monster that turns people into mindless drones. The fucked up shit that people do is reflective of cultural contradictions that are already existent in society.

and opposition to the promotion of atheism is

I will engage people in mature discussion on religion, but I'm not going to become some sort of evangelic. I find that offensive enough when Christians do it. Best that I don't stoop to their level.

(actually irl that's not necessarily true. I often act anti-theistically when I'm pissed at work and talk about my desire to have God manifest in front of me so I punch Him in the head, rip out His eyeballs and poke my wiener into His skull. But I'm not looking for converts in that kind of situation.)

But the very values this group was formed to represent aren't meant to disputed inside it

Other than my tolerance for the reality that the vast majority of the world is religious, and my comfort with this fact, I have not disputed anything.

..while the group aims to advance atheism. Then we have your reoccurring support for members with bioconservative views, perhaps not on this subforum but elsewhere on the board.

Once again, not being religious or a bioconservative is good, but that's not enough to be in this group -- you are to firmly oppose bioconservatism and green influence within the left, and to promote atheism.

That's what this group is for.

I ask you once again: why are you a member of a group whose purpose and aims you do not share? Is it some kind of game, to see how many groups you can get in, or something?

I was not the only user to say he is a tolerant atheist.

I don't defend "bioconservatism" on this forum, just biocenservative participation on this forum.

I was not the only user to say he is a tolerant atheist.

No, there wouldn't have been much point with the poll if you weren't allowed to be tolerant, as opposed to militant -- it is possible to promote atheism in a firm and consistent fashion while being tolerant towards the religious.

But you were the only one to defend organised religion as progressive, and to voice your opposition to the condemnation of religion and promotion of atheism, because you think it's 'alienating'. This while the group has opposition to religious supertition as a requirement for membership.

Combined with other stuff this raises the question wtf you are doing in this group.

I don't defend "bioconservatism" on this forum, just biocenservative participation on this forum.

You constantly take the opposite side to the rest of the members of this group, and defend people accused of primitivism, biocentrism or bioconservatism. So, are we to interpret this so that you 'firmly oppose bioconservatism and green influence within the left'?

Do you? Are you in this group because you agree with our views on these tendencies, and wish to fight them, or is it for other reasons? Because the group exists to unite those who oppose them, and if you don't there's no point in your membership.

So, are we to interpret this so that you 'firmly oppose bioconservatism and green influence within the left'?

I clarified my position when I first joined this group. Nothing I have said has changed. Just because I don't jump on the opportunity to restrict anyone I vaguely suspect as being a primitivist most certainly doesn't chant that.

But you were the only one to defend organised religion as progressive

If you can prove that religious groups have never participated in progressive movements which improve the quality of lives of working peoples I'll gladly recant. Oddly enough, your rejection of this fact strikes me as being as much a leap of faith ideologically as Chrstians make spiritually.

This while the group has opposition to religious supertition as a requirement for membership.

And I am personally opposed to immaterial beliefs. But if some Buddhist in Korea wants to believe in Nirvana, I'm most certainly not going to needlessly criticize them.

If you want to change the guidelines of the HPG to require atheistic evangelicalism than I'll gladly leave, because I wouldn't want to be associated with such an anti-Marxist and anti-worker crock of shit.

I'm tired of being made a spectacle of. I'm not going to discuss it further in threads of this nature. If you want to make a thread on the merits of evangelical atheism I'll be happy to debate the issue, but I'm not going to defend myself constantly for beliefs that are core elements of Marxist thought.

I clarified my position when I first joined this group. Nothing I have said has changed. Just because I don't jump on the opportunity to restrict anyone I vaguely suspect as being a primitivist most certainly doesn't chant that.

Indeed, it was a mistake to let you in to begin with, considering that you don't accept the groups concept of anthropocentrism and biocentrism. And you have gone far further than that, by defending what the rest of the group members have considered obvious primitivism.

If you can prove that religious groups have never participated in progressive movements which improve the quality of lives of working peoples I'll gladly recant. Oddly enough, your rejection of this fact strikes me as being as much a leap of faith ideologically as Chrstians make spiritually.

