Marxism-Leninism is specifically based on dialectic materialism. A philosophy that very clearly postulates the material basis of the mind and everything to do with it. People often harp on USSR's anti-church policies, but frankly they didn't go far enough. You either believe in fairies, or you utilise the scientific method and recognise the materialist basis of reality, history, culture and human "spirit"
Although I agree with you about eschewing religious faith on a personal level, the reality is that a large part of the global population clings strongly to some type of theology. Going so far as to outlaw religious practice or dismantle religious institutions has historically led to the alienation of people who value religious beliefs. Plenty of people have managed to live with faith and act as positive members of our communities. The problems arise when power incentives exist for their leaders.
How religious institutions and their leaders act within and influence our systems is the main source of the problems with religion, not religious faith. Rather than trying to suppress religious practice, a better approach would be to effectively strip these institutions of their power while giving them the means to continue operating solely for religious practice and as community hubs, which is one of their main practical benefits to society.
Should they be collecting tithes, enriching religious leaders, or participating at any level as political institutions outside of combatting real persecution? No. I definitely agree with banning this. But if you give them the means to maintain their places of worship and otherwise eliminate any profit incentives, I expect these institutions as we know them would "wither away" and naturally continue acting as smaller corners of the community that will become more focused on making a positive impact and providing mutual aid.
I'm curious about your thoughts on this? I used to hold similar beliefs to what you wrote here, but I have shifted away from my anti-religious views as I've learned more ML theory. It's not that I've gained faith or anything, but moreso that I think the problems I see with religion mainly stem from the influences of the institutions operating within feudalism and capitalism.
I think stricter requirements should be placed on party members than on the general population. Party members must have a dialectical materialist world outlook, so they should not openly associate with any religion. I also think the socialist state should promote a scientific education that helps the next generation not become mired in the same superstitions as the previous. But in general only those forms of religious activity which are socially harmful or a hindrance to socialist construction should be actively suppressed by the state. Everything else can be left alone. Religious institutions should of course be subordinated to the dictatorship of the proletariat so that they cannot establish themselves in certain communities as alternative governments with their own laws, taxation, etc.
Agreed. As socialists we often struggle to educate other members of the working class on how a change in their political outlook would benefit them. Trying to change their cultural, religious, or philosophical views is not only arrogant but has also often been historically been disastrous.
It seems that we operate from the same basis, however we have arrived at different conclusions. I'll try to be constructive.
the reality is that a large part of the global population clings strongly to some type of theology.
That is a deprecation imposed on the people by the current class system. Not necessarily consciously, but certainly in order to maintain power of the bourgeoisie. Realistically, what is the difference between religion and, say, liberalism? Especially the more esoteric branches, like libertarianism or "objectivism". They are ideologies, based on idealist philosophy, that serve to explain why the exploitation and social stratification are either good or inescapable. Why bother struggling to overcome the capitalist domination when there's a kingdom of heaven waiting beyond the mortal coil? Why bother analysing class contradictions, when the Lord says be kind and have faith, for His ways are unknowable? I'm using vaguely Christian terminology here on purpose. It is our duty as communists to shed away the blinds, be they pseudo-atheist liberalism or religion.
Rather than trying to suppress religious practice, a better approach would be to effectively strip these institutions of their power while giving them the means to continue operating solely for religious practice and as community hubs, which is one of their main practical benefits to society.
Funnily enough, that's what USSR did. I'm sure you've heard the endless whining about "godless Bolsheviks slaughtering poor innocent monks boo hoo". However: it was the Soviets that have reinstated the position of patriarch of the Russian orthodox church. That's right, godless commies have returned the position of the head of the biggest religion in former empire. You see, before that, church was controlled by the Synod - which was a government body. Soviet leadership has introduced the separation of church and state, so the church received its own leadership. In fact, the patriarch has endorsed the Revolution and deposing of Nicholas 2, proclaiming it to be the will of the people.
But. Where did it lead? Oh that's right, the moment the church smelled a weakness in the socialist state, it pounced and began shitting up people's minds. Not only did it not wither away, it was one of the core vectors of anti-communism after USSR collapsed. 1996, the corpse of the Union was still warm, and the church was already installing "memorials to victims of repression" near Ekaterinburg. I'm sure you've seen the photos, looks like a weeping mask.
