It’s important to be aware of the context of how Muslims are treated in the West. The issue isn’t burning a religious text, it’s that allowing these far-right rituals just fuels the irrational hatred of Muslim people, especially refugees
I used to think religion itself was the problem, but becoming a communist has changed my perspective on this. Capitalism creates unjustifiable hierarchies that allow religion to weild immense power within our society. This can be prevented under socialism, turning religion into just another part of our culture.
did u happen to forget that religion has exists as it does today and in even more oppressive forms for thousands before capitalism came around? the idea that capitalism is making something that has been bad long before capitalism even exists bad is straight up a historical.
yeah and in plenty of those societies religion WAS the hierarchy. how could we ever even eliminated class society while also preserving organizations and ideologies to which hierarchy is inherent.
I think any reasonable communist thinks that religious theocracies are terrible. You can have religion in any type of society, but not have it be the dominating factor of the society.
You might be right. My perspective on the matter is that we should take that anti-religion energy and focus it on class struggle instead. Once we, the proletariat, control the state, we can suppress the power that religion holds over society.
All religions so far have been the expression of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is the stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and brings about their disappearance.
The mirrors my perspective above in that if we focus on class struggle in order to bring about communism, religion will take a new form in either shifting to focus on simply the “spirituality” aspect or disappear entirely.
Did religion provide the hierarchy or the relations of production? I imagine there’s quite a strong dialectical relationship as I see religion as adaptable to material conditions. E.g. Catholicism mapped perfectly to feudal society. Then Christians needed a new form for the capitalist era. And in comes Protestantism with is work ethic and whatever the fuck those fundamentalists in the US do where the Christians screech for war, refuse to help the poor, and deny medical care to each other.
I’m not saying this to say that religion can survive without hierarchy. Maybe there are theories about that. Only to ask whether there’s an order to this. If religion provides the hierarchy does that make it part of the base? And if religion no longer provides the hierarchy, would it now be part of the superstructure? Or was it always part of the superstructure? (Recognising, still, that the base-superstructure is shorthand for something that is more flexible in practice than in some vulgar theory.)
First hierarchies in class society were (as always) based on production mode but their ideology was religious, look at the origins of sumerian city states and ancient Egypt.
Don’t you think this type of thinking is reductive? Does it not give credit to those who claim communism doesn’t work because the USSR tried it? It completely ignores the specific material conditions of the time and place.
Excuse me i didn’t wrote a 50 pages dissertation about that, i assumed you know this never happened anywhere where religious organizations had any significant power.
What is REALLY reductive (and also historically proven incorrect) is writing “Capitalism creates unjustifiable hierarchies that allow religion to weild immense power within our society.”* and “This can be prevented under socialism, turning religion into just another part of our culture.”
*EDIT: while theoretically correct, it does that, all systems of class society before did the same, so it’s not sole fault of capitalism. Hell, even socialist countries didn’t liquidated those hierarchies.
My apologies if my comment came of as cententious. I think this is an interesting conversation and I’m interested in learning more and gaining insight into the different the perspectives of other comrades on the topic.
this never happened anywhere where religious organizations had any significant power.
Admitted, I’m pretty niave on the history of both of these, but what are your thoughts on this in relation to Tibet and Xinjiang? In Tibet, they banished the Dalai Lama, but not religious practice. And in Xinjiang, I believe I read there’s more mosques there than anywhere else in the world. It seems education has been the key in reducing religious extremism in the region as opposed to outright banning religion.
Not sure about Xinjiang exactly, but decentralised and autonomous nature of muslim religious authorities usually cause them to not have much political power when under non-muslim government, religious influence in such conditions usually results in what they did, extremist minority.
Tibet is even worse example, now its more or less cooperative, but clergy literally got deposed from power hard, expropriated nearly entirely and since then watched carefully. PRC even directly interfere with their religious hierarchy, look what they did to panchen lama and when current dalai lama dies the tibetan buddhism can very well split because it, which will increase state influence over it. And it’s far from only thing.
I won’t even mention what happened when Falun Gong overstepped.
outright banning religion.
You do know than beween kissing bishop ring and “outright banning religion” there is a lot of other options?
Yes, and the limits installed have to be carefully devised. In this case you say you can’t burn a Muslim holy text. Can I burn a Jewish one, Buddhist? What if Heinlein is my religion and someone burns a stranger in a strange land, is it the same, different? How so?