Well, I haven't made any such claim, so I'm obviously not goint to start defending it. What is in question is whether organised religion is a progressive force today to the degree that it's existence is justified.

And I am personally opposed to immaterial beliefs. But if some Buddhist in Korea wants to believe in Nirvana, I'm most certainly not going to needlessly criticize them.

Nobody in this group opposes religious beliefs of individuals -- we can't go into poeple's heads and see what they believe, nor do we wish to. We oppose organised religion, and religion as a social phenomenon.

If you want to change the guidelines of the HPG to require atheistic evangelicalism than I'll gladly leave, because I wouldn't want to be associated with such an anti-Marxist and anti-worker crock of shit.

The guidelines don't have to be 'changed', as they already clearly state:

A discussion group for all progressive comrades on RevLeft, CC-members or not, who firmly take the anthropocentric position against capitalism/the price system, religious superstition, bioconservatism in any of it's forms, neo-luddism, primitivism and any other attempts/tendencies to halt or regress development.

and:

We are a group of comrades who recognise human progress, material abundance and technological development, but also a society dominated by a completely rational mindset, as essential requirements for the building of a truly equal, classless society.

So, am I to interpret this as your resignation, chimx?

If I had wanted to I would have said that I resigned.

You wish to stay despite not meeting the requirements? Ok, let's have a poll with all the accompanying drama, then.

I can tell you why he has a Zerzan sig, and heck, probably why a primitivism-tinged poster like him joined in the first place.: he's trolling again, to provoke a reaction, and hopefully a big debate over whether to let him stay.

Looks like Sev has access to a crystal ball!

I so would have wished for you to have been mature about this and proved him wrong, Chimx.

***

No matter how I twist or turn this, Chimx does not belong in this group. His membership is in conflict with the HPG guidelines and spirit, and I think he should be removed.

Vote!

1) I don't see how stating my opinions constitutes trolling. This is the third thread you've made targeting me (in this forum at least). It seems you're the one trying to provoke a reaction, not me.

2) I don't see how being an atheist that is tolerant of religious people and institutions is at all a contradiction to the terms provided, especially when one considers what Marx said on the nature of religion and human social alienation. The terms never stipulate that atheism is a prerequisite to communism or class struggle, simply that rational thought should be encouraged in a classless society.

By ignoring the reality of religious institutions as a social coping mechanisms for exploited and alienated workers, it seems to me that you are acting far more irrationally. Maybe you would care to resign?

1) I don't see how stating my opinions constitutes trolling. This is the third thread you've made targeting me (in this forum at least). It seems you're the one trying to provoke a reaction, not me.

I was referring to the part about 'hopefully having a big debate over whether he may stay'. I'm not feeling like having one, though, so let's just see what the group thinks.

It's just that I can't see any meaningful reason for your membership? Don't you think it's a bit weird, that someone joins a group designed to confront views he fervently defends on this board, now even within the group?

It's absolutely ridiculous, and transparent: your purpose must be to confront our views from within. The groups are designed for the precise reason of enabling discussion between likeminded people, however -- something the presence of opposers makes impossible, thus rendering the whole group useless.

2) I don't see how being an atheist that is tolerant of religious people and institutions is at all a contradiction to the terms provided, especially when one considers what Marx said on the nature of religion and human social alienation. The terms never stipulate that atheism is a prerequisite to communism or class struggle, simply that rational thought should be encouraged in a classless society.

Talk about selective reading. They also state that one must take a firm position against religious superstition. You don't.

Moreover, the group rules are not dependant of what 'Marx said', 'Engels said', or what any other man who died 100+ years ago said. This group is for 21st century communists.

your purpose must be to confront our views from within.

That is why I have posted threads trying to encourage discussion on technological developments within capitalism which undermine scarcity? Or genetic engineering and the creation of artificial life? I've made plenty of critical remarks about primitivism and ecological mysticism. I'm sorry if I don't wave my pom-poms sufficiently enough for you, but I think my activity in here speaks for itself in regards to your accusations.

They also state that one must take a firm position against religious superstition.

Well lets look at what Karl Marx thought about atheism, shall we?

