Can a society exist without religion?

So I want to start a discussion about where religion fits into society (even in communism),

So lets use this as our definition:
which is consistent with Karl Marx's definition:
The right believe that religion is absolute integral part of society and the way it functions. Capitalism works (in theory) because religion guide peoples morals and justifications. Most business men will not make a decision if it is immoral, there are a few people who do, but they tend to loose out in the end anyway. As such there is no real debate on the question of religion on the right side of politics.

The left on the other hand is another story. Karl Marx famously wrote:

Communism has a set definition of logic (logic in popular form), rules (moral sanction), and is defined in the Communist Manifesto (solemn complement, universal basis of consolation and justification) and Das Kapital. Proponents of Communism preach the benefits of such a society (spiritual point), and have a God (Karl Marx). Communism has a set of beliefs which everyone must hold, has a cultural system and defined world views on humanity (i.e giving to the poor).

Both sides the politics believe in religion in some form or another, so does this mean that religion is required for a society to function?

I think a better question is can a society survive with religion ... it's doubtful.

Even if everyone had their material wants and needs satisfied and even if they had some non-alienating, fulfilling activity to engage in, I suspect some people would still be religious.

Conservatives sometimes assume that religion is needed to make people docile and moral so that society can function. This is likely not true. You can promote values outside of a religious framework and people will likely follow them provided that they are backed by sufficient social pressure and, as a last resort, force.

Religion is also not necessary to serve as an "opiate" for the masses under capitalism. In fact, I think we are seeing more and more people in contemporary society using mass media entertainment, sports, self-help gurus and a whole host of other activities as coping mechanisms for living under the stress of capitalism. Modern notions of progress and the hope of some techno-utopia to be obtained without getting rid of capitalism serve as modern visions of heaven for many contemporary people.

Sometimes I think you don't know what it is that you actually want. Firstly your against oppression and genocide, yet support things being done against people's will (oppression), and using "force" (I assume this means genocide?) to achieve it.

Karl Marx: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature".

Therefore you have proved my point, Communism is a religion.

I meant that a society can promote values without reference to religion. You can promote respect for persons and property without reference to religion by appealing to secular humanism or some other secular philosophy. Force is used to back these norms up. For example, laws against theft enforce moral notions regarding the importance of private property rights. In this way, conservatives are wrong that you need religion to maintain order in society.

Communism is a secular political ideology. It is not a religion because it does not refer is supernatural concepts.

Who enforces those laws after the government is abolished? (as Karl Marx predicts will happen) :confused:

A religion doesn't need to be supernatural to be called a religion. (see definitions in OP)

Well I am not so sure I accept Marx's prediction regarding the abolition of the State, but I will say that norms and moral conduct can be enforced without a government of the type that we live under today. Groups of people can reach a consensus regarding behavior so that if someone steps outside of these bounds they can be punished by the collective (I know that sounds a lot like a government and you would perhaps be right, but it may not be a State in the way we know it, that is a government that serves the interests of a separate ruling class). You would not need to reference religion to develop or enforce these social rules.

I think that definition of religion is very broad, so much so that it can cover almost any philosophy. But I don't see communism as a consolation, as an opiate, as much as it is a state of affairs to be reached in the future. Maybe some people approach communism in a quasi-religious manner, and there have been instances of cultish behavior and messianic belief on the Left. Maybe some people gain some measure of consolation under capitalism by believing that communism is inevitable. But generally communism is viewed as a state of social relations to be achieved and worked toward, not something that will happen automatically without any effort by the working class.

And here is your first error, ziggy, which just about encapsulates the erroneous nature of this entire, confused and crippled post.

