Religious thought

[Volkov]

Das Kapital,

Just because someone is religous, does not mean they can't be a communist. Communism is not some weapon against religion, it does not abolish it, it turns it into a purely private matter. Some of the earliest communists were motivated by religion.  Communist doctrine does not declare you must be an atheist. If anyine that considers themselves communst and generally follows the doctrine, then I would call them a communst, no matter how religous they are. Personally I am an atheist, but I am not against any who has a religion.

Yes it does mean they cannot be a Communist.  Communism is in direct conflict with religion we deny superstition as credible it belongs back in the dark ages with witch craft and voodoo. Religion is an arbitrary form of hierarchy and should be abolished as such we Communists seek a stateless classless society how can we have such a society as long superstition is elevated above reason and a hierarchy system still exists it would be an impossibility. I call for the total abolition of the church apparatus as it is now.

"Should you ever want to test some "communist's" credentials, just ask their opinion of religion. Be alert to the slightest hint of "tolerance"! If you detect it, then you know that, at best, you're dealing with someone who might charitably be described as "pro-communist".

                                                           Redstar 2000

We need the majority of the population to change society, and abolishing religion, you will do nothing but to turn the massses against you.  That is common sense.  Have you ever read what some major Marxists, such as V.I. Lenin, actually had to say on the subject?

Also, that cretin from Revleft, redstar2000, is not a credible source.  He even recjects dialectial materialism!  He has also recently made a racist comment, and he is opposed to an organized party to lead the workers to victory. 

[P.O.U.M]

He has also recently made a racist comment

Do tell.

[TrotskyWasRight]

He said that he wouldn't be surprised if Marxism-Leninism was Iranian due to his "backwards beliefs about human sexuality".

[Das Kapital]

Also, that cretin from Revleft, redstar2000, is not a credible source.  He even recjects dialectial materialism!  He has also recently made a racist comment, and he is opposed to an organized party to lead the workers to victory.

I'm not surprised a trot would attack redstar your all reformist's.

and he is opposed to an organized party to lead the workers to victory. 

That's nothing more than Leninist vangaurdism.

[P.O.U.M]

Heh, reformists. Thats a new one.

[TrotskyWasRight]

Also, that cretin from Revleft, redstar2000, is not a credible source.  He even recjects dialectial materialism!  He has also recently made a racist comment, and he is opposed to an organized party to lead the workers to victory.

I'm not surprised a trot would attack redstar your all reformist's.

and he is opposed to an organized party to lead the workers to victory. 

That's nothing more than Leninist vangaurdism.

If anybody is a reformist - it's redstar.

[Morag]

(So tempted to call Off Topic on your asses, but I agree. ;D Actually, as far as I can see, redstar doesn't actually do much except sit on his computer and mock people who make very good points because they come from a different viewpoint than him. To me, that is the epitomy of sectarianism, especially when some of these people have excellent points which he refuses to see [to point out, I have never actually discussed anything with the guy, and I don't personally know anyone who has])

So, to keep my own ass On Topic...

Being religious doesn't mean you are immediately opposed or hostile to communism. There is proof of this. In fact, many very religious people have no problem embracing the social and economic aspects of communism, and agree that they are correct. What they have problems with is the material basis of communism which denies the presense of a higher power. Therefore, while it is possible for a person to be active in revolutionary activities while being religious, and for these people to fully accept and live out the social and economic struggle within their own life, it is not possible for these people to accept the materialist ideas of communism.

So, is two out of three (or however many criteria you want to suggest) good enough, or does a person have to be perfectly in step with all communist ideas?

My opinion (the above was just an argument): I think people hold on to their belief in god for as long as they can. Through revolutionary experience, as well as reasonable argument, I think that most will move away from their superstitions and embrace a society that provides the comfort that they looked to in religion. To turn away a potential comrade because they still have (what I feel) are the remnants of thousands of years of cultural education is counter-productive. Just because someone isn't 'as pure' a communist as others, because they don't fully understand the ideas of communism, doesn't mean they haven't the revolutionary spirit or the will to see socialism come about. Moreover, I think such ideas of 'you can't be a communist! you still believe this,' makes the communist movement quite elitist, by saying who may and may not gain membership. Furthermore, because the majority of people in the world are still religious or hold spiritual ideas that are idealist, we need members with the experience and the language with which to reach these people. If we approach the vast mass of people without any 'lubrication' for our ideas (which, while we see it as freeing them from the yoke of oppression to them represents almost a robbing of a comfortable eternity), we will reach only a few of them. 

