I was listening to some writings on Marx by Lenin the other day and as far as I understood it: materialism is the idea that consciousness is a byproduct material interactions within reality as opposed to the idealist conception that reality only exists within and as a construct of consciousness. Marx extended the materialist conception in dialectical materialism to consider social interactions and structures as material conditions that are also required to produce consciousness. Lenin also writes of Marx's belief that religion and theology is inherently idealist, and that ideas like agnosticism that tried reconcile religion and materialism were reactionary or a "shame-faced way of surreptitiously accepting materialism, while denying it before the world".
the above paragraph is of course a gross oversimplification of idealism, materialism and dialectical materialism, and may be partially or entirely wrong. I found the original text to be quite difficult to comprehend and this is just how I understood it, so if I'm wrong about anything please correct me.
moving on, it seems to me that many Marxist-Leninists think that one of many contributing factors to the decline and collapse of the USSR was the suppression of religion, especially as it did not seem to be particularly effective given how quickly religion returned after the collapse. with all the aforementioned in mind, I have a few questions:
-
do you think that religion is antithetical to dialectical materialism?
-
was suppression of religion in the USSR enforced out of a belief by the party that it contradicted the principles of Marxism–Leninism?
-
would a socialist state with a party that strictly adhered to Marxism–Leninism but allowed religious freedom among its citizenship be stable?
-
would a hypothetical state be able to cultivate material conditions that lead people to willingly give up religion, if said state decided that religion was a threat to its sovereignty?
-
have you personally experienced any cognitive dissonance from simultaneously holding religious and Marxist-Leninist beliefs?
-
I haven't read/listened to a whole lot of theory, what literature would you recommend to better understand dialectical materialism?
At risk of being removed for sectarianism, I honestly feel that religion begets cults and is a danger to the human race. Basing your actions on things that are have been proven to be false often has horrific consequences.
Capitalism itself is a death cult.
how do you think this could be addressed? I get the impression that the soviet union's strategy of active suppression was ineffective at best.
Attacking the material basis for religion in society, I guess.
I don't think that's going to happen though because I don't see the vast majority of people, literally ever, accepting the reality of existence in the universe.
do you think it is possible to determine the material basis of religion? do you think it varies by religion or region?
I'd say the strongest thing that creates religiousity is hardship, clearly. The most religious people have been through the most shit (or are using it cynically to paste over their failings). Suffering is, in my experience, what ferments religiousness.
Removed by mod
Religious beliefs and adherence in the ussr plummeted over the course of a few generations. If you teach a materialist concept of reality people will accept a material concept of reality.
I'm not sure. Education is probably important. Not letting people who believe things like "Climate change is good because it is God's plan" into teaching positions and other positions of power on competency grounds is also probably a good idea.
Maybe you could find an answer to your question by looking at the growth of irreligion in Czechia under communism. Compare their model to the Soviets. Maybe they did something different that worked in the long term.
I'm with you on this. Cults are defined by their membership and how far they stray from or pose a threat to the current orthodoxy.
There are denominations of religion that would certainly be seen as cults if not for their large membership and, in some circumstances, how much they remain within the bounds of orthodoxy.
Or known to be unfalsifiable.
there's a quote about this in the text I mentioned actually: "Marx decidedly rejected, not only idealism, which is always linked in one way or another with religion, but also the views—especially widespread in our day—of Hume and Kant, agnosticism, criticism, and positivism in their various forms; he considered that philosophy a 'reactionary' concession to idealism, and at best a 'shame-faced way of surreptitiously accepting materialism, while denying it before the world.'"
and from the notes:
"Agnoticism—An idealist philosophical theory asserting that the world in unknowable, that the human mind is limited and cannot know anything beyond the realms of sensations. Agnosticism has various forms: some agnostics recognize the objective existence of the material world but deny the possibility of knowing it, others deny the existence of the material world on the plea that man cannot know whether anything exists beyond his sensations.
Criticism—Kant gave this name to his idealist philosophy, considering the criticism of man’s cognitive ability to be the purpose of that philosophy. Kant’s criticism led him to the conviction that human reason cannot know the nature of things.
Positivism—A widespread trend in bourgeois philosophy and sociology, founded by Comte (1798-1857), a French philosopher and sociologist. The positivists deny the possibility of knowing inner regularities and relations and deny the significance of philosophy as a method of knowing and changing the objective world. They reduce philosophy to a summary of the data provided by the various branches of science and to a superficial description of the results of direct observation—i.e., to 'positive' facts. Positivism considers itself to be 'above' both materialism and idealism but it is actually nothing more than a variety of subjective idealism.—Ed."
The last time I tried to engage with a hexbear about religion/the nature of reality, they got really pissed off with me: https://hexbear.net/comment/4468288
I only skimmed that thread, but it seems to me almost like the person you were arguing with seems to fall back on logic chain of not having a consistent argument and instead picking a specific part of your argument and playing offense:
you oversimplified x
well, you may have explained x, but y does that too!
you cant prove x is wrong
you also cant prove y is wrong
repeat the last 2 points ad infinitum until your opponent gives up
this person was arguing in bad faith whether they realize it or not, and the real revealing part is their last comment at the end
appealing to an observer like this is a clear indicator that they dont care what you think, they just wanted to win at that point. reminds me of this.
In their defense, in that final exchange where I called what they said to be solipsism, I may have been a bit off the mark. But at that point they had told me to stop harassing them, so I shut up.
I can’t help but wonder if they had a deeply-held need to leave room for the immaterial, and they were working their logic back from there. I didn’t grow up with religion or even an amorphous “spirituality”, so I’ve never had to grapple with letting it go.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
deleted by creator
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: