What is worse, religion or capitalism?

[Ol' Dirty]

Capitalism, definately!

[LSD]

Please do not start polls in this forum, it's here for serious discussion, not opinion surveys. In fact, it's an error that you were even able to create a poll in the first place.

Also, there is never cause to create a closed poll, as you did here. What's the point of raising a discussion topic and then not allowing discussion?

Poll deleted.
Thread Opened.

In terms of the question itself, it's really quite ludicrous. One cannot "seperate" social phenomena like that. Capitalism and religion are deeply interwoven: religion supports capitalism and capitalism fuels religion.

In a communist society, there would be no need for superstitious dogma and a truly materialist proletariat cannot help but recognize the inequality of capitalism. Accordingly, the elimination of one will almost certainly precipitate the elimination of the other.

That makes it very hard to assign a hiearchy of blame.

Not to mention that "worse" is a very subjective concept. How exactly are you defining it? Body count?

It's pretty much the only empiracal gauge we've got, but it's a rather tricky one in this cases, isn't it? After all, who's to say whether a death in question was caused by the religion of the rulling class or the class of the rulling class?

When the American rulling class declares war on "radical Islam" is it because they believe them to be "infidels" or because it serves their economic interests ...or is it both?

Furthermore, relgion has been around for longer so it's destruction is obviously greater. Indeed, religion not only predates modern economic concepts, it predates all economic concepts.

This means that millenia before the first slave was whipped, someone was being killed for failing to worship the correct "sacred rock".

But, does that make religion "worse" or just older?

Again, I don't think that there's an answer. Instead, how about we just agree that they're both bad and both legitimate targets of proletarian emancipation.

[Ol' Dirty]

Pardon me, I didn't mean too make such a mistake ! I will not make that mistake in the future. Thank you for telling me this. One problem is, I was not told I could not do this, so it is you and the administrators who are at fault. But I will not do it again.

But what I meant when I asked this question was this: What is more harmful in general, Capitalist ideology, or religious hate and blunder, as they are both philosophies that most on this board disagree with.

Peace.

[Hegemonicretribution]

It really depends what you meant by each term. I would say capitalism because there is inherent conflict there, however, in a few of the broadest senses, religion is not the same.

It is conceivable that a religion could arise without inherent clonflict, however this is unlikely and also misses the irrational nature of religion.

[Ownthink]

They both suck ass.

[drain.you]

capitalism is the greater evil.

[Xvall]

Which religion? Just religion in general? This is important.

[James]

I would agree that the specific religion in question is important to the question, and to any attempts of an answer.

Generally speaking though, i would say that a "free market" society, with lax official social codes is better than any "one way", perscribed by the state for all to follow.

If you meant a "theocracy", then this is exactly what happens. A strict social code is dictated to the people. All have to follow it. For example, take the taliban (whom have just recently cut the head off a headmaster for teaching girls - something which is strictly forbidden).

So essentailly, to me, the question is one of "liberty". Whilst i recognise that free market capitalism has obvious enforced rules of behaviour, as well as numerous unofficial social codes of behaviour, i do believe that it is a system which gives the individual more "freedom" than a theocracy.

I would like to point out that i have no problem with religion when it is a voluntary coming together of people. My support stops when individuals try to force their "way", onto others (such as a theocracy).


Although that is a very general answer to a general question.

[Postteen]

if it's organized religion, the one depends on the other.They're both equally destructive.

[James]

It is simply not true that capitalism needs religion.
Indeed one could argue that for truely succesful free market, a lack of morality (which is often derived from religion) is desirable.

What about football? Opium of the masses too.

[Alexknucklehead]

Originally posted by James@Jan 6 2006, 12:20 PM
What about football? Opium of the masses too.

Yea capitalism or football? That IS a tough one....god forbid the working class having some sort of enjoyment in their existence.

[James]

No... as in football used as an opium of the masses. What is so objectionable to that theory?
(its not mine by the way, its something my old politics/history teacher used to go on about)

[Alexknucklehead]

I have no opinion on it particularly as it equates to the same level of intelligence as saying that no one participating in revolutionary activity of any kind ever, has ever been a fan of some kind of sport. I was objecting to it on the fact that you seemed to be willing to add footbal to a list of evils in society, on the same field as religion and capitalism. <_<

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by James@Jan 6 2006, 02:12 PM
No... as in football used as an opium of the masses. What is so objectionable to that theory?
(its not mine by the way, its something my old politics/history teacher used to go on about)

Football is not some fantasy that blinds people to their situation. It may make miserable circumstances slightly more bearable but the exact same can be said of any enjoyment. Religion does not bring enjoyment or fun, just a pack of lies about how things will get better if you say the right prayers or eat the right food.

The difference between the two is that religion dupes people into thinking that misery and hardship are good and that by accepting that you can go to some magical afterlife/reincarnation/whatever. Football merely distracts while religion lies through its teeth.

[James]

I have no opinion on it particularly as it equates to the same level of intelligence as saying that no one participating in revolutionary activity of any kind ever, has ever been a fan of some kind of sport.

harldy. And if you thought that is what i meant, then your level of intelligence is somewhat questionable&#33;

you seemed to be willing to add footbal to a list of evils in society

Hardly. I think you "read between the lines" a little too much. I was questioning the need for religion in a capitalist society. I then "put out there" the concept that another opium of the masses is football. Obviously, capitalism does not rely upon football. Nor do i think it relies on religion. All these things distract people away from their black and white, social and economic situation.


+ + +

Football is not some fantasy that blinds people to their situation.

I certainly said no such thing. Nor did i mean to imply such a thing. I merely said that it could be described as another opium of the masses. As i also said, it isn&#39;t my idea, but one of my old teachers. To give you the context, she used it rather interestingly to explain the behaviour of another history teacher whom is heavily into chartism/socialism etc, but is also a classic football fan. He&#39;s happy as long as he can watch his matches.

