[Political Interest]

When discussing with Marxist-Leninists, it is common to find they uphold the banner of anti-imperialism and profess to be the vanguard of the oppressed peoples of the world. Yet, should we not consider Marxist oppression of religious practice oppressive in itself? When Enver Hoxha came to power in Albania, he tried to do away with Islam and Christianity, he closed the Masjids and Churches or converted them to other purposes. In China during the reign of Mao Zedong, several Taoist, Christian and Islamic buildings were also destroyed. It is known that during the Cultural Revolution, some Masjids were used to feed pigs or for Marxist meetings. Similarly the Soviet Union never looked favourably on religion and if I am not mistaken, during the early days of the revolution several of the Clergymen had to surrender their faith or face execution. The Soviets also oppressed the Muslims both within their own borders and in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. If Marxists truly uphold liberty and self-determation, why do they put down religion to the extent that they do?

[Kasu]

These examples aren't of Marxists, but stalinists and various petty-bourgeois radicals.

[Goldberk]

In addition to the reply above it is worth noting that when revoloutionary movements have attacked religons they have more often attacked the heads and clerics of orgnaised religons (who hold disproportionate power and wealth) and religous buildings (often extravegant and a poor use of space) not actual religon.

[Gletkin]

Judging from the ridiculous sectarianism here on PoFo alone, I say bravo to all "atheist dictatorships".
Whether it be granting freedom or taking it away, just as long as all faiths are treated the same.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses". Well just like actual opiates, if people use religion responsibly and in a positive therapeutic manner, then fine. But if, like drugs, people overdose on religion and go crazy then take it away from them. Both clergy and laypeople who have used religion irresponsibly have voluntarily surrendered their right to religion.

[ingliz]

If Marxists truly uphold liberty and self-determation, why do they put down religion to the extent that they do?

If 'priests' had kept out of counterrevolutionary politics then Marxists would have had no need to put down priests or religion. If religion serves the state, the Orthodox in the USSR for example. it is tolerated.

[Khalq]

Exactly. For example Lenin was favorable to let priests in the Party so long as they were revolutionaries.

[Metal Gear]

I agree that historically Marxists have been cruel to religion and more power to them.

I know people who consider themselves Stalinists who praise theocracy over internal resistance just because it fights against America, however.

[Korchagin]

The premises and conclusions drawn by the original poster are flawed. The reality of relations between Communists and religious organizations is far more complex than the original poster would have you believe.

For example, he says that Russian Orthodox Church was persecuted in the early years of the Russian Revolution, but he does not take note that the Church was deeply divided at this time; pro-reform tendencies like the Living Church, Church Regeneration and others came out in support of the Revolution and Soviet state; Metropolitan Vvedensky preached what was dubbed "communist Christianity." Under the leadership of Pimen and Alexy, the Orthodox Church in fact had solid relations with the Soviet government. The Soviet state and Orthodox Church cooperated in order to realize common goals, such as the movement for peace.

Any repression that Orthodox Church leaders experienced was not because of their religious beliefs, but solely because of their actions. Hardcore reactionaries led by Patriarch Tikhon from the outset anathematized the Russian Government in November 1917, and went on to treacherously collaborate with the counter-revolution and foreign intervention.

And although religious believers have historically been restricted from joining the Communist rank-and-file, this does not mean that there is no room for religion in a socialist republic, which strives to protect the rights of both believers and non-believers. As history shows, there has in fact been a good amount of cooperation between State and religion in socialist republics. Restrictions have generally amounted to actions directed against anti-social, deviant, subversive cults like the Jehova's Witnesses, Falun Gong, and other degenerate groups that do not deserve the privilege of being associated with religion.

The Soviets also oppressed the Muslims both within their own borders and in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989.

No, they didn't. The government in Kabul tried its hardest to enlist the support of mullahs, and was successful to some extent. It downplayed its devotion to communism, emphasizing the interests of the "Muslim working people of Afghanistan."

When Enver Hoxha came to power in Albania, he tried to do away with Islam and Christianity, he closed the Masjids and Churches or converted them to other purposes.

Which according to the Albanians' argument was necessary to safeguard social harmony and human rights in the country. Religion only served to divide Albanians instead of encouraging patriotism.

[Wyndorf]

Marxism leaves room for religion, it just sees no true purpose in it. This would explain why the authoritarian offshots of marxism are so oppressive of it, because there is no longer a need for it in a worker's state.

All in all, religion is an opressive thing anyways. Look at capitalism, it is very much modeled off christian thought. That man has inherited the Earth, and we shall do with it as we will. If you are not of capitalism, then we can treat you however we want, you are wrong. Very much in the same way religions have persecuted "unbelivers" or "heathens".