As I said in my original comment, consider the context. There is no noteworthy discrimination against followers of Heinlein, if such people exist, and as far as I know it’s not a religion recognized by any country. There is extreme discrimination against Muslims in the West. There’s also discrimination against Jews. For Buddhists, it would likely be less of a problem since it’s not a prominent religion in the West, but it could also lead to further escalation.
Even if we analyze this without context, what kind of expression is the state silencing by not allowing public book burning? We’re not talking about someone burning a Quran in their home, where nobody else can see it. Do you believe it should be legal to stand in a public place and shout ethnic slurs into a megaphone?
You don’t need to agree with religion in the same way you don’t need to agree with sugary drinks or polygamy. Don’t immediately jump from “this law protects people who are religious” to “maybe we shouldn’t worry so much if violence is incited against innocent people”
people who practice polygamy or drink a lot of sugar dont have a systematic problem with child rape, nor have they gonna around justifying genocides nor do they have organizations dedicated to marginalizing others nor do said organizations dedicated themselves to indoctrinating more people into their fucked up cult, nor is indoctrinating children before they even have the ability to think critically a crucial, essential, and ubiquitous part of their creed.
are u seriously trying to compare drinking sugary drinks and sexual freedom (mostly from the backwards cults u are defending) to some of the most dangerous and destructive ideologies and organizations ever to ravage earth?
You’re cherry picking. Yes, sugary drinks resulted in death squads. Just look up the history of Coca Cola. Note that people who threaten violence against religious people never go after the leaders of the institutions, only the adherents, who have no power, just like the people who drink sugary drinks don’t actively participate in Coca Cola death squads.
Institutions cause genocide, religious or not. Institutions marginalize the weak, religious or not. People who burn the qu’ran aren’t thinking about traveling to the seats of power, they’re thinking of shooting up mosques.
Please don’t let your inability to separate religious belief from religious institutions drive you to argue we shouldn’t defend innocent people against religious hate. Because the people that we want to protect also have belief systems that could fall to the hatred as well. Colonized people all over the world have belief systems that many would religions, and we aren’t going to see them abandon their beliefs before we decolonize. Focus on institutions. Leave the working class alone, even if they believe in sky daddy.
hatred isnt some random quirk of some religious institutions it is literally written into most holy books. there is nothing about soda that makes it inherently lead to death squads but the bible states quite clearly the supposed virtues of slavery and murdering infidels and the oppression of women and plenty more, most other religions dont fair any better under any examination. if u wanna talk about a magical fantasy world where religion is devoid of the horrible institutions that have upheld it and been upheld by it for thousands of years go ahead but it has nothing to do with the actual reality of religion as it has always does and seemingly will continue to exits so leave me out of those fantasies.
And yeah i will certainly argue that when right wingers fight we should stay out of it im certainly not going to argue for defending neither side in an argument where both sides worship a god that want me fucking dead for being a non believer cuz if someone looks at that fucked up shit and say yeah thats my stuff, thats where my morality comes from, that what i want to follow it can only mean that they agree.
And to be clear some of the problems with religion like the abuse of children (in the form of indoctrination specifically) goes all the way down and it carried out by just about every member of these cults and have little to with the institutions.
I think you pull on true facts about the world. I think you marshall them for a position of violence that harms the working class and the colonized. I will not sign up for newsletter. I hope I never find myself defending a working class family against your misplaced violence.
My misplaced violence? i have never attacked anyone nor do i want to, im just very justifiably afraid of the violence of religion, it has never been atheists that been behind religious related violence it has always been religion and its followers.
A charitable interpretation of the motion: we should condemn fascists burning in public demonstrations the cultural token of a minority that is socioenomically repressed, ghettoized, and a target of fascistic hate that benefits the bourgeoisie and distracts from real working class plight.
You: no they are both reactionaries. Let them fight each other.
if they care about burning a holy book they are reactionary. if it was about race or immigration status i would care but people fighting over religion is not my problem.
and yeah thats quite charitable because it can just as easily be interpreted as defending religion from even being able to be criticized under the guise of preventing right wing infighting.
deleted by creator
It’s important to be aware of the context of how Muslims are treated in the West. The issue isn’t burning a religious text, it’s that allowing these far-right rituals just fuels the irrational hatred of Muslim people, especially refugees
deleted by creator
I used to think religion itself was the problem, but becoming a communist has changed my perspective on this. Capitalism creates unjustifiable hierarchies that allow religion to weild immense power within our society. This can be prevented under socialism, turning religion into just another part of our culture.
did u happen to forget that religion has exists as it does today and in even more oppressive forms for thousands before capitalism came around? the idea that capitalism is making something that has been bad long before capitalism even exists bad is straight up a historical.