"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." -Karl Marx, 1842

"Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man -- a question which implies admission of the unreality of nature and of man -- has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as a negation of God, has no longer any meaning, and postulates the existence of man through this negation" -Karl Marx, 1844

And probably most importantly, from Das Kapital: "The religious reflections of the real world can, in any case, vanish only when the practical relations of everyday life between man and man, and man and nature, generally present themselves to him in a transparent and rational form. The veil is not removed from the countenance of the social life-process, i.e. the process of material production, until it becomes production by freely associated men, and stands under their conscious and planned control. This, however, requires that society possess a material foundation, or a series of material conditions of existence, which in their turn are the natural and spontaneous product of a long and tormented historical development." - Capital Vol.1

Oh but wait...

the group rules are not dependant of what 'Marx said', 'Engels said', or what any other man who died 100+ years ago said.

So the group is now going to be outwardly anti-Marxist.

What examples can be given of religion being progressive, where that progressive aspect actually formed a tenet of that religion, and was actually acted upon. Liberation theology is, not to put too fine a point on it, simply socialism with Jesus tacked on. There is nothing in Christian theology to undebatably call for the abolishment of the class system - if anything, there are Bible verses that support slavery (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/sa...t/slavery.html).

There is nothing in Christian theology to undebatably call for the abolishment of the class system - if anything, there are Bible verses that support slavery (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/sa...t/slavery.html).

Much of the Bible was written during the time of Roman occupation of Israel and because of that, the iconoclastic parts of the bible tend to be directed more towards the Roman occupation and against government generally. This has economic undertones though when you consider that the area had become a client state to Rome, forced to pay taxes, etc.

For example, chapter 4 of Luke is when Jesus is fasting in the desert and is tempted by Satan. Satan asserts that he is the true ruler behind all governments. Jesus doesn't disagree but says that one shouldn't follow the morality of these states, but follow Gods.

The Book of Revelation is a giant condemnation of Roman occupation. I've always fancied Chapter 13 myself.

If you look at Christianity in its historical context, it was a response to Roman occupation and both a spiritual and political protest against foreign domination.

than any sort of blatant political statement.

Then why the common Jewish political revolts?

two big selling points for early Christianity to adopt regressive positions against.

This is certainly true, and has a longer history in the Bible than just the period of Roman occupation. Leviticus in the OT has the famous "Levitical Law" in it, which denounced same-sex relationships, sex with animals, sex with your relatives, and all sorts of things. The historical reason for the rise of Levitical Law however is that it was written by a group of nomadic Jews living in a region that was shared by other groups who followed certain fertility cults. Levitical Law in this historical context was more of a way to differentiate themselves from these other groups.

The same can probably be said of your example.

A question for Chimx. Why are you debating the early Christian church if you are an atheist? Whats the point? As I have said before on this board, I have a friend / ex boss who is a Catholic nun who is a lawyer, and practices liberation theology which is considered heretic according to the Church. She is a leftist, politically and a tough old broad. If she wants to have my back and fight next to me come the revolution, I cant think of anyone who would fight as hard as I would. Saying that, thats what makes me tolerarant. What someone does in their prayer closest is no business of mine. But never would I come on this board and debate her side if I am an atheist.

Tell me you are an atheist, and tolerant and I'll believe you. Just dont try to justify early Christianity when present day evangelicals would line you against the wall if they could get away with it.

Saying that, I want Chimx to stay and to be what he claims to be. Resently I have noticed a change in his posts that are mature, not considered flaming and because of that I listen to what he has to say. I hope I am right about him. But I want to know from him why he should stay in this group. I thought his reason for joining was well written.

A question for Chimx. Why are you debating the early Christian church if you are an atheist? Whats the point?

I find Abrahamic theology interesting. My father is an Episcopalian priest and I grew up having countless great discussions with him on the nature of Judaism and Christianity. I'm unapologetically an atheist, but that doesn't mean I can't find the history of the religions interesting. It does in all actuality effect our lives a great deal in how it has influenced western culture for the past two thousand years.