[Volkov]

Heh, reformists. Thats a new one.

I know.  Appartently redstar is schizophrenic, or something, as he cannot decide whether to call us totalitarians (he knows nothing of Marxism, and he recently compared Lenin to Hitler! >:( >:( >:( ) or reformists! :D

From Morag:

...redstar doesn't actually do much except sit on his computer and mock people who make very good points because they come from a different viewpoint than him.

100% true.  I have tried debating with him, and I have cited things like Reason in Revolt and Russia: From Revolution to Counterrevolution to prove my points.  He ignored the evidence and kept spouting forth the same dogmatism. 

[Das Kapital]

If anybody is a reformist - it's redstar.

Only a trot would try to drive in the pouring rain without turning on his wipers first.

Being religious doesn't mean you are immediately opposed or hostile to communism. There is proof of this. In fact, many very religious people have no problem embracing the social and economic aspects of communism, and agree that they are correct. What they have problems with is the material basis of communism which denies the presense of a higher power. Therefore, while it is possible for a person to be active in revolutionary activities while being religious, and for these people to fully accept and live out the social and economic struggle within their own life, it is not possible for these people to accept the materialist ideas of communism.

Those types of people can be as religious as they like it wont make any difference they are still only Pro Communist.

So, is two out of three (or however many criteria you want to suggest) good enough, or does a person have to be perfectly in step with all communist ideas?

As I have said before Communism looks at the world using reason and not superstition you cannot be a Communist and accept superstition its a complete contradiction.

My opinion (the above was just an argument): I think people hold on to their belief in god for as long as they can. Through revolutionary experience, as well as reasonable argument,

God cannot be proven through a reasonable argument therfore the religious turn to unreasonable arguments to prove God's existence. You therfore cannot think logically if you are resorting to unreasonable arguments to support your claims.

I think that most will move away from their superstitions and embrace a society that provides the comfort that they looked to in religion. To turn away a potential comrade because they still have (what I feel) are the remnants of thousands of years of cultural education is counter-productive.

Religion itself is counter-productive should we as Communist's allow a counter-productive force to reason and human development exist? the simple answer is no we should not.

Just because someone isn't 'as pure' a communist as others, because they don't fully understand the ideas of communism, doesn't mean they haven't the revolutionary spirit or the will to see socialism come about.

They may have the "revolutionary spirit" they however do not have the ability to look at the world logically and rationally superstition is dangerous it clouds one's mind and is a counter productive force to reason.

Moreover, I think such ideas of 'you can't be a communist! you still believe this,' makes the communist movement quite elitist,

Be that as it may Religion has no claim to civilized society  to believe religion still carries some relevance in today's world is quite absurd.

Furthermore, because the majority of people in the world are still religious or hold spiritual ideas that are idealist, we need members with the experience and the language with which to reach these people. If we approach the vast mass of people without any 'lubrication' for our ideas (which, while we see it as freeing them from the yoke of oppression to them represents almost a robbing of a comfortable eternity), we will reach only a few of them. 

Compromise is for the weak eventually religion will be rejected on a mass scale in my opinion within the next hundred years as for now there are millions of athiests in the world thats quite enough potential comrades for the time being.

 

[Morag]

Being religious doesn't mean you are immediately opposed or hostile to communism. There is proof of this. In fact, many very religious people have no problem embracing the social and economic aspects of communism, and agree that they are correct. What they have problems with is the material basis of communism which denies the presense of a higher power. Therefore, while it is possible for a person to be active in revolutionary activities while being religious, and for these people to fully accept and live out the social and economic struggle within their own life, it is not possible for these people to accept the materialist ideas of communism.

Those types of people can be as religious as they like it wont make any difference they are still only Pro Communist.

Can you provide me with some lit explaining this concept of pr-Communist? You seem to use it like its a well-known idea, but I'm not sure that it isn't just your opinion. Further, is it that people can only be Pro Communist if they aren't able to fully agree with absolutely everything in communist theory? If so, where do we draw the line? Marx and Engels, I guess are obvious, but what about Lenin? Do we have to believe in what Lenin said to be real communists, or just to be Marxist-Leninists?

