Socialism and Religion

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1
Since there seems to be so much confusion regarding the two I think this thread is completely necessary...

(I've underlined the parts I felt important, for those of you who do not wish to read it in its entirety)



Present-day society is wholly based on the exploitation of the vast masses of the working class by a tiny minority of the population, the class of the landowners and that of the capitalists. It is a slave society, since the “free” workers, who all their life work for the capitalists, are “entitled” only to such means of subsistence as are essential for the maintenance of slaves who produce profit, for the safeguarding and perpetuation of capitalist slavery.

The economic oppression of the workers inevitably calls forth and engenders every kind of political oppression and social humiliation, the coarsening and darkening of the spiritual and moral life of the masses. The workers may secure a greater or lesser degree of political liberty to fight for their economic emancipation, but no amount of liberty will rid them of poverty, unemployment, and oppression until the power of capital is overthrown. Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

But a slave who has become conscious of his slavery and has risen to struggle for his emancipation has already half ceased to be a slave. The modern class-conscious worker, reared by large-scale factory industry and enlightened by urban life, contemptuously casts aside religious prejudices, leaves heaven to the priests and bourgeois bigots, and tries to win a better life for himself here on earth. The proletariat of today takes the side of socialism, which enlists science in the battle against the fog of religion, and frees the workers from their belief in life after death by welding them together to fight in the present for a better life on earth.

Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfilment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men’s consciences, and linking cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church. Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church.

...

So far as the party of the socialist proletariat is concerned, religion is not a private affair. Our Party is an association of class-conscious, advanced fighters for the emancipation of the working class. Such an association cannot and must not be indifferent to lack of class-consciousness, ignorance or obscurantism in the shape of religious beliefs. We demand complete disestablishment of the Church so as to be able to combat the religious fog with purely ideo logical and solely ideological weapons, by means of our press and by word of mouth. But we founded our association, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, precisely for such a struggle against every religious bamboozling of the workers. And to us the ideological struggle is not a private affair, but the affair of the whole Party, of the whole proletariat.

If that is so, why do we not declare in our Programme that we are atheists? Why do we not forbid Christians and other believers in God to join our Party?

The answer to this question will serve to explain the very important difference in the way the question of religion is presented by the bourgeois democrats and the Social-Democrats.

Our Programme is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Programme, therefore, necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism; the publication of the appropriate scientific literature, which the autocratic feudal government has hitherto strictly forbidden and persecuted, must now form one of the fields of our Party work. We shall now probably have to follow the advice Engels once gave to the German Socialists: to translate and widely disseminate the literature of the eighteenth-century French Enlighteners and atheists.

But under no circumstances ought we to fall into the error of posing the religious question in an abstract, idealistic fashion, as an “intellectual” question unconnected with the class struggle, as is not infrequently done by the radical-democrats from among the bourgeoisie. It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party. We shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential for us to combat the inconsistency of various “Christians”. But that does not mean in the least that the religious question ought to be advanced to first place, where it does not belong at all; nor does it mean that we should allow the forces of the really revolutionary economic and political struggle to be split up on account of third-rate opinions or senseless ideas, rapidly losing all political importance, rapidly being swept out as rubbish by the very course of economic development.

...

The revolutionary proletariat will succeed in making religion a really private affair, so far as the state is concerned. And in this political system, cleansed of medieval mildew, the proletariat will wage a broad and open struggle for the elimination of economic slavery, the true source of the religious humbugging of mankind.

- V. I. Lenin, December 3, 1905

LINK
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#2
And here is the famous quote by Karl Marx: 'Religion is the opium of the people', which is so oftenly taken out of context.


"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and also the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people. " - Karl Marx

The Introduction to Contribution To The Critique Of Hegel's Philosophy Of Right
 
Apr 25, 2002
2,856
0
0
40
www.Tadou.com
#3
I honestly read it.....and i still cannot honestly see the point.

I agree that it sucks that one can't just buy some farmland, grow what they need, live on their own and not have to pay taxes ever again...but those days are behind us. Even that farmer is expected to pay for AIDS medicine for Africans, or After-School programs for Detroit, etc etc.

Economic and Psychological Slavery will always be superior to Physical and Emotional slavery. Let the people believe what they want to believe. But any way you look at it, we will NEVER be free of slavery, because even in a Socialist society, you are a slave to rules and regulations.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#5
honestly 206, who is to blame for poverty before capitalism came along, or was poverty introduced by capitalism??
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#6
Playin devil's advocate maybe, but

Question:

If a socialist party is dedicated to anti-racism, should that not be part of the party program and explicitly declared? Should it not require of its members a commitment to anti-racism and party members not be racists?

If a socialist party is anti-capitalist (kinda inherent if it's socialist), should that not be part of the party program and explicitly declared? Should it not require of its members a commitment to the destruction of capitalism and for party members to be socialists?

If yes:

Then why should a socialist party not declare its atheistic intentions and commitment to the eventual abolition of religion, just like the abolition of capital? Why should it not require members to be atheist’s etc?

Other than the intentional bamboozling of party converts with the covert intention of converting them to atheism at a later date?