That’s true, but it’s always been under class society where some form of these hierarchies exist.
yeah and in plenty of those societies religion WAS the hierarchy. how could we ever even eliminated class society while also preserving organizations and ideologies to which hierarchy is inherent.
I think any reasonable communist thinks that religious theocracies are terrible. You can have religion in any type of society, but not have it be the dominating factor of the society.
it is not the dominating factor in most capitalists societies right now and its terrible enough as is.
You might be right. My perspective on the matter is that we should take that anti-religion energy and focus it on class struggle instead. Once we, the proletariat, control the state, we can suppress the power that religion holds over society.
In “The Principles of Communism” Engles writes:
The mirrors my perspective above in that if we focus on class struggle in order to bring about communism, religion will take a new form in either shifting to focus on simply the “spirituality” aspect or disappear entirely.
using that quote to defend religion is like defending the state by quoting the “Paris Commune” if that supports any view its mine.
Did religion provide the hierarchy or the relations of production? I imagine there’s quite a strong dialectical relationship as I see religion as adaptable to material conditions. E.g. Catholicism mapped perfectly to feudal society. Then Christians needed a new form for the capitalist era. And in comes Protestantism with is work ethic and whatever the fuck those fundamentalists in the US do where the Christians screech for war, refuse to help the poor, and deny medical care to each other.
I’m not saying this to say that religion can survive without hierarchy. Maybe there are theories about that. Only to ask whether there’s an order to this. If religion provides the hierarchy does that make it part of the base? And if religion no longer provides the hierarchy, would it now be part of the superstructure? Or was it always part of the superstructure? (Recognising, still, that the base-superstructure is shorthand for something that is more flexible in practice than in some vulgar theory.)
First hierarchies in class society were (as always) based on production mode but their ideology was religious, look at the origins of sumerian city states and ancient Egypt.
You know who tried? Socialist Poland for example.
Don’t you think this type of thinking is reductive? Does it not give credit to those who claim communism doesn’t work because the USSR tried it? It completely ignores the specific material conditions of the time and place.
Excuse me i didn’t wrote a 50 pages dissertation about that, i assumed you know this never happened anywhere where religious organizations had any significant power.
What is REALLY reductive (and also historically proven incorrect) is writing “Capitalism creates unjustifiable hierarchies that allow religion to weild immense power within our society.”* and “This can be prevented under socialism, turning religion into just another part of our culture.”
*EDIT: while theoretically correct, it does that, all systems of class society before did the same, so it’s not sole fault of capitalism. Hell, even socialist countries didn’t liquidated those hierarchies.
My apologies if my comment came of as cententious. I think this is an interesting conversation and I’m interested in learning more and gaining insight into the different the perspectives of other comrades on the topic.
Admitted, I’m pretty niave on the history of both of these, but what are your thoughts on this in relation to Tibet and Xinjiang? In Tibet, they banished the Dalai Lama, but not religious practice. And in Xinjiang, I believe I read there’s more mosques there than anywhere else in the world. It seems education has been the key in reducing religious extremism in the region as opposed to outright banning religion.
Not sure about Xinjiang exactly, but decentralised and autonomous nature of muslim religious authorities usually cause them to not have much political power when under non-muslim government, religious influence in such conditions usually results in what they did, extremist minority.
Tibet is even worse example, now its more or less cooperative, but clergy literally got deposed from power hard, expropriated nearly entirely and since then watched carefully. PRC even directly interfere with their religious hierarchy, look what they did to panchen lama and when current dalai lama dies the tibetan buddhism can very well split because it, which will increase state influence over it. And it’s far from only thing.
I won’t even mention what happened when Falun Gong overstepped.
You do know than beween kissing bishop ring and “outright banning religion” there is a lot of other options?
That’s a slippery slope boss banning expression always is.
complete freedom of expression doesn’t exist anywhere, there are always limits and some are more reasonable than others
Yes, and the limits installed have to be carefully devised. In this case you say you can’t burn a Muslim holy text. Can I burn a Jewish one, Buddhist? What if Heinlein is my religion and someone burns a stranger in a strange land, is it the same, different? How so?