And now? Now the church is a big proponent of reaction. Shitting up school programs. Opening memorials in honour of monarchy, that go out of their way to paint USSR with as black of a paint as possible, with emotional manipulation galore. "Documentaries" on ebil commies in Solovki? Church endorsed. Petitioning police to launch an investigation into the "murder" of the royal family, to check if it was a "Jewish ritual"? Church endorsed. Generally professing to the masses a plethora of anti-scientific, anti-materialist crap? That's basically their main job.
Now, I don't disagree that these issues stem from the political and economic basis of society (feudalism and capitalism), but that's the thing - religion is perpetuated by these systems because it serves to strengthen and justify them. You can't "cleanse religion from capitalist influence", because it is inherent in the core philosophy. Jan Hus tried. See how that went.
Now you might say that everything I've said applies mostly to the big, established, organised religions, not faith on a personal level. But why won't it? Why would "neopaganism" be somehow different from Protestantism, from Islam? If you believe in magic, even on a personal level, then these beliefs will inevitably clash with the materialism required from developed ML theory. And if you see religious groups as a pathway to belonging, to being part of a community - then keep in mind, that such communities will be thr vectors from which reaction spreads - because they will be more important to their members than class organisation, than socialist organisation.
Call me a class reductionist, call me a positivist, I don't care. We've been too lenient on anti-scientific rubbish for too long
You make a lot of good points about religion being a vector for anti-communism and I generally feel the same way about the influence of Christian groups. The instances where I disagree tend to be exceptions to how these institutions act.
For instance, there is a religious group that lives near me that isn't well known that has formed their own commune. I've found them to be very warm and accepting people despite having some beliefs that have no scientific basis. They aren't trying to spread their religion, they are accepting and hospitable to outsiders, and they just seek to meditate in their small commune. Anecdotal, yes, but I can't deny their existence and how compatible they are in practice.
Religious institutions and beliefs along these lines, groups that don't subscribe to the toxic, patriarchal views of most religions seem rather innocuous. Can they be vectors for the spread of reactionaries? I can't argue against that. These people are surely the exception to the rule and despite their openness to discussing ML theory, I've run into plenty of other more agnostic beliefs that absolutely led to the opposite, regardless of their willingness to discuss in good faith.
I think this is something I'll need to think about more. I generally think, so long as it does not interfere with scientific thought and despite it being antithetical to it, religious beliefs can be tolerated. I won't deny that they historically have very much been harmful to our cause, but we also can't be blind to how prevalent even agnostic beliefs are and how our reactions to this can alienate people that may otherwise be allies. There are plenty of examples of comrades who are religious and this makes me think tolerance is a better path, but I can't deny that you are right, religious beliefs are rooted in idealism and can be a conflict of interest vs class consciousness. Again, I'll need to think and read on this more.
Thank you in return. You raised an excellent point in regards to alienation, especially since it applies not just to religion, but to other idealist (or non dialectical materialist) beliefs. That's something that we'll have to address, if we are to propagate to the people. So something for me to ponder on as well. Cheers!
It's been a long couple days for me and I haven't been able to read through this yet. Thanks for taking the time to type out this reply, I'll definitely get to it in the next day or two and see if I have anything to add to the conversation. From what I've read so far, you've given me some food for thought and I want to mull it over.
I agree with you on religion being very similar to liberalism, and on a personal level I see no reason to ascribe to any of it. My main concern is how many people cling to some type of faith and would feel alienated by immediate action against organized religion. That's the contradiction in my mind and my immediate reaction is to err on the side of not alienating people with strong religious beliefs, because that opens up roads for opposition, but you may have addressed that further on. I look forward to finishing reading later to see!
Completely agree, comrade. Religion is only a vector of attack to the socialist state, therefore It's in the interest of the working class to have a firm grip on it and eventually get rid of it. I can't see a world where socialism/communism and religion can peacefully co-exist.
I don't like being explicitly antitheist because many people haven't dealt with their internal contradictions and being obnoxious about it can push them away from marxism, but yes you are right.