My opinion (the above was just an argument): I think people hold on to their belief in god for as long as they can. Through revolutionary experience, as well as reasonable argument,

God cannot be proven through a reasonable argument therfore the religious turn to unreasonable arguments to prove God's existence. You therfore cannot think logically if you are resorting to unreasonable arguments to support your claims.

Well, using unreasonable arguments is better then not reading the arguments I'm responding to, isn't it? What I was saying there was that reasoned argument would show that there was no higher power.

I think that most will move away from their superstitions and embrace a society that provides the comfort that they looked to in religion. To turn away a potential comrade because they still have (what I feel) are the remnants of thousands of years of cultural education is counter-productive.

Religion itself is counter-productive should we as Communist's allow a counter-productive force to reason and human development exist? the simple answer is no we should not.

I take that to mean that we shouldn't waste our time on people who are at the moment religious.

So, we'll just create revolutionary movements among only those who have already realised that there is no god, and we'll make sure that only those who agree with absolutely everything we agree with are allowed to work with us. And we'll call ourselves something snappy, to show how different we are from that other group that thinks almost exactly like us. Yeah, we'll call ourselves "Elitist," and well call them... "Reformists." And then we'll go out and agitate for revolution, but only amongst those who already agree with us. And we'll have a lovely little beach party and roast marshmellows.

The alternative to that is to work with people who, through their experiences and education, will learn that a socialist world will alleviate their desire for a perfect afterlife. And those people make up the vast majority of the people who we're apparently agitating for. So, if a person who we're trying to help can never possibly be a socialist, then what is the logical basis of socialism again?

Just because someone isn't 'as pure' a communist as others, because they don't fully understand the ideas of communism, doesn't mean they haven't the revolutionary spirit or the will to see socialism come about.

They may have the "revolutionary spirit" they however do not have the ability to look at the world logically and rationally superstition is dangerous it clouds one's mind and is a counter productive force to reason.

Well, I don't disagree with you about superstition being pointless. But I think, and I'm pretty sure that in some way you have to agree, that people who are raised in a society that is religious (especially is their family is also religious in some way) are not lost to socialism. They merely have to develop their theoretical basis. This can take years, and as I stated in my earlier post, the belief in superstitions will likely be the last thing to go. No one is actually born with all the knowledge and theory that they need to be communists, nor with the material conditions. They develop. As I'm suggesting epople will develop their materialistic logic.

Moreover, I think such ideas of 'you can't be a communist! you still believe this,' makes the communist movement quite elitist,

Be that as it may Religion has no claim to civilized society  to believe religion still carries some relevance in today's world is quite absurd.

Funny thing about that. I'm already a communist. Try telling someone who has been working for better pay and an education for their kids that the priest who provides that education for next to nothing and feeds their kids is irrelevent. They might have a different opinion.

And that's the point. Your arguing this from a purely philosophical position, while many religious people are seeing it from a purely physical position. We say- God doesn't exist. They say- But if he doesn't exist, then I'm just living a crappy life and then I'll die and I'll be dead. I don't believe you, because the priest tells me there is an afterlife in which I'll be happy. I don't think telling these people that they can only be 'pro Communist' is at all helpful to our efforts.

Compromise is for the weak eventually religion will be rejected on a mass scale in my opinion within the next hundred years as for now there are millions of athiests in the world thats quite enough potential comrades for the time being.

Yeah, but how many of those atheists are sympathetic to communism? Besides, that statement suggests to me that you view atheism as being more important then other communist 'criteria.'  Give me a disaffected worker any day, and you can have all the atheists you want.

 Morag.

[Das Kapital]

Can you provide me with some lit explaining this concept of pr-Communist? You seem to use it like its a well-known idea, but I'm not sure that it isn't just your opinion. Further, is it that people can only be Pro Communist if they aren't able to fully agree with absolutely everything in communist theory? If so, where do we draw the line? Marx and Engels, I guess are obvious, but what about Lenin? Do we have to believe in what Lenin said to be real communists, or just to be Marxist-Leninists?

A pro Communist is someone who support's some of the party idea's but who cannot be considered a member of the party. For instance while all Communist's are Collectivist's not all Collectivist's are Communist's even though we believe in many of the same ideals. I believe Lenin while having the best intentions only succeeded in creating a bourgeois revolution his interpretation of Marxism led him to believe that the working class needed an elite vangaurd party to guide them. All he really did was create a class above a class therfore he acted against proletariat interest. I do not believe it necessary to subscribe to every Communist theory for instance the labour theory of value has developed flaws that need to be addressed before its validity can be confirmed. However anti-religion is a fundamental aspect of Communism to accept religion is to deny your claim to Communism. Stalinists differ from Marxist's from Maoists however one common theme throughout Communist theory is rejection of superstition.

