Is Communism a Religion?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

DrZoidberg got me curious with his post from another thread:

... It's not like Communism has some similarities with Christianity. It's virtually identical. Just with symbols switched out.

While atheistic secularists anywhere else don't. How often do atheists on this board defend themselves with references to scripture? Communists do it all the time.

There are historical reasons for why Communism is like this. It's modeled on Calvin's community in Geneva.

Is this why Communism is perceived as being anti-christian and anti-religion generally, because it is a competing religion? There isn't any love lost between competing religions and religious sects, generally speaking, so communism would fit with the model here. There are lots of other similarities but I'll leave it at that for now. It makes sense to me.

 

[abaddon]

... There are lots of other similarities...

But what are the all-important distinctions?

For one thing, religion's a metaphysical appeal to the whole entire universe for an answer to existential questions/crises. The belief-system of a religion is cosmic in scale. Usually nature's perceived as the problem to be solved (it has a lot of suffering in it) and so the answer entails transcending it.

Does communism do that?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

... There are lots of other similarities...

But what are the all-important distinctions?

For one thing, religion's a metaphysical appeal to the whole entire universe for an answer to existential questions/crises. The belief-system of a religion is cosmic in scale. Usually nature's perceived as the problem to be solved (it has a lot of suffering in it) and so the answer entails transcending it.

Does communism do that?

My first reaction is that communism is not anti-science, as most religions are. So communism uses science to advance itself and therefore does not need a religious mythology. Communist China is a good example. But the Communist Party is all controlling and is responsible for directing all the science and takes all credit. Communist China is also authoritarian and does not tolerate religions that exist in many other countries under democratic governments.

 

[Bomb#20]

But what are the all-important distinctions?

For one thing, religion's a metaphysical appeal to the whole entire universe for an answer to existential questions/crises. The belief-system of a religion is cosmic in scale.

That's a quirk of the specific religions that historically won the proselytization contest. Animism doesn't appeal to the entire universe; it's satisfied ascribing mental qualities to particular mountains and trees. "O Tiber, Father Tiber, to whom the Romans pray: A Roman's life, a Roman's arms, Take thou in charge this day."

Usually nature's perceived as the problem to be solved (it has a lot of suffering in it) and so the answer entails transcending it.

Does communism do that?

It has a more limited scope; but within its scope it does it. Human nature and economics are the problem to be solved, and it transcends them with a project to create Soviet Man and a metaphysical appeal to an unobservable it calls "value" that operates much like "qi" in Chinese folk medicine.

(And of course, that's leaving out Stalin's whole infamous foray into ideologically-driven biology...)

 

[Politesse]

DrZoidberg's point is obvious nonsense, but I do think that there is some fertile ground to tread in terms of looking at how civil government co-opt and even function as religious substitutes. Well-known sociologist Robert Bellah built his career on observing the ways that his native United States both was and wasn't a "Christian Nation", poignantly observing that patriotism and religious fervor are more alike than different. He posited that any nation-state with suffiicent hegemonic control over the common culture eventually developed a "civil religion": an apparatus of State that borrowed the structure, nature, and sometimes even the names and rituals of religion to establish political control and invest the state with a sensation of timelessness and inevitablity. His original article "Civil Religion in America" (1967) is easily found and well worth a read if you are interested in the subject.

 

[rousseau]

Does communism do that?

Yep, fundamentally it's a reaction to uncertainty. We devise systems that purport to move us closer to equilibrium. Communism as an ideal strikes out the competitive nature of the world and guarantees that everyone is secure. It no longer makes sense to appeal to God, so we appeal to government / politics.

 

[DBT]

There may be several versions of communism.....

 

[southernhybrid]

The answer to the question is going to depend on who you ask. Imo, if communism is a religion, it's a religion designed and supported by atheists, at least in the historical sense. Like all human mythology, communism may sound good, but it's always turned out to be disastrous when it's been instituted. Humans as a group aren't motivated by the idea that everyone should equally share the wealth. Plus, the leaders of communist movements usually take far more than their share, while suppressing the rest of the people. Just look at North Korea for the best example.


https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/League+of+Militant+Atheists

The League of Militant Atheists comprised workers, peasants, students, and members of the intelligentsia. Organizations were founded at plants, factories, kolkhozes, and educational institutions. By early 1941, the league consisted of approximately 3.5 million working people of 100 nationalities. The number of groups reached 96,000. Guided by Leninist principles of antireligious propaganda and by the party’s decisions on these principles, the league dedicated itself to ideological struggle against all forms of religion and the development of a scientific world view among working people. It disseminated propaganda on the natural sciences and atheism, offered believers individual counselling, and trained propagandists and atheist agitators. It also published scientific and popular scientific works and a number of periodicals, founded museums and organized exhibitions, and conducted scientific research in the field of atheism and criticism of religion. Working under the motto “The struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism,”

If one believes that any hard core belief system that wants to suppress those who disagree with them is a religion, then you could make the case that communism is an extremist secular religion, but I think that's a bit dishonest. Imo, communism is just an extremist economic system that never works out very well when put into practice. As I said before, humans aren't naturally the type of species that does well with a share and share alike mentality. It might have worked out well in Hunter Gatherer Society, or any communities made up of small groups that were related to each other or shared a common bond. It doesn't work out in the modern world, where we have divided ourselves into various groups who often hate each other.