Since nearly every organized religion is hierarchical and oppressive towards women, homosexuals and people who don't share the same belief system where is the compatibility? Atheism (or at least agnosticism) and communism certainly tend to be correlated.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#8
Well, phil, to answer your question poverty has existed since the time of social class structures. When primitive man began producing enough as to where there was a surplus, eventually people took control of this, controlled and exploited society, thus leading to poverty. Capitalism has exploited this to the fullest with imperialism and never in the world’s history has this level of poverty existed.

As I said to Tadau, this thread is intended to shed light on the misconception that Socialism does not allow or opposes religion (such as Stalinism). If you would like to debate Marxism, that is fine, but at least offer some kind of comment about the topic.
 
Jun 18, 2004
2,190
0
0
#9
Vlad was kickin real shit there...It sounds as if the socialists were in a recruiting state of mind when he said/wrote that. Are there "hardline" socialists who don't see any room in the party for religion? I would guess there are.
@ Tadou..."No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism."
 
Apr 25, 2002
2,856
0
0
40
www.Tadou.com
#10
2-0-Sixx said:
Rules and regulations created and controlled by the people, not oppressive capitalists.

Tadau, this thread is intended to shed light on the misconception that Socialism does not allow or opposes religion (such as Stalinism).
Fair enough. I still don't see why religion would be so much of a threat to a political Party who are for the power and freedom of the people and the working class.

All the great leaders of the modern world--MLK, Ghandi, etc--ALL preached action NOW, but had different means. They didn't call for the destruction or isolation of religion; they called for its utilization towards a common good. What have modern Socialists done besides ruin countries and turn them into de facto dictatorships?
 
Apr 25, 2002
2,856
0
0
40
www.Tadou.com
#11
L Mac-a-docious said:
@ Tadou..."No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism."
Indeed, but why not "opposing" or "dissenting"? Why "dark"? Are they not in their own literature making a stern judgement FOR potential members, rather then letting them make up their own minds (such as they do with religion)?

What is dark about a woman on welfare with 2 children being able to borrow money for college, go to school, and now make nearly $40K a year and be able to put her kids through college and see to it that they are never on welfare as well? This is true. This is my family's story. This is me. This is capitalism.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#13
tadou said:
Fair enough. I still don't see why religion would be so much of a threat to a political Party who are for the power and freedom of the people and the working class.

All the great leaders of the modern world--MLK, Ghandi, etc--ALL preached action NOW, but had different means. They didn't call for the destruction or isolation of religion; they called for its utilization towards a common good. What have modern Socialists done besides ruin countries and turn them into de facto dictatorships?
Well, actually Tadau, originally the church and MLK were much more "average" and not progressive at all. It wasn't until later that MLK became more radical and he in fact started looking more closely at socialism as a possible answer. The southern churches only became more active in the movement because the people demanded it.

The Nation of Islam actually suppressed Malcolm X and was only concerned with the spread of their group and not the people, thus one of the reasons for Malcolm’s departure.

Throughout history religion has suppressed movements, only compromising when there is no other alternative. You should know this Tadau.

Early slaves were taught how to read to specifically read parts of the bible as a method of control.

Another fine example is current Venezuela. The church is against Chavez and wants him out, but the overwhelming majority of the people support him.

Tadau, it should be perfectly clear to anyone that religion has been and is currently used as a tool to control the masses. Socialism is not a call for the abolishment of religion; rather it is a call for the people to rely on themselves to make change NOW while we are on this earth. It makes no difference to a Socialist if one is a Christian, Muslim, Jew or Atheist.

Something else to think about Tadau; there have been MANY religious socialists. Take the current People’s Party of Pakistan; who are Islamic. The International League of Socialists is another example, The Christian Socialist movement of Britain, and of course the Buddhist Socialists are other examples.

@ColdBlooded,

That is a good question.

Well, obviously for one; Socialists do not require a member to be Atheist for the simple fact it will drive people away. The majority of the working class believes in some kind of god and would be turned off if we demanded they give up their beliefs. Remember, we want a revolution where the working class takes control; we cannot turn them away from us because of a simple view of philosophy.

Secondly, the belief in a god really has nothing to do with the economy or politics. If one believes in god that doesn’t mean they don’t have the same interests as a Socialist. Also, it should be noted that there is a difference between being spiritual and religious.

Lastly, as Marxists we know that religion is merely a reflection of society. As living conditions slowly increase, the need for religion will steadily decrease. Please feel free to add other points.
 
Apr 25, 2002
2,856
0
0
40
www.Tadou.com
#14
^^ I dont know about all that religion/wealth stuff. Its almost like saying, the more rap music prospers in the mainstream, the less gangsta rap gets made....not even close to the case. But what you WILL see is the spread of free speech with the rise of wealth.

In this case, the USA is the richest in the world and has a TREMENDOUS amount of free speech......Cuba on the other hand has a 20 billion GDP (for a 12 million population), and journalists face up to 3 years in jail for speaking out against the government.


