Religion in a communist society

[Yawn]

Not even a revolution can simply just knock off the religious views of the people. Some people will have been raised strictly in their religion and will not turn it down. Yet, as Nin mentioned for people to truly be free they must have the mindset of seeing things from a wider point of view.

[Rainsborough]

Organised religions have always existed as a kind of 'blessing' on capitalism. "Put up with what you've got, no matter how bad, you'll be rewarded in heaven", so as long as capitalism exists, religion will exist and vice versa. They have a symbiotic need for each other, lose one and the other will soon follow.
However, don't expect either to simply 'wither' away.

[Rafiq]

The Bolsheviks up to 1928 didn't have a big problem with Religion.

As I recall, among Muslims and Non Orthodox Christians the Soviets were very popular, and Lenin was too.

[PolPotist]

The Religious should be purged or "removed" from society.

removed can also mean reeducation, but religion should not be perpetuated.

[PolPotist]

The religious should be purged.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Religious should be purged or "removed" from society.

removed can also mean reeducation, but religion should not be perpetuated.

Actually Marxists should not explicitly support militant atheism. Religions that are not explicitly reactionary or discriminatory should not be politically banned. The freedom of belief is a fundamental human right.

But we should also not shield religions from any kind of rational criticism, and religious thought should not be encouraged in a socialist society.

[Trigonometry]

It seems many people equate religion with church powers which although often come hand in hand are not the same.

I believe should a communist society arrive, the idea of purging 'religions' would have greater repercussions than one would think and a true communist society should be an ultimate form of democracy rather than hammer and sickles and che guevara shirts, and in democracy rights of personal religious beliefs should be included. Communism should be a form of governance rather than a complete life style, if there is great emphasis on purging of religion for 'enlightenment' all it would lead to is personality cults which become institutionalised religion itself, as it further promotes an idea of communist/ socialist identity which inevitably leads to idea of conformity. Look at the cultural revolution, that is the result of a communist identity, the cultural revolution can be alikened to the Spanish inquisition, the red guards are the inquisitors, and communism is the religion. It simply resulted in Mao being the prophet and Maoist ideas becoming the state religion, and the politburo became the clergy.
If a communist government is to be a truely democratic government it should not be inclined to certain set of views and creating an identity, which would cause it to transform in a Red bannered theocracy.

[Invincible Summer]

It seems many people equate religion with church powers which although often come hand in hand are not the same.

I believe should a communist society arrive, the idea of purging 'religions' would have greater repercussions than one would think and a true communist society should be an ultimate form of democracy rather than hammer and sickles and che guevara shirts, and in democracy rights of personal religious beliefs should be included. Communism should be a form of governance rather than a complete life style, if there is great emphasis on purging of religion for 'enlightenment' all it would lead to is personality cults which become institutionalised religion itself, as it further promotes an idea of communist/ socialist identity which inevitably leads to idea of conformity. Look at the cultural revolution, that is the result of a communist identity, the cultural revolution can be alikened to the Spanish inquisition, the red guards are the inquisitors, and communism is the religion. It simply resulted in Mao being the prophet and Maoist ideas becoming the state religion, and the politburo became the clergy.
If a communist government is to be a truely democratic government it should not be inclined to certain set of views and creating an identity, which would cause it to transform in a Red bannered theocracy.

I do agree with you to an extent that communism isn't a lifestyle. However, I do think that the theoretical basis for the Cultural revolution is important; no doubt there were excesses but the concept of basically encouraging criticism of "the olds" is important in forging a new society.

While I'm not sure I'd go as far as actually physically destroying remnants of the old culture et al, a concerted effort (i.e. a dedicated campaign) at deciding what is wrong and what could be improved about old society seems like a fairly structured way to go ahead with plans, rather than playing it by ear.

[Trigonometry]

I do agree with you to an extent that communism isn't a lifestyle. However, I do think that the theoretical basis for the Cultural revolution is important; no doubt there were excesses but the concept of basically encouraging criticism of "the olds" is important in forging a new society.

While I'm not sure I'd go as far as actually physically destroying remnants of the old culture et al, a concerted effort (i.e. a dedicated campaign) at deciding what is wrong and what could be improved about old society seems like a fairly structured way to go ahead with plans, rather than playing it by ear.

The cultural revolution was far more than just criticism of conservative ideas, which would in itself be an expression democracy, but rather it was a state sponsored move of setting an orthodoxy in socialist ideas (Maoist), that is it was not that some groups of society opposing a certain set of ideas but rather the state itself banning all ideas but Maoism. Is this not alike religious inquisitions? Isn't a state's absolute support of an orthodox view on a matter (in this case just about all matters from family values to education) and active denouncing other ones exactly why theocracies and clergical institutions are flawed? Both tell you how/what to think one on grounds of the word of God/ other in the name of being revolutionary and progressive.
It would be no democracy, and quite frankly I would prefer neoliberal democracy over such a state, as at least in a neoliberal democracy I could say I am a proud catholic without the state denouncing and punishing me for such a view. As a truely democratic state, no persons should be penalised for whatever personal views they hold however ridiculous, and thus in a truely democratic socialist society should a person say they are a fascist, the state itself should not actively penalise against them.
In essence socialism should be a strictly intellectual view of governance that the vast majority choose to support and recognise like how it is almost universally accepted that slavery should be abolished (whether this has happened or not is beside the point) rather than a state sponsored set of dogmatic doctrines to which all standards are set

[Diello]

Actually Marxists should not explicitly support militant atheism.