The notion that something as complex as a religion can be understood in terms of cheap 'definitions', rather than a thorough, critical assessment of it in relation to a wider context, is enough of a crime - but nevermind 'religion', liberals, idealist 'logicians', and bourgeois ideologues in general by default are not capable of critical thinking. Instead, they are only capable of mixing and matching formally established, pre-conceived, and uncritically accepted rules, expressed through cheap abstractions like "definitions". But even if we were to take 'definitions' seriously, let's ground this one in the context of our postmodern era:

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence

My god, what a beautiful definition. This, ladies and gentlemen - this is ideology at its finest. And why? Because by merit of being a thinking, rational agent, by merit of being a living person in any historical or social context, it is inescapable that you "relate humanity to an order of existence", or, relate the totality that which you are immersed to some 'order of existence'. The only way to avoid doing this, is through consciously-imposed ignorance, but this conscious ignorance sais nothing about the character of the mind as a whole, i.e. what people are thinking at the level of subconsciousness/ideology. And they are just as religious as any religious fundamentalist, if not more.

Religion and irreligion in bourgeois society works precisely this way - iti s all very well to be secular, to be an atheist, and to be irreligious, INSOFAR as you do not attempt to wholly relate humanity to an 'order of existence' that is without a trace of superstition and darkness. Not only is it tolerated, it is sanctified and encouraged by the high priests of capital to live through these indefinite existential crisis', for people to wallow in despair in all their pseudo-irreligious cynicism. When a rush of hope overtakes them, when they finally refuse this confusion - it is religion they turn to. Religion in bourgeois society is the language of the unspoken mind.

So, how does one relate this to postmodern liberal ideology? Society's cliche'd and banal criticism of religion has nothing to do with an attack on darkness and superstition. It is society's encouragement, today, that people are not consciously engaged in their beliefs, NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE. Islamic fundamentalism has not been enough to warrant the ideological outburst of postmodern-liberal discourse in this regard, for the latter predominated it: What Zizek calls "western Buddhism" - the 'wisdom' of not being an "extremist", not being too "engaged" in your beliefs or externalities in general, being a passive animal, and so on.

Just look at not only 9/11, but for an even better example: The paris attacks, and ISIS. Look how opportunistically such phenomena is conceived in terms of a purported dichotomy between human rights liberalism and religious (ethnic, national, whatever is within proximity) fundamentalism. The reality is that the two are conditions of each other - ISIS are NOT these crazy fanatics, they are vulgar thugs, repressed hedonists, turning blind eyes to the most perverse and disgusting indulgences (just as the Catholic church does vis a vis pedophilia). We Communists are the real fanatics, we are the real hypothetical, abstract demon that haunts the minds of bourgeois ideologues, we are the real demons whom they project upon the ISIS cowards.

The US state department released a propaganda film - designed for mass consumption - comparing ISIS's destruction of cultural sights to the Soviet demolition of the Christ the savior cathedral in the 1930's. Be suspicious of bourgeois sentiment against ISIS IDEOLOGICALLY - of course, we want to see them crushed, but the point is that what SCARES people about ISIS is not simply that they behead people and whatever, it is the fact that they are thought to be disrupting sacred domains of life. But the truth is that nothing is further from the truth. Watch this video:

+ YouTube Video

In fact ISIS is trying desperately NOT to come off this way - they want to come off as even greater protectors of everyday life in all its banality. The video EXPLICITLY claims ISIS is maintaining order and "business as usual". ISIS does not offer a radical critique of (near eastern) society, it offers a critique of society's inability to maintain itself, it critiques society's inability to feed the hunger of capital, sustain institutions of private property in a more proficient manner, at a much deeper pathological level. ISIS is not extremist enough - they are normal, all too normal.

Liberals will watch this video and think that underlying all of this "normality" is something much darker. But it's a childish naivety on their part: What we don't want to admit is the fact that ISIS has more or less become a legitimate power in Mosul, it isn't simply putting it's citizens in chains - the 'business as usual' function of capitalism is completely left intact, and this is what puzzles people who watch the video. Of course it's propaganda, but Mosul is home to 2 million people. What resistance has been put up, at a significant level? Of course there is fear - but its present inhabitants, the Sunni population, were living in such hell before, for them, ISIS is really not all that different. I do not mean to say ISIS is no worse, but that in the context of the conditions faced by the impoverished Sunni population in Iraq, ISiS is no less legitimate than the previous government, riddled with corruption.

