Results 1 to 20 of 20
The question i'm having a hard time understanding is what kind of role will Religion have in this new Communist system that we are trying to bring about and how will it function in a comminist society if all the followers are Athesiest and don't believe in Religion or a God. We just can't go and tell every one that what they believe is wrong and that they should cast off their belifes because we think diffrently. I just think that in order to have a new Communist society we can't have religion be part of this new society because Religion directly contadicts what we are trying to acomplish in this new society.
Workers of the World Unite, you have nothing to Lose but your Chains.
-Karl Marx
Death to this Capitalist system
It won't have any public role at all...unless people get complacent and let it revive.
If that happens, then it will serve as an attractant to all forms of counter-revolutionary ideology...and bad things will result up to and including the restoration of class society.
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
How would that happen, why do you think that - That ultimately if religion gets back into a public role? Negative, unless the religion has a capitalistic and/or hierarchial nature like Protestantism and/or extreme hinduism.
Religions do have hierarchy "built-in".
But that's not the real problem with them or at least not the main problem.
Because religions are all based on lies, they attract liars and hustlers...precisely the kind of people with the most direct interest in restoring some form of class society where they'd be on top.
Religions actually do best under some form of ancient despotism (that's the kind of class society they first appeared under)...but they'll accept capitalism as a step on the road back to what they really want.
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
With a society that predominately rejects religion, what problem is it if people believe in a higher entity?
No one has the right to repress anyone's freedom of speech, if you do; then in my eyes your no worse than a fascist. The only people who have no right to free speech, are those that seek to invalidate other peoples rights or freedoms. This does not mean we have the right to stop them thinking their ideas. So long as they never put them into practice, or attempt to take power.
Religion is not dangerous, and no matter how evil you consider it, you cannot stop people worshiping by force, and consider yourself a good Anarchist or Communist.
"How you cling to your purity, young man! How afraid you are to soil your hands! All right, stay pure! What good will it do? Why did you join us? Purity is an idea for a yogi or a monk. You intellectuals and Bourgeois anarchists use it as a pretext for doing nothing. To do nothing, to remain motionless, arms at your sides, wearing kids gloves. Well, I have dirty hands. Right up to the elbows. I've plunged them in the filth and blood. But what do you hope? Do you think you'll govern innocently?"-Jean-Paul Sartre
Religion and philosophy will flourish as an art but religion will be purer because it will no longer be reacionary and used for state-manipulation.
"We are now becoming a mass party all at once, changing abruptly to an open organisation, and it is inevitable that we shall be joined by many who are inconsistent (from the Marxist standpoint), perhaps we shall be joined even by some Christian elements, and even by some mystics. We have sound stomachs and we are rock-like Marxists. We shall digest those inconsistent elements. Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the Party will never make us forget about the freedom of organising people into those voluntary associations known as parties."
--Lenin
Socialist Party (Debs Tendency)
The problem, Anarcho Rebel, is that Religions tend to be constructed in such a way as "invalidate other peoples rights or freedoms". Religion has been a historically reactionary force not because of some quirk, but because religions, with their grand and universal conceptions are in and of themselves like, for example, facism, inherently possessing certain characteristics. Would facists be tolerated in a post-revolutionary society? Hopefully, the question wouldn't arise - that is, we'll have undermined its underlying causes. Same thing with religion.
As to people's personal myth frameworks, some people may continue to loosely believe in Gods of some sort -as long as it reamins suitably vague and irrelevent to the rhe practice of their daily lives. This is distinct from the institutions and dogmas of religion. I may believe that the universe is actually a giant inverted apple. It's silly, and I'll probably be laughed at, but, whateva - it's only when I begin developing a looney set of practice shooting people based on the inverted-apple-nature of the universe that we've got a problem.
The problem with religion is that it necessarily implies practice based on pre-existing dogmas, rather than real circumstances.
Eeeg. One would hope that art in a revolutionary society would be less . . . stale . . .
The life we have conferred upon these objects confronts us as something hostile and alien.
Formerly Virgin Molotov Cocktail (11/10/2004 - 21/08/2013)
What is wrong with being well-educated in Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Christ, Confucius, Sun Tzu, Descartes, Nietzche, Marx, Ghandi, and Hegel?
Are you trying to keep the masses ignorant and obedient?
Communism must be multicultural, or do you believe that religion is not part of culture?