Well, using unreasonable arguments is better then not reading the arguments I'm responding to, isn't it? What I was saying there was that reasoned argument would show that there was no higher power.

My mistake I was typing responses for about 10 different forums at the time so you will have to forgive me if I slip up here and there.

I take that to mean that we shouldn't waste our time on people who are at the moment religious.

On the contrary we should immediately put ourselves into conflict with religious fundamentalism where ever we encounter it. Superstition is meant to be overcome our posture towards those that echo such superstition must be in challenge to them to reject their religious dogma and accept rationality.

So, we'll just create revolutionary movements among only those who have already realised that there is no god, and we'll make sure that only those who agree with absolutely everything we agree with are allowed to work with us. And we'll call ourselves something snappy, to show how different we are from that other group that thinks almost exactly like us. Yeah, we'll call ourselves "Elitist," and well call them... "Reformists." And then we'll go out and agitate for revolution, but only amongst those who already agree with us. And we'll have a lovely little beach party and roast marshmellows.

Would you tolerate a paedophile babysitting your children? the same can be said of rationality would you tolerate the irrational within your movement even when you know what they do will be counter productive and dangerous to the revolution.

By the way while were on the topic of elitism this would be someone who believes in rule by an elite group. However I am not advocating rule by an elite group.

The alternative to that is to work with people who, through their experiences and education, will learn that a socialist world will alleviate their desire for a perfect afterlife. And those people make up the vast majority of the people who we're apparently agitating for. So, if a person who we're trying to help can never possibly be a socialist, then what is the logical basis of socialism again?

I agree we should work with the people to help them reject superstition at the same time I'm not going to accept someone who believes in superstition to be a genuine Communist as the danger they posed to the party would be inevitable.

Well, I don't disagree with you about superstition being pointless. But I think, and I'm pretty sure that in some way you have to agree, that people who are raised in a society that is religious (especially is their family is also religious in some way) are not lost to socialism.

I would agree they have the potential to become a force within the movement however one cannot fight on superstition (belief that god will save you or divine intervention) a revolutionary needs his wits and he needs to be able to formulate strategy based on reason these will be the tools of the revolution.

They merely have to develop their theoretical basis. This can take years, and as I stated in my earlier post, the belief in superstitions will likely be the last thing to go. No one is actually born with all the knowledge and theory that they need to be communists, nor with the material conditions. They develop. As I'm suggesting epople will develop their materialistic logic.

I rejected religion by the time I was 11 all you need to do is develop an ability to dissect what you have read based on logical thought.





 

[ckaihatsu]

Karl Belin (on March 16) and Xanthus (on March 22) both said it best, below. I'll sum up and add some remarks:


Religious beliefs *are* a personal matter and should be respected as a personal liberty.

Religion and philosophy can be seen as related, since they both have to do with inner journeys -- maybe as an attempt to reconcile "soul" (one's own memory of one's past) with "spirit" (one's intended plans for one's future). This might also be called the "personal revolution", which is not always an easy thing -- the image of Neo barfing on the floor as he tries to come to terms with what reality really is, in the Matrix movie, is a good illustration of some people's response to realizing how destructive capitalism is, and has been.

Religion may sometimes play a (historically) progressive role, at very least in that it can serve as an organizational come-to point for people who might not otherwise meet each other. And, of course, religious denominations have often been anti-authoritarian and resistant to colonial/imperial coercion.

However, once a person has a good grasp of historical determinism / dialectics / materialism, it would be difficult to not want to be involved in that historical struggle, in some explicitly political -- and not superstitious -- way. Religion *usually* plays a reactionary role, of telling people to go-slow, obey the religious authority, and turn inward instead of outward.

And, of course, the state has no business in the business of religion.

Thanks, comrades!


Chris




___

YFIS Discussion Board
http://discussion.newyouth.com/search.php?s=&action=finduser&userid=598

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com,
rwor.org, fightbacknews.org, laboraction.org, substancenews.com,
socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com,
moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info,
blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
http://community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

[TrotskyWasRight]

Only a trot would try to drive in the pouring rain without turning on his wipers first.

What the fuck does that mean?  ???