No, frankly, it is not. I can't even begin to fathom how you have arrived at this conclusion. Perhaps at a superficial level this may be right - but you missed Marx's point: His point was not to demonstrate some eternal condition of man, but to demonstrate that religious controversies are inherently worldly controversies, and consciousness of these worldly - historical, social controversies does away with the necessity of religion. Hence, Marx will even violently disagree with Feuerbach who talks of a "religion of humanity" to replace superstitious religions - for Marx, religion becomes fully, totally and wholly destroyed at the onset of man being conscious of his social being, at the onset of man seizing his world-historical destiny in his own hands. This is why Engels will talk about how the English workers, when striking, were not only atheists as a matter of self-identification, but were atheists in practice: Their practical engagement in the class struggle, even at an economic level, replaced the power of theology.

Aside from the atheism of Communism, there has NEVER been a world-historical theological dispute since the thirty years war, more or less. What we see today is precisely not religion at all, but something else - you may call it what you wish, but it is not religion. Religion, as it had a place before the modern era, that is. There is nothing in common between Evangelicalism, Islamic fundamentalism, or even Eastern spiritualism with how older religions functioned. These either guise inherently national differences (The "Sunni/Shia" conflict in the near east), or are substitutes for political action - or both. People in the middle east right now are not fighting for the dominance of these or that ancient beliefs. Shias are not trying to convert Sunnis, and Sunnis, whatever they might say, are not trying to convert Shias. It is not a world-historic religious conflict, but a new kind of barbarism. We do NOT live in a post-secular era, our epoch is just as irreligious as it ever was.

So your question is a silly one: You ask us if there can be a society without religion. But in global capitalist society, religion, at the level of world history, IS EFFECTIVELY already dead! Religions in previous epochs were not substitutes for rationality or knowledge, which is why even as far as antiquity goes, from Greece to Rome, "theology" and "science" were not distinguishable. The Romans even disdained 'superstition' (they were still superstitious, but not in a way that anyone at the time could have understood) at a superficial level, it didn't conflict with their theological principles. It was not until the Renaissance that this became significant.

Well no, most prominent people in general are not going to be religious. They will be agnostic, "atheists" and so on. That is becuase THERE IS ONLY ONE religion in capitalist society - THERE IS ONLY ONE acknowledged god in capitalist society, and that is the god of capital. All "religions", insofar as they conflict with each other, conflict only insofar as they compete for who prostrates the furthest before the idols of capital. This was not so in previous religious conflicts, before capitalism, which encapsulated general historic conflicts (i.e. that would have socially transformative ramifications).

This god of capital, this last superstition, the superstition of the historic and the social, must be unnamed in order for it to reign over our earthly domain. The Communists name their gods, and the Communists alone are the real theological controversy - ONLY the Communists can be atheists in the truest sense of the word, without any superstition, without any belief in a big other (whether a "god" or "nature"), without any belief in anything beyond themselves as social beings.

What you say is purely playing with abstractions, so arbitrarily that it's actually laughable. Let's go, one by one, and actually think about these qualification of supposed equivalence critically:

Communism has a set definition of logic - Communism entails a new and distinct form of logic, yes. So did the (natural) scientific revolution in the 17th century and beyond.

rules - Being that we have an entirely different approach to 'logic', the notion that 'rules' operate in the same way is ridiculous. What do you mean by 'rules'? What 'rules' are you speaking of, and how, in your mind, do you imagine them to be enforced? There is a distinct morality of Communism, yes. But this morality is but a reflection of the prerogatives of a real collective who seek to supersede our present condition. This entails negative and positive moral connotations, but "morality" is an abstraction. Words, 'morals' alone are not going to motivate people to shed their blood for something.