Dialectical materialism and religion are mutually exclusive, the laws of the world are knowable and whatever we don't know we eventually will, filling the gaps with religion is simply un-materialistic.
Time to bang my old drum again.
Marxism-Leninism is specifically based on dialectic materialism. A philosophy that very clearly postulates the material basis of the mind and everything to do with it. People often harp on USSR's anti-church policies, but frankly they didn't go far enough. You either believe in fairies, or you utilise the scientific method and recognise the materialist basis of reality, history, culture and human "spirit"
Although I agree with you about eschewing religious faith on a personal level, the reality is that a large part of the global population clings strongly to some type of theology. Going so far as to outlaw religious practice or dismantle religious institutions has historically led to the alienation of people who value religious beliefs. Plenty of people have managed to live with faith and act as positive members of our communities. The problems arise when power incentives exist for their leaders.
How religious institutions and their leaders act within and influence our systems is the main source of the problems with religion, not religious faith. Rather than trying to suppress religious practice, a better approach would be to effectively strip these institutions of their power while giving them the means to continue operating solely for religious practice and as community hubs, which is one of their main practical benefits to society.
Should they be collecting tithes, enriching religious leaders, or participating at any level as political institutions outside of combatting real persecution? No. I definitely agree with banning this. But if you give them the means to maintain their places of worship and otherwise eliminate any profit incentives, I expect these institutions as we know them would "wither away" and naturally continue acting as smaller corners of the community that will become more focused on making a positive impact and providing mutual aid.
I'm curious about your thoughts on this? I used to hold similar beliefs to what you wrote here, but I have shifted away from my anti-religious views as I've learned more ML theory. It's not that I've gained faith or anything, but moreso that I think the problems I see with religion mainly stem from the influences of the institutions operating within feudalism and capitalism.
I think stricter requirements should be placed on party members than on the general population. Party members must have a dialectical materialist world outlook, so they should not openly associate with any religion. I also think the socialist state should promote a scientific education that helps the next generation not become mired in the same superstitions as the previous. But in general only those forms of religious activity which are socially harmful or a hindrance to socialist construction should be actively suppressed by the state. Everything else can be left alone. Religious institutions should of course be subordinated to the dictatorship of the proletariat so that they cannot establish themselves in certain communities as alternative governments with their own laws, taxation, etc.
Agreed. As socialists we often struggle to educate other members of the working class on how a change in their political outlook would benefit them. Trying to change their cultural, religious, or philosophical views is not only arrogant but has also often been historically been disastrous.
It seems that we operate from the same basis, however we have arrived at different conclusions. I'll try to be constructive.
That is a deprecation imposed on the people by the current class system. Not necessarily consciously, but certainly in order to maintain power of the bourgeoisie. Realistically, what is the difference between religion and, say, liberalism? Especially the more esoteric branches, like libertarianism or "objectivism". They are ideologies, based on idealist philosophy, that serve to explain why the exploitation and social stratification are either good or inescapable. Why bother struggling to overcome the capitalist domination when there's a kingdom of heaven waiting beyond the mortal coil? Why bother analysing class contradictions, when the Lord says be kind and have faith, for His ways are unknowable? I'm using vaguely Christian terminology here on purpose. It is our duty as communists to shed away the blinds, be they pseudo-atheist liberalism or religion.
Funnily enough, that's what USSR did. I'm sure you've heard the endless whining about "godless Bolsheviks slaughtering poor innocent monks boo hoo". However: it was the Soviets that have reinstated the position of patriarch of the Russian orthodox church. That's right, godless commies have returned the position of the head of the biggest religion in former empire. You see, before that, church was controlled by the Synod - which was a government body. Soviet leadership has introduced the separation of church and state, so the church received its own leadership. In fact, the patriarch has endorsed the Revolution and deposing of Nicholas 2, proclaiming it to be the will of the people.
But. Where did it lead? Oh that's right, the moment the church smelled a weakness in the socialist state, it pounced and began shitting up people's minds. Not only did it not wither away, it was one of the core vectors of anti-communism after USSR collapsed. 1996, the corpse of the Union was still warm, and the church was already installing "memorials to victims of repression" near Ekaterinburg. I'm sure you've seen the photos, looks like a weeping mask.