Just dont try to justify early Christianity

I don't understand what you mean by justify. Like any period of human history I think it is important to look at why things happened and examine the causes. Historical Materialism may try to view human history in terms of progression, but I don't think that it is necessarily fair to make moral arguments about what happened in the past. I try to walk a line between a progressive historical perspective and one that is simply processive.

Resently I have noticed a change in his posts that are mature, not considered flaming and because of that I listen to what he has to say.

Thank you. Save for this thread, it has been significantly easier to make "mature posts" that don't devolve into emotional attacks back and forth when I am not constantly attacked for "trolling" simply because I have an outside opinion. I'm not perfect and I just find that way of engaging a person to be particularly frustrating.

I have a hard time seeing how supporting a character who wants to make a policy which will hurt the working class and peoples of all nations.

Well this is fun. I'm so happy to see that this thread is just being reduced to outright slander. I have never had a policy advocating primitivism or any other kind of technological regression. If you bothered to read my posts here, you would see I want the opposite.

I happen to know that Chimx also tried to join another group which rejected him.

I tried to join the Hoxhaist Union partly as a joke and I tried to join the Anarchist group because I have at times identified with anarchism.

Therefore, I would vote to suspend the membership of Chimx in this group until the contradictions have solved themselves.

There never were any contradictions.

Whatever. My friend just died last night and I'm too emotionally drained to argue with irrational minds.

I changed my signature for all of you so you can have something to justify your emotional convictions. Consider it my valediction.

I'm really sorry to hear that Matt -- my condoleances.

Sorry to hear about your friend

I voted No in this poll. I don't see any evidence of primitivism, or supporting bioconservatism from this poster.

I disagreed with some of what chimx posted in the atheism thread, but I do believe he argues from a genuine principled Marxist position on religion.

I voted No in this poll. I don't see any evidence of primitivism, or supporting bioconservatism from this poster.

We are not claiming that chimx is a primitivist or a bioconservative. What we are saying is that he rather than opposing these tendencies within the left, which is the purpose of this group, tends to defend those who advocate them.

Overall, it was a mistake to admit chimx into the group, as he doesn't even recognise the difference between an anthropocentric and a biocentric position like the rest of us do -- something he admits. That is not a requirement for all leftists, but in the HPG it is.

I do believe he argues from a genuine principled Marxist position on religion.

There is no question about it, but this isn't an orthodox Marxist bookclub. This group is for members who see it as a paramount priority to spread a scientific, rational mindset among the working class. Chimx doesn't agree, he sees the active advocacy of atheism as 'alienating'.

Once again, his positions are valid leftists ones, but do not fit within the guidelines of this group.

But you just said that you attempted to join the HU as a joke. How would we know that... you know what...

Indeed.

I actually share chimx's view on religion because I'm also a Marxist...so should I also be kicked?

You don't have to be a militant atheist in the redstar2000 sense, ie you don't have to believe that all churches are to be demolished (as a popular measure), etc. But if you think that active promotion of atheism -- combined with working against religion -- among the working class, and opposition to organised religion as a factor in society is wrong, then you shouldn't be in the group, no.

The group is not 'anti-marx', but I think it's fairly safe to say that it isn't for dogmatic, orthodox marxists. It's meant for people who try to apply marxist and other revolutionary thought into our time in a scientific fashion -- not for those who read 1800 century theory like infallible holy scripture..

he doesn't even recognise the difference between an anthropocentric and a biocentric position like the rest of us do -- something he admits.

This is false. I have argued that biocentricism is an grounded in anthropocentricism, fulfilling subjective personal or emotional needs of the individual, something that most people here agreed with if I'm not mistaken.

The group is not 'anti-marx'

You are taking a position that is entirely anti-thetical to a core element of Marxist ideology. It's like saying the belief in "historial materialism" or the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is "dogmatic".

It's meant for people who try to apply marxist and other revolutionary thought into our time in a scientific fashion

Marx, the inventor of scientific socialism, is not applying revolutionary theory scientifically enough for you?

I am arguing for a view of religion from the scientific socialist perspective. It is a perspective grounded in materialism (atheism) that views religion as a symptom of class society rather than a cause. Asking for my removal and calling me "dogmatic" is just a way to avoid a discussion on the idea.