the Communist Manifesto (solemn complement, universal basis of consolation and justification) - I understand you are plainly an ignorant person, and this is why I'm going easy on you - but you must realize you are talking out of your ass. The Communist manifesto is the "solemn complement, universal basis of consolation and justification"? The communist manifesto was a PRACTICAL, rhetorical document written in the context of 1848. So bankrupt is this - utterly juvenile elevation of the document to 'holy status' by bourgeois ideologues just because they need to find some sacred text that underlies a movement they will never be able to understand, that if one merely had ELEMENTARY knowledge oft this document, they would know that already, decades later, Marx and Engels would contemplate writing a new manifesto, recognizing that the purported (by liberals in the 20th & 21st century) 'bible of Communism' had become outdated and irrelevant.

That is how abominably stupid the notion is. As for Kapital, again, wrong - you will not find any single sacred document for the simple reason that we only find these documents useful insfoar as they relate to our present condition. Kapital won't do shit as far as relating to capitalism in the 21st, or even 20th century without offering an active approximation of it in a methodological way. Kapital's significance, rather than being some commanding doctrine, was that it was the first of its kind insofar as it was a scientific understnading of the inner-workings of capitalism. We take the book seriously because as it happens, many things remain true of capitalism today vis a vis capitalism of hte late 19th century. Some things, however, are different, but only the method used in capital, infused with the dialectic and insights only capable of being wrought by anti-capitalist French radicalism, can adequately explain the inner-workings of capitalism at any stage.

preach the benefits of such a society (spiritual point) Virtually all real examples of Communist agitation in the west, at least before the cold war, were never like this - "preaching the benefits" of such a society. That is ridiculous. Communists in immediate struggles certainly 'preached' the benefits of immediate reforms, but that's it.

What you say is silly because nobody needs to 'preach' to people that a society without humiliation, without war, without exploitation and so on would be "beneficial". The point is whether or not this is possible - and the superstitions of conventional ideology not only disallow acknowledging its possibility , but disallow one to even think in such terms.

and have a God (Karl Marx) - so I assume the qualifications for a god here are: "thing" that is recognized as prominent? How in any meaningful sense, outside of pseudo-ironic use, does Marx take the role of where - say - the Christian god used to be for Communists? Marx is not even some Christ-like figure in that sense. I mean, sure, comparing him to some old testament prophet might do well for a good laugh, but comparing him to a deity doesn't even make sense at the level of irony. Just stop.

defined world views on humanity (i.e giving to the poor) - in which case, Communism is merely another word for charity. Who knew the clerics, popes, and all philanthropic bourgeois individuals were Communists.

Religion as we have defined it means nothing more than systematized superstition, making things deliberately unknowable and mysterious in a way that is approximated to our own conditions of life. Religion is only superstitious insofar as our participation in capitalism requires superstition - not only in the marekt, or things on a superficial level, but in grand notions of 'natural', cosmic or divine inevitabilities. What will the averge person tell you if you ask "Why does money exist?", or if you ask "Why do markets exist?", "Why does war exist?", "Why do jobs exist?". How is the response you get NOT superstitious? How is the aversion towards Communist "social engineering" not superstitious in thinking "nature will come back to haunt us"?

Any attempt to understand religion outside of superstition is playing with worthless abstractions, and it is by nature inconsistent. There is no such thing as an agnostic. Belief is a matter of practice, at an active level. What you truly believe is wrought not from what you identify with or what you say, but from how you act. So bourgeois atheists will deplore us demolishing churches, mosques and temples, they will deplore our grotesque anti-religious campaigns. These will DISTURB them. Why? Because they are just as religious as anyone else.

If you thought that was long, bear in mind I could go on and on about this topic. I kept this at a bare minimum - it is so much more complex than you would think.

What a hellish nightmare. Cops coming into your life and using force to make you not do (or do) certain things. Man why even bother with revolution?