As I said in my original comment, consider the context. There is no noteworthy discrimination against followers of Heinlein, if such people exist, and as far as I know it’s not a religion recognized by any country. There is extreme discrimination against Muslims in the West. There’s also discrimination against Jews. For Buddhists, it would likely be less of a problem since it’s not a prominent religion in the West, but it could also lead to further escalation.
Even if we analyze this without context, what kind of expression is the state silencing by not allowing public book burning? We’re not talking about someone burning a Quran in their home, where nobody else can see it. Do you believe it should be legal to stand in a public place and shout ethnic slurs into a megaphone?
So you’d rather disapprove of religion in a way that provides cover for reactionaries to commit violence against already marginalized people?
deleted by creator
You don’t need to agree with religion in the same way you don’t need to agree with sugary drinks or polygamy. Don’t immediately jump from “this law protects people who are religious” to “maybe we shouldn’t worry so much if violence is incited against innocent people”
people who practice polygamy or drink a lot of sugar dont have a systematic problem with child rape, nor have they gonna around justifying genocides nor do they have organizations dedicated to marginalizing others nor do said organizations dedicated themselves to indoctrinating more people into their fucked up cult, nor is indoctrinating children before they even have the ability to think critically a crucial, essential, and ubiquitous part of their creed.
are u seriously trying to compare drinking sugary drinks and sexual freedom (mostly from the backwards cults u are defending) to some of the most dangerous and destructive ideologies and organizations ever to ravage earth?
You’re cherry picking. Yes, sugary drinks resulted in death squads. Just look up the history of Coca Cola. Note that people who threaten violence against religious people never go after the leaders of the institutions, only the adherents, who have no power, just like the people who drink sugary drinks don’t actively participate in Coca Cola death squads.
Institutions cause genocide, religious or not. Institutions marginalize the weak, religious or not. People who burn the qu’ran aren’t thinking about traveling to the seats of power, they’re thinking of shooting up mosques.
Please don’t let your inability to separate religious belief from religious institutions drive you to argue we shouldn’t defend innocent people against religious hate. Because the people that we want to protect also have belief systems that could fall to the hatred as well. Colonized people all over the world have belief systems that many would religions, and we aren’t going to see them abandon their beliefs before we decolonize. Focus on institutions. Leave the working class alone, even if they believe in sky daddy.
hatred isnt some random quirk of some religious institutions it is literally written into most holy books. there is nothing about soda that makes it inherently lead to death squads but the bible states quite clearly the supposed virtues of slavery and murdering infidels and the oppression of women and plenty more, most other religions dont fair any better under any examination. if u wanna talk about a magical fantasy world where religion is devoid of the horrible institutions that have upheld it and been upheld by it for thousands of years go ahead but it has nothing to do with the actual reality of religion as it has always does and seemingly will continue to exits so leave me out of those fantasies.
And yeah i will certainly argue that when right wingers fight we should stay out of it im certainly not going to argue for defending neither side in an argument where both sides worship a god that want me fucking dead for being a non believer cuz if someone looks at that fucked up shit and say yeah thats my stuff, thats where my morality comes from, that what i want to follow it can only mean that they agree.
And to be clear some of the problems with religion like the abuse of children (in the form of indoctrination specifically) goes all the way down and it carried out by just about every member of these cults and have little to with the institutions.
I think you pull on true facts about the world. I think you marshall them for a position of violence that harms the working class and the colonized. I will not sign up for newsletter. I hope I never find myself defending a working class family against your misplaced violence.
My misplaced violence? i have never attacked anyone nor do i want to, im just very justifiably afraid of the violence of religion, it has never been atheists that been behind religious related violence it has always been religion and its followers.
You’re ignoring the potential abuse it could be used for. Can I burn a dianetics book? Bible? Banning expression is almost always a bad thing.
What are you talking about? Are you lost? Banning expression is a requirement for stopping fascism.
Opposing hate based provocation is not approval of anything, come on, terrible take.
why should we care when reactionaries fight each other.
A charitable interpretation of the motion: we should condemn fascists burning in public demonstrations the cultural token of a minority that is socioenomically repressed, ghettoized, and a target of fascistic hate that benefits the bourgeoisie and distracts from real working class plight.
You: no they are both reactionaries. Let them fight each other.
What is wrong with you?
if they care about burning a holy book they are reactionary. if it was about race or immigration status i would care but people fighting over religion is not my problem.
and yeah thats quite charitable because it can just as easily be interpreted as defending religion from even being able to be criticized under the guise of preventing right wing infighting.
Does this resolution actually mention Quran burning? The image doesn’t.