I went to Vietnam a couple times. If you hang out downtown in the city, you might get a random Jehovah's Witness or Seventh Day Adventist* try to chat you up. "Oh, we can't do missionary work out in the open, so we just do one-on-one conversations like this". Despite the lack of "Jesus saves, die sinner" signs in Hanoi, you can definitely find Catholic and Protestant churches in Vietnam.
The Western press likes to piss and moan about settler nation missionaries that go, without proper visas mind you, to spread their Western versions of Christianity to the DPRK, only to get deported. So am I allowed to enter a white people country without a visa to stir up trouble and expect no consequences???
I'm the furthest thing from an expert on Myanmar. I get everything I know from Burmese friends. But if you look into the minority people situation, many of them are being heavily proselytised by the worst of the Amerikan type. I don't want the Pat Robertson's the world anywhere near struggling people.
*I'm definitely not saying that JWs and SDAs are anywhere near the worst as Christian sects go.
The changing base recreates the superstructures upon it. I don't disagree that it may not go "poof" and disappear, however the liberation of production and centralization of power in the hands of the workers creates new paradigms that may or may not undermine the foundation that foments religious belief I the first place.
This is also what i think, but note that historically religion was catalyst for class society, so i ccanot imagine classless society with priesthood existing in any form.
It’s the other way around. Class society is the cause, not the effect, of religion.
Or rather, they both cause and result from each other… but the base is always more fundamental than the superstructure.
Otherwise we’re getting into territory where the basis of society is not economic, but religious. Which is not materialist but idealist, essentially Hegelian rather than Marxist.
AES states are not classless, therefore not without religion. But definitely working toward religious abolition indirectly through class abolition.
Society is the cause of religion, definitely, but at first it wasn't class society. Hard to tell exactly because lack of infromation but first parasite classes almose everywhere were priests and for this didn't happened for no reason. Remember that relation between base and superstructure isn't completely one directional.
Yes, the base was in every case control over distribution of goods, which then turned slowly into private property. And that distribution was based in religion, granaries were temples.
I never implied that
Yes, but working towards abolishing it should be more direct and proactive, just like getting rid of other non desirable superstructure elements.