I still will never see what your qualm with religion is. I haven't been to church in some 8-9 years, ever since i realized I was being led around by the nose. I've been to no mosque, no synogogue, no nothing. But I also haven't freaked out, embraced Atheism and denounced religion as mind control, because it is simply not the case. Religion is no more brain control than Socialism's promise of a Eutopian world led by the workers and not the heartless, money-grubbing "Capitalists" is brain control.

Socialism = Necromongers on Chronicles of Riddick..one in the same.
Capitalism = Necromongers on Chronicles of Riddick...one in the same.
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#16
@ 2-0-Sixx

How is someone supposed to be a socialist without it effecting their political and philosophical belief systems? How is one supposed to be opposed to the economic injustices of capitalism, yet stand by and watch other injustices continue?

If injustice and inequality (an injustice itself) appall you how is one supposed to be idle in the face of the inequalities and injustices in organized religion?

If someone supports a "simple view of philosophy" that for example blacks are inferior to whites (Most working class people i know are racist or harbor several racial prejudices) i would like to think they should be turned away from a working class organization that claims to be socialist because members see how stupid it would be to divide the working class based on race. If for no other reason than because it is party policy to unite all working class peoples of all races.

Now if you'd do that over a "simple view of philosophy" that is so apparently divisive and unjust, how do you turn the other cheek to someone that supports organized religion which is divisive and unjust and just claim it's a "simple view of philosophy" that should be ignored?

If the party does in fact know the injustices of organized religion yet admits its supporters just for the simple fact that they want more members

2-0-Sixx said:
Socialists do not require a member to be Atheist for the simple fact it will drive people away.
Then i'm wondering how this isn't true:

ColdBlooded said:
Other than the intentional bamboozling of party converts with the covert intention of converting them to atheism at a later date?
2-0-Sixx said:
Lastly, as Marxists we know that religion is merely a reflection of society. As living conditions slowly increase, the need for religion will steadily decrease.
How would a party go about articulating this to potential members who are religious without turning them off and without lying? i.e. the intentional bamboozling of party converts with the covert intention of converting them to atheism at a later date?
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#18
How is someone supposed to be a socialist without it effecting their political and philosophical belief systems? How is one supposed to be opposed to the economic injustices of capitalism, yet stand by and watch other injustices continue?
I don’t understand why they have to watch other injustices continue. If a man believes in god he doesn’t have to support the church or take orders from the church. I think this is shown here at home. The church is against divorce and yet 99% of Americans are for it.

Of course when the church or religious leaders are committing injustices, Socialists will point them out to the people, as in the case with the Catholic church protecting child molesters or in the case of Venezuela where the church opposes Chavez for political reasons. Of course Socialists want people to know about these injustices and oppose them, but that doesn’t mean they have to be atheist. Plenty of people on this board believe in god but are against religious leaders, churches etc.

If injustice and inequality (an injustice itself) appall you how is one supposed to be idle in the face of the inequalities and injustices in organized religion?
We’re not idle and we oppose all injustices.

CB, aren’t you a socialist? Are you challenging me simply to play devils advocate or do you have a different view on the subject?

(Most working class people i know are racist or harbor several racial prejudices)
Maybe that’s the case in Milwaukee, but I’ve never considered the majority of the working class to be racist or “harbor several racial prejudices.” But than again, I live in Seattle and people are very “open minded.”


If someone supports a "simple view of philosophy" that for example blacks are inferior to whites i would like to think they should be turned away from a working class organization that claims to be socialist because members see how stupid it would be to divide the working class based on race. If for no other reason than because it is party policy to unite all working class peoples of all races.
Being racist is an injustice, would you agree? And since we are fighting for equality this obviously conflicts.

Now if you'd do that over a "simple view of philosophy" that is so apparently divisive and unjust, how do you turn the other cheek to someone that supports organized religion which is divisive and unjust and just claim it's a "simple view of philosophy" that should be ignored?
Ok, I never specifically said anything about organized religion or turning our cheeks. As I mentioned before, Socialists will quickly point out any injustices that are occurring in organized religion and will oppose this. If, for example, a new member is very religious and listens closely to an unfair church, we will point out these problems and educate the member, not to convert him to atheism but to educate him about the injustices occurring in his own church. If the church is a “good” church and supports change and a movement, why would we be against that?

As you know CB, there are very different political views when it comes to organized religion. Some churches are for abortion and gay marriage while others aren’t. Churches also change their positions on topics as society changes.

If the party does in fact know the injustices of organized religion yet admits its supporters just for the simple fact that they want more members
This isn’t true. Any injustices will be opposed by a Socialist.

How would a party go about articulating this to potential members who are religious without turning them off and without lying? i.e. the intentional bamboozling of party converts with the covert intention of converting them to atheism at a later date?
Why should it turn them off? The belief in god or religion really has nothing to do with society, it is, as Immortal Technique put it, “A spiritual bond between man and god.” Look at America. How many people go to church regularly; the majority or the minority? How many people actually listen and take orders from the church? I think the majority of Americans believe in god but do not recognize the church as a major influence in their lives.

Again, as Lenin stated, religion should be a private affair.