Well, even in a post-revolutionary society you would have to have some mechanism to punish people for hurting each other at the very least. I don't believe that people will stop being violent, for example, even after a socialist revolution succeeds. You would need some method to enforce social rules.

Our moral intuitions were already established long before religion affixed itself to them like a cancer. Do you really think we need religion to feel there's something abject about killing a fellow human being or practicing incest?

Saying that religion is required for a society to function is a functionalist thesis à la Durkheim. When pushed to its extremes, it leads to the absurd assertion that everything in society has a necessary and useful function, which automatically leads to conservatism: everything is alright, nothing has to change.

Yes, functionalism in bourgeois sociology is generally conservative. But so is relying on intuitions. After all, we know what the intuitions of many people concerning homosexuality are. But no, murder will not be a problem in socialism because there will be no material reason for murder, not because people are thinking the right thoughts or because the True and Real Morality has revealed themselves to them. Morals and values are one of those things that will be thrown overboard in the transition. As for incest, sure, it'll probably exist. You find it icky. Big deal.

Marx predicted the state would wither away. That's not the same thing as a government.

Albert Einstein:
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

On the rest of your response

If this is really how communist think, then we are all fucked. There are so many issues with your analysis, that it would take me weeks to reply to every single one of them.

I joined this forum to understand the communist mindset, and hopefully get converted over to your way of thinking. However don't think that will ever happen anytime soon.

I am a liberal (a true liberal/conservative, not one the current crop of liberals out there), and believe that people should be able to speak out about the injustice of this world. It took a liberal to speak out about slavery, gay rights, women's rights, workers rights and Roman and Ottoman empires for us to change attitudes. It required someone to say "mate this isn't right, I am going to change it". The collective just went along with what their leaders told them to do, if they dared to speak out, then they would succumb to "sufficient social pressure and, as a last resort, force". I saw that when you guys attacked ckaihatsu for not agreeing to your view of the Sharia Law issue.

The world we live in now (predominantly socialist world) is fucked, and is not based on the core capitalist values (i.e if you want wealth and/or happiness, go get it!!!!).

Its sad, that the left want to change the world, however they have no idea of what this new world looks like or even that the world will be better a better place. Its just opposition to capitalism and liberalism, because their leader/God (Karl Marx) said so. You guys talk about war, but what is the point of such a "revolution"?

I think these video's show us what this world will be like in 10 years time (if not what our current world looks like).

+ YouTube Video

+ YouTube Video

Thanks for showing me what I fucked up world we are going to live in 10 years time.

Let me leave you with a some quotes from Albert Einstein (why? because thats who I feel like quoting today):
- "In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep."

- "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

- "He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

What a load of shit. If you're gonna reply and act all mighty, then respond to the man's points.

Here's one Einstein quote though, considering you really respect the man:

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."

"I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of humanity."

From the wiki:

Which is a different type of socialism then one you advocate for. And I agree with Georgism socialism (which is actually liberal in nature).

Nice strawman. You do realize that discussion is not possible if you misrepresent our views?

I am representing them as most people see them. What exactly did i get wrong?

You mis(s)ed the part where you should read Marx as holy writ.

See what happens when I try to play nice?

"Oh wow, Einstein was so smart, I look up to him, he was a genius brah, we should all be wise as he".

No, actually shut the fuck up. Are you five fucking years old? You run away from responding and addressing my points by hiding behind the authority of Einstein? Who is compeltely fucking worthless as far as the topics of concern are, here? This is literally how these STUPID fucks think: "Einstein was smart, much smarter den da rafiq, so im jutst gonna arbitrarily provide worthless quotes by him to justify my refusal to take rafiq seriously like an adult'.

NO, let's get one thing clear, Ziggy: You are a reactionary, and the post in question has given us all the fucking answers we need. The fact that you are so horrified by it brings joy and light to my day, I am so glad it repels you. I am so glad you are utterly HORRIFIED by it, and why? Because it doesn't fit in your neat little false dichotomy between the "rational, responsible" conservative and the ultra politically correct liberal. Yes, dog, be very repelled.