It may make miserable circumstances slightly more bearable but the exact same can be said of any enjoyment.

I quite agree. Although you must admit, football is a rather special enjoyment. In England it has a mass following (especially in the "working class"), takes alot of time, is the subject of many conversations (an amazing amount of conversations in my opinion&#33 and is also one way in which many workers spend their money (transport, tickets, merchandise).

It is certainly not a revolutionary social force&#33;

Religion does not bring enjoyment or fun, just a pack of lies about how things will get better if you say the right prayers or eat the right food.

Indeed. And how many english people are actually religious? It would be interesting to compare church figures with football match figures&#33;

The difference between the two is that religion dupes people into thinking that misery and hardship are good and that by accepting that you can go to some magical afterlife/reincarnation/whatever. Football merely distracts while religion lies through its teeth.

Fundamentally both distract from revolutionary affairs.

[VonClausewitz]

The difference between the two is that religion dupes people into thinking that misery and hardship are good and that by accepting that you can go to some magical afterlife/reincarnation/whatever. Football merely distracts while religion lies through its teeth.

How about religion as a comfort ? Even the most die-hard commissars at Stalingrad ended up praying. What you read in one of the books of whichever bible isn&#39;t essentially what is practised in the 21st century, people really need to learn that one.

Plus well, what form of social goverance hasn&#39;t lied through it&#39;s teeth ? Everyone from the first tirbal elder to the nice wonderfull &#39;freedom fighters&#39; in Palestine were/are full of it, it just goes with having a little bit of power over people&#39;s perceptions.

It&#39;s also how footballers get paid so much if the real world ever wakes up and realises what a waste of space the over-paid dunces are, it&#39;d be a better place.

Football is not some fantasy that blinds people to their situation. It may make miserable circumstances slightly more bearable but the exact same can be said of any enjoyment. Religion does not bring enjoyment or fun, just a pack of lies about how things will get better if you say the right prayers or eat the right food.

Do you know any religious people ? Or just narrow-minded zealots, who be the same for any idealogy

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by VonClausewitz
How about religion as a comfort? Even the most die-hard commissars at Stalingrad ended up praying.

They were people who grew up in an era when children were still being indoctrinated with superstition.

So, in extremis, they "fell back" on it in the final moments of their lives.

Childhood conditioning really works...and takes one "hell" of an effort to overcome.

What you read in one of the books of whichever bible isn&#39;t essentially what is practiced in the 21st century, people really need to learn that one.

They "practice" whatever they can get away with.

The law is rather harsh with those who attempt to burn a "witch" or a "heretic" these days...so they don&#39;t do that anymore.

Think they wouldn&#39;t, if they thought they could get away with it?

Do you know any religious people?

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s possible to live in the United States without constantly coming into contact with them.

Do most of them seem like "ordinary people"? Sure, that&#39;s what they are.

Do they seem "really nasty"? No, not usually.

Do you imagine that "all" the Nazis went around with blood-stained fangs?

No, most of them behaved fairly civilized most of the time.

It was when they had the opportunity to really "cut loose" and "run wild" that they revealed their real identity.

It&#39;s the same for Christians or Muslims or Hindus or Jews or Buddhists or the leaders and followers of any superstition.

Given the chance, the mask comes off and what follows would make a simple barbarian blush with shame.

Defenders of superstition respond to this by saying that "humans are all evil" so they&#39;re always just "looking for an excuse" to "do evil"...and anything will do.

I&#39;m not buying it.

Historically, it is religion that has been chosen most often and most consistently as the "best excuse" to "do evil" all around.

I don&#39;t think that&#39;s a coincidence.

[James]

I think people&#39;s answers are heavily influenced by where they live. Their background (unsurprisingly).


I think our american friends are in a FAR more religious environment than say, for example, us english chaps. In England i would say that Football has a far bigger following than religion. Indeed, alot "follow it" in a manner which can only be described as fanatical.



If you wanted to be marxist (or revolutionary) about it, then you should be very critical as it, in effect, segregates the working class against itself. Indeed, football riots are internal clashes within/between the working class.
What does football do to topics of conversation? Makes it far less political for sure. Look at standard male literature which is created by and pushed by the big businesses. Typically some form of soft core pornography, combined with football. It is hardly a revolutionary catalyst.

Who owns the clubs and teams? Well of course, the capitalists.

It is in a sense, the most blatant form of class control, suppression, deradicalisation, in England&#33; It is ultimately, the main opium.



Religion in england? Well i certainly think it has a weaker influence and grip upon the working people.
I&#39;m confused by the reaction of some members to the subject of football. Sure play it, enjoy it. But why are you supporting what is in essence capitalism? So much of "our" capital is caught up in the thing it is appaling&#33;

Stop defending capitalism if you want to see the end of capitalism.

[Red Leader]

So which has more of a devstating impact: capitalism or religion??

I would have to say that capitalism does no question. With religion, at leaast you are not bound by anything real like money, at least you have the freedom as a person to think fo yourself and make up your own decisions.

If you follow a certain religion you arnt necessarily harming anyone else but yourself. (Unless you get on a horse and wear a cross on your chest and start shanking muslums). But seriously, if you believe in god and an afterlife and all that, really its only yourself who is in for a disappontment in the end.

With capitalism, you are not only hurting yourself because you give in to thinking that life is all about making money and do everything you can to make money, disregarding those who dont have money.

Religion in itself is not harmful. Its the instution that is harmful, which ironicly is corrupted by capitalism. iits organized reeligion that is harmful, but without capitalism this corruption would not exist.

[Martyr]

So I see everyone here is still fighting religion