I used to think religion itself was the problem, but becoming a communist has changed my perspective on this. Capitalism creates unjustifiable hierarchies that allow religion to weild immense power within our society. This can be prevented under socialism, turning religion into just another part of our culture.
did u happen to forget that religion has exists as it does today and in even more oppressive forms for thousands before capitalism came around? the idea that capitalism is making something that has been bad long before capitalism even exists bad is straight up a historical.
yeah and in plenty of those societies religion WAS the hierarchy. how could we ever even eliminated class society while also preserving organizations and ideologies to which hierarchy is inherent.
You might be right. My perspective on the matter is that we should take that anti-religion energy and focus it on class struggle instead. Once we, the proletariat, control the state, we can suppress the power that religion holds over society.
I think any reasonable communist thinks that religious theocracies are terrible. You can have religion in any type of society, but not have it be the dominating factor of the society.
All religions so far have been the expression of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is the stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and brings about their disappearance.
The mirrors my perspective above in that if we focus on class struggle in order to bring about communism, religion will take a new form in either shifting to focus on simply the “spirituality” aspect or disappear entirely.
My intention is not to “defend religion” as you say. I’m simply stating that I think attacking religion is counter productive or at the very least, will not accomplish anything. I have no love for religion myself, but it’s important to remember that many of our comrades do. Hakim is a good example and a much more developed Marxist than myself and many others on this platform.
Yes they do, quoting for example “we should take that anti-religion energy and focus it on class struggle instead. Once we, the proletariat, control the state, we can suppress the power that religion holds over society.”
It’s basically class reductionism and also opposing at least the reactionary religious institutions is a part of class struggle anyway, not to mention opposing the usual religious rhetorics of class solidarity. And both will be framed as opposing religion anyway, so we don’t really have to hide marxist materialism.
Of course, in the context of thread, Quran burning is definitely not any of this, just a useless juvenile demonstation and provocation (which also more often than not comes from the fanatic christian circles).
I’m reminded of the church’s betrayal of the Irish revolutionaries, when it realised that siding with the Brits would maintain more of its landholdings.
… Protestantism has in general made for political freedom and political Radicalism, it has been opposed to slavish worship of kings and aristocrats. Here, in Ireland, the word Protestant is almost a convertible term with Toryism, lickspittle loyalty, servile worship of aristocracy and hatred of all that savours of genuine political independence on the part of the “lower classes”.
And in the same manner, Catholicism which in most parts of Europe is synonymous with Toryism, lickspittle loyalty, servile worship of aristocracy and hatred of all that savours of genuine political independence on the part of the lower classes, in Ireland is almost synonymous with rebellious tendencies, zeal for democracy, and intense feelings of solidarity with all strivings upward of those who toil.
Such a curious phenomenon is easily understood by those who know the history of Ireland. Unfortunately for their spiritual welfare – and I am using the word “spiritual”, not in its theological but in its better significance as controlling mental and moral development upward – the Protestant elements of Ireland were, in the main, [a] plantation of strangers upon the soil from which the owners had been dispossessed by force. The economic dispossession was, perforce, accompanied by a political and social outlawry. Hence every attempt of the dispossessed to attain citizenship, to emerge from their state of outlawry, was easily represented as a tentative step towards reversing the plantation and towards replanting the Catholic and dispossessing the Protestant.
Imagine this state of matter persisting for over 200 years and one realises at once that the planted population – the Protestants – were bound to acquire insensibly a hatred of political reform and to look upon every effort of the Catholic to achieve political recognition as a insidious move towards the expulsion of Protestants. Then the Protestant always saw that the kings and aristocrats of England and Ireland were opposed by the people whom he most feared and from recognising that it was but an easy step to regard his cause as identical with theirs. They had a common enemy, and he began to teach his children that they had a common cause, and common ideals.
This is the reason – their unfortunate isolation as strangers holding a conquered country in fee for rulers alien to its people – that the so-called Scotch of Ulster have fallen away from and developed antagonism to political reform and mental freedom as rapidly as the Scots of Scotland have advanced in adhesion to these ideals.