And now? Now the church is a big proponent of reaction. Shitting up school programs. Opening memorials in honour of monarchy, that go out of their way to paint USSR with as black of a paint as possible, with emotional manipulation galore. "Documentaries" on ebil commies in Solovki? Church endorsed. Petitioning police to launch an investigation into the "murder" of the royal family, to check if it was a "Jewish ritual"? Church endorsed. Generally professing to the masses a plethora of anti-scientific, anti-materialist crap? That's basically their main job.
Now, I don't disagree that these issues stem from the political and economic basis of society (feudalism and capitalism), but that's the thing - religion is perpetuated by these systems because it serves to strengthen and justify them. You can't "cleanse religion from capitalist influence", because it is inherent in the core philosophy. Jan Hus tried. See how that went.
Now you might say that everything I've said applies mostly to the big, established, organised religions, not faith on a personal level. But why won't it? Why would "neopaganism" be somehow different from Protestantism, from Islam? If you believe in magic, even on a personal level, then these beliefs will inevitably clash with the materialism required from developed ML theory. And if you see religious groups as a pathway to belonging, to being part of a community - then keep in mind, that such communities will be thr vectors from which reaction spreads - because they will be more important to their members than class organisation, than socialist organisation.
Call me a class reductionist, call me a positivist, I don't care. We've been too lenient on anti-scientific rubbish for too long
You make a lot of good points about religion being a vector for anti-communism and I generally feel the same way about the influence of Christian groups. The instances where I disagree tend to be exceptions to how these institutions act.
For instance, there is a religious group that lives near me that isn't well known that has formed their own commune. I've found them to be very warm and accepting people despite having some beliefs that have no scientific basis. They aren't trying to spread their religion, they are accepting and hospitable to outsiders, and they just seek to meditate in their small commune. Anecdotal, yes, but I can't deny their existence and how compatible they are in practice.
Religious institutions and beliefs along these lines, groups that don't subscribe to the toxic, patriarchal views of most religions seem rather innocuous. Can they be vectors for the spread of reactionaries? I can't argue against that. These people are surely the exception to the rule and despite their openness to discussing ML theory, I've run into plenty of other more agnostic beliefs that absolutely led to the opposite, regardless of their willingness to discuss in good faith.
I think this is something I'll need to think about more. I generally think, so long as it does not interfere with scientific thought and despite it being antithetical to it, religious beliefs can be tolerated. I won't deny that they historically have very much been harmful to our cause, but we also can't be blind to how prevalent even agnostic beliefs are and how our reactions to this can alienate people that may otherwise be allies. There are plenty of examples of comrades who are religious and this makes me think tolerance is a better path, but I can't deny that you are right, religious beliefs are rooted in idealism and can be a conflict of interest vs class consciousness. Again, I'll need to think and read on this more.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Thank you in return. You raised an excellent point in regards to alienation, especially since it applies not just to religion, but to other idealist (or non dialectical materialist) beliefs. That's something that we'll have to address, if we are to propagate to the people. So something for me to ponder on as well. Cheers!
It's been a long couple days for me and I haven't been able to read through this yet. Thanks for taking the time to type out this reply, I'll definitely get to it in the next day or two and see if I have anything to add to the conversation. From what I've read so far, you've given me some food for thought and I want to mull it over.
I agree with you on religion being very similar to liberalism, and on a personal level I see no reason to ascribe to any of it. My main concern is how many people cling to some type of faith and would feel alienated by immediate action against organized religion. That's the contradiction in my mind and my immediate reaction is to err on the side of not alienating people with strong religious beliefs, because that opens up roads for opposition, but you may have addressed that further on. I look forward to finishing reading later to see!
Completely agree, comrade. Religion is only a vector of attack to the socialist state, therefore It's in the interest of the working class to have a firm grip on it and eventually get rid of it. I can't see a world where socialism/communism and religion can peacefully co-exist.
I don't like being explicitly antitheist because many people haven't dealt with their internal contradictions and being obnoxious about it can push them away from marxism, but yes you are right.
Dialectical materialism and religion are mutually exclusive, the laws of the world are knowable and whatever we don't know we eventually will, filling the gaps with religion is simply un-materialistic.