Like the proto-Christian socialists of the late 18th early 19th century Marx talks about?
I’ve heard this argument vaguely before and I gotta say it makes sense but I don’t think it’s a bad thing.
Another factor that is very common in the western left is to treat suffering and extreme poverty as elements of superiority. It is very common in Western leftist culture to support martyrs and suffering. Everyone today likes Salvador Allende. Why? Salvador Allende is a victim, a martyr. He was assassinated in Pinochet’s coup d’ etat. When Hugo Chavez was alive, many sectors of the left turned their nose up at him. If he had been killed, for example, in the 2002 Coup attempt, he would be adored by the immense majority of the western left today, as a symbol of suffering and martyrdom. Since he continued exercising power as leader of a political process which, by necessity, had various contradictions, he was increasingly abandoned, as time passed -- I don’t even have to mention what has happened to Maduro here. These same sectors which celebrate and support the idea of Allende because he defended democratic socialism do not see or do not want to see that Allende governed almost entirely through decrees. At the time, the Chilean constitution had a legal mechanism which enabled the executive branch to govern by decrees that did not have to be approved by parliament or the Supreme Court. So Allende was able to make laws through decrees which bypassed Congress and the Supreme Court. Since Allende did not have a majority in Congress and suffered a lot from the bourgeois opposition, he basically governed through decree throughout his entire mandate. This kind of action today is enough justification to label any left leader that practices it as authoritarian, to compare him to Trump, Bolsonaro, or Orban. If Allende was alive today he would also be criticized, but he died.
[...]
Another example of this is the situation with Ché Guevarra and Fidel Castro. To most western leftists, Che Guevara represents a rebel dreamer. In real life he was not, but they have built this image around him. Ché Guevara died immolated in the jungles of Bolivia, so now he is a symbol of sacrifice, martyrdom and the agony of defeat. Fidel stayed in Cuba as leader of the Cuban Revolution and all of the contradictions of this process. Today he is viewed as a bureaucrat, without charm or appeal, by many if not the majority of the western left. Ché Guevara is an eternal symbol of resistance, of dreaming, of utopia that is unfulfilled because of death.
https://www.blackagendareport.com/western-marxism-loves-purity-and-martyrdom-not-real-revolution
The Christian narrative of martyrdom promotes defeat and demotes victory. That is harmful.
I remember watching this paganism youtube channel a few moths ago. In one of the videos (I think it was on animism) this guy made a very interesting observation. Ancient pagan and animist practices were, he claims, world affirming whereas the Abrahamic religions are world defying. What he means by this is that the former anchor spiritual practice in the here and now, on the relationship between self and the world we inhabit. In contrast, world denying religions seek spiritual fulfillment beyond this reality, they deny the centrality of our world to spiritual growth and place us outside of it. I can look up the video and share it if people are interested.
Ooof, I just noticed I was posting in c/christianity. I'm gonna take the pagan discussion elsewhere.
That said, I'd be curious to find out more about your views on this: "We should deny this world, denial creates conflict, conflict creates change and improvement. Denial is an affirmation of reality." I don't think I'm familiar with any mainstream Christian theology which espouses such a view. This comes quite close to Gnosticism, but I don't wanna put words in your mouth.
so you can work to build the Kingdom of Heaven.
Where do you build it, though? Does it have a material reality? Because I'm fairly certain that (for most Christian denominations) the Kingdom of God is generally thought to come about after Judgement day.
I never understood the association atheism had with marxism.
Marxism is the materialist interpretation of history, and there is no actual material evidence of God. There is no reason to believe in God if you have no evidence that God exists and is actually the way religion posits it.
Ask any leftist today if they believe in some higher power they are bound to say yes
Do you have any statistics to back that up or are you just going to ignore the entire history of state atheism in past and present socialist countries?
The association atheism had with Marxism was because Marx was an atheist and associated atheism with himself.
This association was continued by Lenin who associated atheism with Marxism-Leninism by also being an atheist and associating atheism with himself.
Maoism has an association with atheism because... Drum roll, you guessed it, Mao was an atheist and associated atheism with himself.
This concludes my TED Talk on: Why Marxism Atheism?
If you want the longer version as to why the material conditions of Industrial Europe, the Tsarist Russian Empire, and pre-revolutionary China were such that atheism and Marxism became inextricably linked, you'll have to read the figures themselves for the answer!
Most atheism is not the "hard-atheism" of "God doesn't exist and I will not believe in God even if it is proven that God does exist." Most atheism is the "soft-atheism" of "There is no actual evidence for God existing, and I will not believe in God without evidence. If evidence comes forwards, I will believe in God, but until then, I will not." In fact, most atheism could be better described not as "disbelief in God" but rather as "skepticism in God".
But even then, I don't see how "hard-atheism" is any more of a reactionary view than any other religion ("hard-atheism" could be considered a religion due to its beliefs not being founded on factual evidence). If you would care to explain why that is so, I would gladly listen.
"soft-atheism" is just Agnostic, which is fine and probably what I am.
"Hard-atheism" has bred a pretty gross culture of debate bros that end up going pretty hard against religious groups to the point where it crosses the line into western cultural chauvinism.
I'd say it's reactionary because the movement mostly cropped up as a way to funnel anger toward Islamic people, instead of the philosophical stance which they claim.
It takes all the worst aspects of religions, blind faith in a concept and hatred towards certain groups, and removes any of the cultural depth and community so it also serves to alienate people that delve deeply into it, helping to create the aforementioned toxicity.
I'm specifically referring to anti-theists. That form of atheism. there's nothing wrong with agnosticism or atheism in general. Anti-religiosity is a different animal.
I'd say it is when used as a tool to discredit non-western cultures, which is the form of atheism I am speaking about.
? Go check out some online atheist communities. I don't need to watch my wording, it's just the reality of those communities.
Dogmatic atheism is reactionary. Atheism itself is not.
lmao it's not all of them but I really do know what you mean here