The Catholics, for their part, and be it understood I am talking only of the Catholic workers, have been as fortunately placed for their political education as they were unfortunately placed for their political and social condition. Just as the Socialist knows that the working class, being the lowest in the Social system, cannot emancipate itself without as a result emancipating all other classes, so the Irish Catholic has realised instinctively that he, being the most oppressed and disfranchised, could not win any modicum of political freedom or social recognition for himself without winning it for all others in Ireland. Every upward step of the Catholic has emancipated some one of the smaller Protestant sects; every successful revolt of the Catholic peasant has given some added security even to those Protestant farmers who were most zealously defending the landlord. And out of this struggle the Catholic has, perforce, learned toleration. He has learned that his struggle is, and has been, the struggle of all the lowly and dispossessed, and he has grown broad-minded with the broad-mindedness of the slave in revolt against slavery. …
Did religion provide the hierarchy or the relations of production? I imagine there’s quite a strong dialectical relationship as I see religion as adaptable to material conditions. E.g. Catholicism mapped perfectly to feudal society. Then Christians needed a new form for the capitalist era. And in comes Protestantism with is work ethic and whatever the fuck those fundamentalists in the US do where the Christians screech for war, refuse to help the poor, and deny medical care to each other.
I’m not saying this to say that religion can survive without hierarchy. Maybe there are theories about that. Only to ask whether there’s an order to this. If religion provides the hierarchy does that make it part of the base? And if religion no longer provides the hierarchy, would it now be part of the superstructure? Or was it always part of the superstructure? (Recognising, still, that the base-superstructure is shorthand for something that is more flexible in practice than in some vulgar theory.)
First hierarchies in class society were (as always) based on production mode but their ideology was religious, look at the origins of sumerian city states and ancient Egypt.
Don’t you think this type of thinking is reductive? Does it not give credit to those who claim communism doesn’t work because the USSR tried it? It completely ignores the specific material conditions of the time and place.
Excuse me i didn’t wrote a 50 pages dissertation about that, i assumed you know this never happened anywhere where religious organizations had any significant power.
What is REALLY reductive (and also historically proven incorrect) is writing “Capitalism creates unjustifiable hierarchies that allow religion to weild immense power within our society.”* and “This can be prevented under socialism, turning religion into just another part of our culture.”
*EDIT: while theoretically correct, it does that, all systems of class society before did the same, so it’s not sole fault of capitalism. Hell, even socialist countries didn’t liquidated those hierarchies.
My apologies if my comment came of as cententious. I think this is an interesting conversation and I’m interested in learning more and gaining insight into the different the perspectives of other comrades on the topic.
this never happened anywhere where religious organizations had any significant power.
Admitted, I’m pretty niave on the history of both of these, but what are your thoughts on this in relation to Tibet and Xinjiang? In Tibet, they banished the Dalai Lama, but not religious practice. And in Xinjiang, I believe I read there’s more mosques there than anywhere else in the world. It seems education has been the key in reducing religious extremism in the region as opposed to outright banning religion.
Not sure about Xinjiang exactly, but decentralised and autonomous nature of muslim religious authorities usually cause them to not have much political power when under non-muslim government, religious influence in such conditions usually results in what they did, extremist minority.
Tibet is even worse example, now its more or less cooperative, but clergy literally got deposed from power hard, expropriated nearly entirely and since then watched carefully. PRC even directly interfere with their religious hierarchy, look what they did to panchen lama and when current dalai lama dies the tibetan buddhism can very well split because it, which will increase state influence over it. And it’s far from only thing.
I won’t even mention what happened when Falun Gong overstepped.
outright banning religion.
You do know than beween kissing bishop ring and “outright banning religion” there is a lot of other options?
You do know than beween kissing bishop ring and “outright banning religion” there is a lot of other options?
I think this is where our discussion got off track. There’s another thread in here that mentions the distinction between religious institutions and religious practice. I’m certainly in favour of placing heavy restrictions on religious institutions. I think we need to be open minded when it comes to allowing others the right to their religious practice.
I’m certainly in favour of placing heavy restrictions on religious institutions. I think we need to be open minded when it comes to allowing others the right to their religious practice.
I used to think religion itself was the problem, but becoming a communist has changed my perspective on this. Capitalism creates unjustifiable hierarchies that allow religion to weild immense power within our society. This can be prevented under socialism, turning religion into just another part of our culture.
did u happen to forget that religion has exists as it does today and in even more oppressive forms for thousands before capitalism came around? the idea that capitalism is making something that has been bad long before capitalism even exists bad is straight up a historical.
That’s true, but it’s always been under class society where some form of these hierarchies exist.
yeah and in plenty of those societies religion WAS the hierarchy. how could we ever even eliminated class society while also preserving organizations and ideologies to which hierarchy is inherent.
You might be right. My perspective on the matter is that we should take that anti-religion energy and focus it on class struggle instead. Once we, the proletariat, control the state, we can suppress the power that religion holds over society.
I think any reasonable communist thinks that religious theocracies are terrible. You can have religion in any type of society, but not have it be the dominating factor of the society.
it is not the dominating factor in most capitalists societies right now and its terrible enough as is.
In “The Principles of Communism” Engles writes:
The mirrors my perspective above in that if we focus on class struggle in order to bring about communism, religion will take a new form in either shifting to focus on simply the “spirituality” aspect or disappear entirely.
using that quote to defend religion is like defending the state by quoting the “Paris Commune” if that supports any view its mine.
My intention is not to “defend religion” as you say. I’m simply stating that I think attacking religion is counter productive or at the very least, will not accomplish anything. I have no love for religion myself, but it’s important to remember that many of our comrades do. Hakim is a good example and a much more developed Marxist than myself and many others on this platform.
Does o_d defend religion? That’s not quite how I interpreted what they said.
Yes they do, quoting for example “we should take that anti-religion energy and focus it on class struggle instead. Once we, the proletariat, control the state, we can suppress the power that religion holds over society.”
It’s basically class reductionism and also opposing at least the reactionary religious institutions is a part of class struggle anyway, not to mention opposing the usual religious rhetorics of class solidarity. And both will be framed as opposing religion anyway, so we don’t really have to hide marxist materialism.
Of course, in the context of thread, Quran burning is definitely not any of this, just a useless juvenile demonstation and provocation (which also more often than not comes from the fanatic christian circles).
I’m reminded of the church’s betrayal of the Irish revolutionaries, when it realised that siding with the Brits would maintain more of its landholdings.
A few years early James Connolly wrote about the revolutionary zeal in the working class Catholics, in ‘Catholicism, Protestantism & Politics’ (1913):
Edit: fixed link
Did religion provide the hierarchy or the relations of production? I imagine there’s quite a strong dialectical relationship as I see religion as adaptable to material conditions. E.g. Catholicism mapped perfectly to feudal society. Then Christians needed a new form for the capitalist era. And in comes Protestantism with is work ethic and whatever the fuck those fundamentalists in the US do where the Christians screech for war, refuse to help the poor, and deny medical care to each other.
I’m not saying this to say that religion can survive without hierarchy. Maybe there are theories about that. Only to ask whether there’s an order to this. If religion provides the hierarchy does that make it part of the base? And if religion no longer provides the hierarchy, would it now be part of the superstructure? Or was it always part of the superstructure? (Recognising, still, that the base-superstructure is shorthand for something that is more flexible in practice than in some vulgar theory.)
First hierarchies in class society were (as always) based on production mode but their ideology was religious, look at the origins of sumerian city states and ancient Egypt.
You know who tried? Socialist Poland for example.
Don’t you think this type of thinking is reductive? Does it not give credit to those who claim communism doesn’t work because the USSR tried it? It completely ignores the specific material conditions of the time and place.
Excuse me i didn’t wrote a 50 pages dissertation about that, i assumed you know this never happened anywhere where religious organizations had any significant power.
What is REALLY reductive (and also historically proven incorrect) is writing “Capitalism creates unjustifiable hierarchies that allow religion to weild immense power within our society.”* and “This can be prevented under socialism, turning religion into just another part of our culture.”
*EDIT: while theoretically correct, it does that, all systems of class society before did the same, so it’s not sole fault of capitalism. Hell, even socialist countries didn’t liquidated those hierarchies.
My apologies if my comment came of as cententious. I think this is an interesting conversation and I’m interested in learning more and gaining insight into the different the perspectives of other comrades on the topic.
Admitted, I’m pretty niave on the history of both of these, but what are your thoughts on this in relation to Tibet and Xinjiang? In Tibet, they banished the Dalai Lama, but not religious practice. And in Xinjiang, I believe I read there’s more mosques there than anywhere else in the world. It seems education has been the key in reducing religious extremism in the region as opposed to outright banning religion.
Not sure about Xinjiang exactly, but decentralised and autonomous nature of muslim religious authorities usually cause them to not have much political power when under non-muslim government, religious influence in such conditions usually results in what they did, extremist minority.
Tibet is even worse example, now its more or less cooperative, but clergy literally got deposed from power hard, expropriated nearly entirely and since then watched carefully. PRC even directly interfere with their religious hierarchy, look what they did to panchen lama and when current dalai lama dies the tibetan buddhism can very well split because it, which will increase state influence over it. And it’s far from only thing.
I won’t even mention what happened when Falun Gong overstepped.
You do know than beween kissing bishop ring and “outright banning religion” there is a lot of other options?
I think this is where our discussion got off track. There’s another thread in here that mentions the distinction between religious institutions and religious practice. I’m certainly in favour of placing heavy restrictions on religious institutions. I think we need to be open minded when it comes to allowing others the right to their religious practice.
This i agree with.