What is the phrase "militant atheist" here used to mean?

I've only heard the phrase used to pejoratively describe atheists who criticize religion in harsh terms. This usage obviously doesn't make sense-- in my opinion, "militant atheist" would be more accurately applied to atheists who want to forcibly eradicate religion-- but it's the only way I've heard it used so far.

[Queercommie Girl]

What is the phrase "militant atheist" here used to mean?

I've only heard the phrase used to pejoratively describe atheists who criticize religion in harsh terms. This usage obviously doesn't make sense-- in my opinion, "militant atheist" would be more accurately applied to atheists who want to forcibly eradicate religion-- but it's the only way I've heard it used so far.

My point is that while religions certainly should not be shielded from rational criticism, any form of religion that is not reactionary or discriminatory should also not be politically banned.

Genuine Marxists should support, in principle, maximising democratic rights for everyone, including the freedom of belief, as long as they are not explicitly reactionary or discriminatory.

[Diello]

My point is that while religions certainly should not be shielded from rational criticism, any form of religion that is not reactionary or discriminatory should also not be politically banned.

Genuine Marxists should support, in principle, maximising democratic rights for everyone, including the freedom of belief, as long as they are not explicitly reactionary or discriminatory.

Am I to take from that that "militant atheist" is generally used in this environment to describe an atheist who favors the forcible eradication of all religion?

[Magón]

Am I to take from that that "militant atheist" is generally used in this environment to describe an atheist who favors the forcible of all religion?

Look up info on Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and there's two other guys I can't remember off hand who are considered Militant Atheists. (They're all well known for one reason or another.)

Militant Atheism doesn't exactly mean to deal with a religion with force, such as violence, but being heavily critical, etc. of religions can also be Militant Atheism.

[Diello]

Look up info on Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and there's two other guys I can't remember off hand who are considered Militant Atheists. (They're all well known for one reason or another.)

Militant Atheism doesn't exactly mean to deal with a religion with force, such as violence, but being heavily critical, etc. of religions can also be Militant Atheism.

Why shouldn't Marxists support that sort of criticism of religion, then?

[Magón]

Why shouldn't Marxists support that sort of criticism of religion, then?

I dunno, ask a Marxist that question, not an Anarchist. I'm just here for the Sectarianism and Doughnuts.

[Queercommie Girl]

Am I to take from that that "militant atheist" is generally used in this environment to describe an atheist who favors the forcible eradication of all religion?

There isn't a standard definition for this term. Personally I don't oppose rational criticism of religion on an intellectual level, e.g. Dawkins-style, but I oppose explicit political banning of non-reactionary and non-discriminatory forms of religious practice.

So that's what I mean by the term, others have different definitions. But obviously people like Dawkins might indeed support the political banning of many religions even if they don't propose it themselves explicitly, since they see religions as some kind of extremely reactionary thing.

[Amphictyonis]

most. fucked up. videos. ever.

Benny Hinn also has pretty weird connections to crime, has personal jets and bodyguards, etc., but still asks for money--which I was going to call unchristian but its the same as the pope so it's pretty damn christian.

Having said that, there's a really good article that I think I maybe read from a Bordigist website that said something like "religion cannot be negatively suppressed; it can only be positively superceded" which is a good approach. Marx (in the critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) says that religion is both an expression of suffering and a protest against suffering through mystified means--i don't think religion will go away until people actually consciously control their lives and their world (which won't happen overnight after the revolution), as people learn to run their own lives any kind of interventionist God makes less and less sense and fulfills less and less of a need, and religion becomes mostly cultural attachment to particular myths, and I think once people stop being totally powerless in society, the control these myths exert over them and the guilt that convinces the next generation to continue the traditions will have less of a material base and it will be much easier for people to discard religion altogether. But no one should force anyone to.

Well, there's still the problem of angst in the face of total annihilation after death. If I could believe in some eternal life in heaven after death I would. Trust me. It would make things so much easier to deal with or at the least comforting. Personally I'm afraid of death and in turn am somewhat afraid of life. This is the problem Kierkegaard had and it's why he turned to religion. This is why most people do. Nietzsche, on the other hand, went the opposite direction, he ended up going mad

[Franz Fanonipants]

Why shouldn't Marxists support that sort of criticism of religion, then?

Because they all lack a dimension of material analysis. For ex: blaming religion for conflicts based on resources and the will of capital. Most militant atheists of the Dawkins/Hitchens stripe probably aren't Marxists for the simple fact that they've basically discarded any sort of Base-Superstructure analysis, instead focusing on a sort of strange idealism and Dawkins going on about "poisonous memes" and other bullshit.

Most of them are also basically fronts for racist, anti-Islamic scaretalk.

[Cijji Dubz]

Not sure what I have to say is pertinent here, but I'm a Neopagan and I'm not certain that I or other folks at all like me are contained by what folks here are referring to as religion.

I don't think that my religion contains the repressive and anti-intellectual elements attributed to mainstream Judaeo-Christo-Islamism etc. but it seems that my religion would be just as banned as those oppressors would be by those who oppose religion.

As I say, not sure how pertinent my comments are, but I submit them for whatever they're worth.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't think that my religion contains the repressive and anti-intellectual elements attributed to mainstream Judaeo-Christo-Islamism etc. but it seems that my religion would be just as banned as those oppressors would be by those who oppose religion.

snrkk

E: Neopaganism - Way more intellectual than your summae theologica/rabbinical scholars/imams.