No, we're actauly just going to assume that you aren't capble of replying to htem, yo fucking idiot. Who the fuck argues like this? "Oh, if I wanted, I could spend weeks destroying you, but nah, I won't". And I take your word for it? put your money where your mouth is, child.

We don't want you, and we don't need you.

LOL, do you ACTUALLY FUCKING BELIEVE THIS? No, no, please tell me - do you ACTUALLY FUCKING BELIEVE that "liberals" were at the forefront of these struggles. For one, let's take slavery. Did liberals lead the struggle to abolish it? NO, because they were not distinguished AS liberals but as Jacobins, as American Jacobins (abolitionists) and so on - in other words, radicals and extremists who were willing to kill and die for the abolition of slavery. "Liberals" in the European sense of the word had NOTHING to do with these struggles, in fact, they were often times at the exact opposite fucking fence of them. The notion that it was liberals who "spoke out" about "worker's rights" and not Communists, anarchists and radicals, the notion that workers have the rights that they have today because soft, and cheap predecessors to facebook liberals "spoke out" is literally the dumbest fucking thing I have read in 2 months. Are you trolling us? LIBERALS led these struggels? REALLY?

Even in the context of the 19th century, to be a liberal would be a RADICAL position, because this was under the backdrop of feudalism's destruction. The meaning of the word liberal in 2015, which designates passivity, being "rational", taking hte middle way, and compromise, did not have the same connotations in the early 19th century where it denoted struggle to the death, revolution, ETC. - but again, the word is so fucking muddied and vague, one has classical liberals, one has liberal conservatives, ETC. - it literally means NOTHING. Stop talking out of your fucking ass.

Ladies and gentlemen, liberals ended the Roman empire, a thousand and a half years ago before any liberals in any meaningful sense of the word even existed. Sure, liberals brought down teh Ottoman empire, but to be a liberal in the context of the early 20th century and to be a liberal right now in the context of hwo I use the term are ENTIRELY FUCKIING DIFFERENT. I speak of liberals vis a vis Communists. THE context of the Young Turks was liberals vis a vis the traditional, conservative order. IT is an ENTIRELY different usage of the word, you slimy opportunist.

Lol. Honestly, just lol. If this is how you think history has taken its course since the 19th century, people randomly going "Mate, this isn't right", I honestly just feel bad for your stupidity. People in the 19th century, their moral compass and their moral standards conformed to ours here in 2015 - people spontaneously got the gut feelnig that something was wrong because they knew that in 2015 it would be considered wrong. A heavenely, divine voice spoke to them, that is. nevermind the fact that demanding the FULL ABOLITION OF SLAVERY was a RADICAL and EXTREMIST act. Arguing for COMPLETE women's equality was RADICAL and EXTREMIST. You have NO NOTION of not only these particular struggles and their history, but history in general. You plainly are talking out of your fucking ass.

The whole history of the past 200 years was one of revolutionaries and Communsits in power, with brave and noble liberals speaking out. We Communists and radicals were in power, having everyone go along with what we say, you know, enforcing slavery, traditional family values, and whatever, and all of a sudden some guy went "Mate, that isn't right". And now we live in the world we do today: AT THE EXPENSE of engaged partisanship, extremism, struggle and radicalism. This is the fucking fantasy land Ziggy has constructed, has told himself. DO YOU ACTUALLY FUCKING THINK THIS?

Moreover, the reactionaries are so cute in how they are articulating the present circumstances; Like political correctness. The fucking opportunists are no different than how right wingers will say "Ye, we're just like Martin Luther King Jr. because we're against big government" and whatever. It's purely opportunism and it's fucking disgusting. Sorry child, your reactionary filth does not exist in synchronicity with the great historically progressive struggles, for the simple reason that like today, "progressive" struggles were admired by most people up to a certain point and were popular in intellectual circles, and indeed, abolitionists, proto-feminists, and gay rights activists were loud, intrusive, and 'totalitarian' in how they wanted to force their beliefs on others. You're nothing more than a fucking coward and a piece of shit: You as a reactionary hold on to a persona of "speaking out" merely by respecting struggles which are now dead and falsely comparing your intellectual cowardice and weakness to that of those who proceeded this epoch. Good job, any bumfuck idiot can do that, and you're wrong.