For marxist ideals to come to fruitation, everyone in the world would have to be athiest. As since you cannot prove God exists, so how can we base our complete system of morality on Him?

[maryanxx]

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature,
the heart of a heartless world,
just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation.
It is the opium of the people."
-Karl Marx.


As much as I disagree with him, I think it's a wonderful quote. Is it possible for me to believe in Marxist philosophy yet still believe in God? I like to think so.

[Khalq]

Sure you can "believe" (note the quotation marks) in the Marxist philosophy -- dialectical materialism -- but you would have such an interesting case of internal antagonism...
You do understand the meaning of philosophical materialism and its antithetical opposition to philosophical idealism, right?

And why do you disagree with the quote? It is totally true and still applicable today to many situations around the world. Even if people "in general" believe for many different reasons, the oppressed always believe for one very specific reason: because they are oppressed. Religion is escapist and gives hope (a completely false one, that is) to the hopeless. And the oppressor knows that quite well and uses all its potential to the full. Exactly like nationalism and racialism.

[Vera Politica]

You do understand the meaning of philosophical materialism and its antithetical opposition to philosophical idealism, right?

Transcendental idealism can be compatible with a sort of Empirical realism or materialism. Kant certainly made the two compatible, although developments in modern logic falsified his project. It's a slipper slope, but it is philosophically possible and historically true

[maryanxx]

Sure you can "believe" (note the quotation marks) in the Marxist philosophy -- dialectical materialism -- but you would have such an interesting case of internal antagonism...
You do understand the meaning of philosophical materialism and its antithetical opposition to philosophical idealism, right?

Well sure, but doesn't philosophical materialism derive from philosophical idealism? I don't think philosophical materialism is all that antithetical from philosophical idealism as you think it to be, infact I think I agree with Marx and I believe in God and I don't have any "case of internal antagonism".

And why do you disagree with the quote? It is totally true and still applicable today to many situations around the world. Even if people "in general" believe for many different reasons, the oppressed always believe for one very specific reason: because they are oppressed. Religion is escapist and gives hope (a completely false one, that is) to the hopeless. And the oppressor knows that quite well and uses all its potential to the full. Exactly like nationalism and racialism.

I don't feel oppressed and yet I believe in a religion.

[Khalq]

Well sure, but doesn't philosophical materialism derive from philosophical idealism?

As its antithesis, maybe? When Marx turned Hegel (i.e. his thought) on his head, he was not trying to induce a hemorrhagic stroke as far as I know.

How can you truly adopt a way of thinking and understanding reality that has as its core the primacy of nature and matter, the creation of ideas by the dynamic material world, and the discovery of the reality of that material world through practice, and yet, believe in a set of universal and immutable ideas that have as their core the abstraction of the understanding of material world from that material world, and the primacy of spirit and ideas?
Given that you understand the implications of both, please explain how you do manage to "mix" them?

I think I agree with Marx and I believe in God and I don't have any "case of internal antagonism".

Can you be honest with your own self and still conciliate the irreconcilable?
You must necessarily reject one or the other, unless of course you adopt a few Marxist ideas (as pure abstractions, i.e. in an idealistic way of thinking, as a dogma) and reject others according to your personal (religious and idealistic) worldview, and therefore completely bastardize Marxism and its philosophy in the process.

I don't feel oppressed and yet I believe in a religion.

Oppression takes many forms and degrees.
That people don't feel oppressed doesn't mean they aren't. But one has to defy the class system, to pose a serious threat to the oppressor's supremacy and ability to oppress, and to the whole superstructure that justifies and enables it, in order to truly understand the meaning of oppression.

[maryanxx]

Given that you understand the implications of both, please explain how you do manage to "mix" them?

I don't mix them. Now, given that you have knowledge of Marxism, you are speaking through Marx's perspective or through the perspective of Marxism itself, as a philosophy? I believe in his theories, not his own personal opinions such as atheism.

Can you be honest with your own self and still conciliate the irreconcilable?
You must necessarily reject one or the other, unless of course you adopt a few Marxist ideas (as pure abstractions, i.e. in an idealistic way of thinking, as a dogma) and reject others according to your personal (religious and idealistic) worldview, and therefore completely bastardize Marxism and its philosophy in the process.

I accept his theories and reject his personal opinion. As an individual interpreter of Marxism, I differentiate his personal opinions (his idealist and religious views) from the philosophy of Marxism itself. I don't interpret "atheism" to be a part of Marxism. Religion cannot mix with a political ideology (the philosophical materialistic side of Marxism). The only idealistic views of Marxism would be his predictions.