"We are now becoming a mass party all at once, changing abruptly to an open organisation, and it is inevitable that we shall be joined by many who are inconsistent (from the Marxist standpoint), perhaps we shall be joined even by some Christian elements, and even by some mystics. We have sound stomachs and we are rock-like Marxists. We shall digest those inconsistent elements. Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the Party will never make us forget about the freedom of organising people into those voluntary associations known as parties."
--Lenin
Socialist Party (Debs Tendency)
Yr view of philosophy is disconcertingly narrow . . .
On the contrary, there is an important distinction between understanding something and allowing it to flourish. I'm inclined to think that one ought to be well read in all sorts of ideas - and that the opportunity for people to familiarize themselves with all sorts of ideas must be present - "Let 100 flowers bloom, 100 schools of thought contend."
That said, while everyone ought to familiarize themselves with fascism - I'm of the opinon that all fascists should be shot. Harsh? Hardly, given the nature of fascism.
"Culture" is a product of social domination of one class over another. Communism should be anticultural, and provide for the meaningful development of individuals within the real context of their own lives - not the perpetuation of sick mythos.
The life we have conferred upon these objects confronts us as something hostile and alien.
Formerly Virgin Molotov Cocktail (11/10/2004 - 21/08/2013)
Why not?
Even now, there are all kinds of "worship" that are prohibited by law...human sacrifice, for example. Ritual cannibalism, for another.
If you prefer "faith healing" to modern medicine for your child and the kid dies, you are in deep shit.
So yes, we can certainly stop public worship of any kind. What people do privately is of no significance.
Your assertion that "religion is not dangerous" simply reflects your ignorance of the history of superstition.
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
If you are trying to outlaw worship on the grounds that people have done some dangerous things in the name of Religion then you might as well include every ideology ever in there as well, including your own.
A world without Toleration is a dark and austere one.
We don't tolerate slavery now...has that made the world "dark and austere"?
If we decide not to tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia -- will that make the world more "dark and austere" or less?
Every human society tolerates some things and represses others.
A world that doesn't tolerate superstition will be both more rational and more humane.
And very far from "dark and austere".
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
True, but to some people, Communism "invalidates other people's rights or freedoms". Why, then, should they accept our ideology and allow us to have free speech?
You're making that sound far too much like its necessarily the case and i don't think it is. Given that if we didn't tolerate Religion there would be a lot less wars, however, I'm sure we'd find other means to destroy ourseleves, under a different guise or ideologue.
I'd agree with you on one point though: we shouldn't tolerate members of a Religion who are fundamentalist like Islamic terrorist groups and so on.
Private AND Public worship should be allowed. Religion coupled into a position of power would not. People may VOTE on something based on what their religion says, but.....if they are given a key-job they will not be allowed to use that job to impose their religion on other people and will have to be neutral
Why?
Neutral?
When the "eternal fate" of someone's "soul" is at stake???
There is no such thing as a "neutral believer".
Good grief!
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
Your assuming people want to legislate their faith.
I'm a Christian and I do not want to legislate my faith - my faith is my own and my private practice.
"We are now becoming a mass party all at once, changing abruptly to an open organisation, and it is inevitable that we shall be joined by many who are inconsistent (from the Marxist standpoint), perhaps we shall be joined even by some Christian elements, and even by some mystics. We have sound stomachs and we are rock-like Marxists. We shall digest those inconsistent elements. Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the Party will never make us forget about the freedom of organising people into those voluntary associations known as parties."
--Lenin
Socialist Party (Debs Tendency)
You might be a "nice guy".
The people who are really serious about religion are "not nice"...and have demonstrated their desires to see their various faiths enacted into law and enforced at gunpoint.
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
I'm hoping that people of faith (not just Christians) do not become less serious about their religion but become more rational about it and raise questions.
I believe that a good education will help with this, and that is why a broad subject education will be one of the first task of the revolution.
"We are now becoming a mass party all at once, changing abruptly to an open organisation, and it is inevitable that we shall be joined by many who are inconsistent (from the Marxist standpoint), perhaps we shall be joined even by some Christian elements, and even by some mystics. We have sound stomachs and we are rock-like Marxists. We shall digest those inconsistent elements. Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the Party will never make us forget about the freedom of organising people into those voluntary associations known as parties."
--Lenin
Socialist Party (Debs Tendency)
Here's what the "not-so-nice" Christian fascists are up to in the UN...
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/di...8607/index.php
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