Do you actually fucking think we live in a predominantly socialist world? Do you ACTUALLY FUCKING THINK THIS?

In other words, not based on abstract pseudo-ethical values which are nothing more than supplements and ideological mystification of the very real, concrete, EXISTING world capitalist (oh sorry, "socialist") world order. The reason a society cannot be based off of "if you want wealth, go get it" IS BECAUSE THIS HAS NO REAL PRACTICAL MEANING, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE IN ANY PRACTICAL WAY, it is a MYSTIFICATION, an ideological trope.

Its sad, that the left want to change the world, however they have no idea of what this new world looks like or even that the world will be better a better place. Its just opposition to capitalism and liberalism, because their leader/God (Karl Marx) said so. You guys talk about war, but what is the point of such a "revolution"?

As it happens, you disgusting piece of shit, you are not a liberal but plainly a reactionary. Of course bourgeois liberalism underlies this - but within the present constellation of ideological networks, you are squarely a reactionary. "This is what I think the world will look like in 10 years'. No, child, be assured it won't: All the harking for blood of political correctness, rests upon the desire to unleash the true face of your rotten and sick order, and NOTHING MORE, and all political correctness represents is the attempt to guise this.

If we Communists had our way, it would be much more fucked up than those two videos. The videos you linked are literally the most juvenile trash I have seen in so long - it is literally PLAIN fucking stupdity. it fails to even articulate teh essential qualities of our "politically correct" society and only caters to the reactionary, pathological nightmares of disgusting scum like you. It has no bearing in reality. Like anti-semitism, you attempt to articulate events in a way that conforms to your puny standards of reason, and thus, we get juvenile comedy like the videos provided. "Jail time for disagreeing with a women".

Yes, that's totally where our society is headed. That's totally the underlying logical conclusion of political correctness. No, instead, the juvenile minds of reactionaries and how the phenomena relates to their pathological fantasies gives us the conclusion of this video. South Park liberalism, the ethics of doing nothing, being "moderate". Fuck you, fuck your middle-way bullshit, we are not intimidated and it has no effect on real Communists - is it supposed to BOTHER us that we are "extremists" and that we violate teh sacred alters of postmodern consumerist liberalism? Boo fucking hoo, we don't care.

"Brah I'm so edgy, like, I'm expressing consumerist liberal ethics that you can find on a TV commercial in any given 10 minutes".

Yeah, don't be a square, don't be a conformist, a sheeple, BE YOUR OWN YOU!!!!!!!1111

Shut the fuck up with your worthless cliche's.

Einstein said this in an entirely different context, using it here is nothing more than opportunism, again.

But to play the devil's advocate, no one really cares if they earn Einstein's contempt, no one here is going to be so phrased by such cheap petty bourgeois values. The grand majority of people on this Earth do not have the privilee of being special little snowflakes, and the grand majority of those who do think they are unique do so at their own peril - i.e. "Yeah man, fuck those unions, be independent!" and it goes on and on and on, eve4n in a seemingly non-practical, ideological manner. We despise consumerist individualism and your petty bourgeois values.

We have nothing to say to you. You are an adversary, we have nothing to say to the enemy but this: When our time comes, we will so acutely destroy your precious order, we will so acutely offend the core basis of what it even means to be a living, breathing human in your mind that you will voluntarily commit suicide without our help - you will do so on your own accord because all of your gods will be defiled, all of your holy places destroyed, we will leave nothing left on this Earth for you to hold on to, you parasite, you disgusting reactionary, that life for you will not even be worth living.