Oppression takes many forms and degrees.
That people don't feel oppressed doesn't mean they aren't. But one has to defy the class system, to pose a serious threat to the oppressor's supremacy and ability to oppress, and to the whole superstructure that justifies and enables it, in order to truly understand the meaning of oppression

Why must oppression be external?

[The Immortal Goon]

You can be religious and Marxist.

James Connolly argues this better than I can, so I'll let him speak if anyone's interested in it.

This said, I personally tend to think that this raises a few contradictions - but as the man says, it's none of my concern.

[Khalq]

I don't mix them. Now, given that you have knowledge of Marxism, you are speaking through Marx's perspective or through the perspective of Marxism itself, as a philosophy?

There is no such a thing as "Marx's perspective". It is not a doctrine, or a dogma in which one believes, or glass lenses through which one looks at the world in a "Marxist-distorted" way. It is a set of abstract ideas based on dialectical materialist truths, ideas that can be validated, refuted, adapted or enhanced by revolutionary practice.

Either one chooses science, the study of objective reality and truth through practice and therefore materialism (dialectical materialism only being a more advanced form of it), *or* one chooses the subordination of the material world to absolute ideas, spirit, the will of supernatural beings, etc., the equation of abstractions to other abstractions, religion, and therefore idealism (in any of its numerous flavors). In the end, they are mutually exclusive.
That you fail to see the contradiction here leads me to conclude that you misunderstand the implications of both materialism and idealism.

I believe in his theories, not his own personal opinions such as atheism.
[...]
his personal opinions (his idealist and religious views) from the philosophy of Marxism itself.

This is where you are completely wrong. First, Marxist "atheism" (quotation marks explained later) is not Marx's personal opinion. It is inherent to Marxist philosophy. It is a consequence of materialism. And second, Marxism is not atheist per se. It does not bother rejecting this or that religion or religious conception of God or the world, as much as it seeks to change the conditions that give rise to the popular belief in God and the necessity of religion.
And one does not believe in the theories of Marx, for that would be idealism and dogmatism. One answers the fundamental question of philosophy about the relation between idea and matter, and from there, chooses to adopt scientific thought processes, the Marxist dialectical materialism being one of them.

The only idealistic views of Marxism would be his predictions.

Wrong again. They are not at all idealistic. They are materialistic since they are based on- and result from the materialist conception of history: historical materialism.
It is inseparable from dialectical materialism and is nothing more than an extension of it. It is dialectical materialism applied to history, if you will.

[Khalq]

The Immortal Goon,

I think it is rather "you can be religious and socialist", with "socialist" meaning "revolutionary fighter for socialism and another world" or something in that vein.

Connolly is not saying anything "new" or different from socialist thinkers and leaders before and after him. All he's saying is that socialist parties are secular and consider religion as a private matter. He's opposed to the "vulgar materialists" who are more busy with mere anti-clericalism than anything else, and who are usually proponents of liberalism anyway.
As I previously mentioned, Lenin used to let priests in the Party as long as they fulfilled their revolutionary responsibilities towards the working class and its Party. This is the exact same pragmatic and realpolitik stance.
In my opinion, it raises no contradictions whatsoever for the Marxists themselves. In fact religious people and idealists in general who insist on being "Marxists", have a bigger problem (even if they don't always realize it) with their inner self than Marxists have with them.
Let them be the embodiment of contradiction if it pleases them and fulfills their Higher Purpose on Earth. Who are we to oppose their life plans?

[maryanxx]

I could go on and on and ramble about how I agree with many of Marx's idea and yet still believe in a God. So, I see no point in continuing my argument as you will always find fault in it, which I understand. There is, of course, fault in everything.

[Cartertonian]

How can you truly adopt a way of thinking and understanding reality that has as its core the primacy of nature and matter, the creation of ideas by the dynamic material world, and the discovery of the reality of that material world through practice, and yet, believe in a set of universal and immutable ideas that have as their core the abstraction of the understanding of material world from that material world, and the primacy of spirit and ideas?

By the simple expedient of accepting that, as William Shakespeare put it:

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Hamlet

As far as I'm concerned, lack of 'scientific' proof of something existing does not equal proof, of any description, that it does not exist. It merely proves that we don't know. Of the cosmos, there is much we, Karl Marx, his adherents, detractors and philosophical inspirees don't know.

In relation to the OP, my view may be simplistic (no change there, then ) but in a society where the state wishes to control everything you do, right down to what you think, it's unlikely they will tolerate anything that might potentially go 'off-message'.