 

[rousseau]

I can accept that communism isn't a religion, but I think it does need to be classified similarly to religion.

If idealistic religious and political beliefs are very similar, how would we class them together? Maybe you could call them both idealistic belief systems. Then you need to start looking at the common elements between the two sub-types. Probably something like: faith, disinclination for empiricism, desire to resolve dissonance or discomfort.

There are broadly two ways to resolve dissonance: attacking real problems, and adhering to belief systems that justify life outcomes. Communism in particular is popular because it absolves the believer of responsibility - if the system is broken then what happens in my life isn't my fault. Very similar to religion - if it's all God's plan then my mistakes were meant to be, and I don't need to work to fix them.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There may be several versions of communism.....

When I think of communism today I think of China. Much of what rousseau just said applies to China though I would mention authoritarianism as being a major commonality.

 

[Politesse]

People always say that communism doesn't work out as well in practice as it does in theory. Have they ever looked at capitalism with the same critical eye? Wealth for a tiny cluster of elites, dismal drudgery for the rest of the world?

 

[rousseau]

People always say that communism doesn't work out as well in practice as it does in theory. Have they ever looked at capitalism with the same critical eye? Wealth for a tiny cluster of elites, dismal drudgery for the rest of the world?

I'm of the belief that comparing capitalism and communism in this way is a false-dichotomy. Capitalism is a modern label for what actually exists, and has existed before the label, communism is an idealistic theory that was largely popularized in the 19th century. It's been elevated to a place in discourse that isn't really warranted.

Critique of how the world currently works is fine, but that critique has to have some bearing on reality, not just be wild speculation and pseudo-scientific ideas that feel good.

 

[Politesse]

I'm of the belief that comparing capitalism and communism in this way is a false-dichotomy. Capitalism is a modern label for what actually exists, and has existed before the label, communism is an idealistic theory that was largely popularized in the 19th century. It's been elevated to a place in discourse that isn't really warranted.

So collective ownership of critical resources didn't exist before Marx? Or are you applying a double standard?

 

[rousseau]

I'm of the belief that comparing capitalism and communism in this way is a false-dichotomy. Capitalism is a modern label for what actually exists, and has existed before the label, communism is an idealistic theory that was largely popularized in the 19th century. It's been elevated to a place in discourse that isn't really warranted.

So collective ownership of critical resources didn't exist before Marx? Or are you applying a double standard?

Beliefs about Communism today primarily come from Marx. Sure, collective ownership predated it, but that's not the argument I'm making, I'm arguing that our current beliefs about communism and capitalism are speculative theories. Both of these things can be true at the same time - that collective ownership is a thing, but our current economic theories are pseudo-science.

In a way we're already applying more subtle, and productive beliefs about collective ownership, but that doesn't have to extend into full-blown communism. By a portion of our population protecting the collective, and the other portion protecting the individual we get a nice balance between the two. But it would be better if both of these factions went to the library from time to time.

 

[Politesse]

I'm of the belief that comparing capitalism and communism in this way is a false-dichotomy. Capitalism is a modern label for what actually exists, and has existed before the label, communism is an idealistic theory that was largely popularized in the 19th century. It's been elevated to a place in discourse that isn't really warranted.

So collective ownership of critical resources didn't exist before Marx? Or are you applying a double standard?

Beliefs about Communism today primarily come from Marx. Sure, collective ownership predated it, but that's not the argument I'm making, I'm arguing that our current beliefs about communism and capitalism are speculative theories. Both of these things can be true at the same time - that collective ownership is a thing, but our current economic theories are pseudo-science.

In a way we're already applying more subtle, and productive beliefs about collective ownership, but that doesn't have to extend into full-blown communism. By a portion of our population protecting the collective, and the other portion protecting the individual we get a nice balance between the two. But it would be better if both of these factions went to the library from time to time.

If capitalism existed before Marx, so did communism. If you're abstracting things to the point that unintentional strategies bear the same weight as intentionally constructed systems of governance, neither formalized greed nor collectivism are inventions of the 19th century. Indeed, collective ownership of most goods is a far, far older idea than currency and its perpetual accumulation are.

I think all economic ideologies are pseudoscience, so there's some common ground there.

 

[rousseau]

Beliefs about Communism today primarily come from Marx. Sure, collective ownership predated it, but that's not the argument I'm making, I'm arguing that our current beliefs about communism and capitalism are speculative theories. Both of these things can be true at the same time - that collective ownership is a thing, but our current economic theories are pseudo-science.

In a way we're already applying more subtle, and productive beliefs about collective ownership, but that doesn't have to extend into full-blown communism. By a portion of our population protecting the collective, and the other portion protecting the individual we get a nice balance between the two. But it would be better if both of these factions went to the library from time to time.

If capitalism existed before Marx, so did communism. If you're abstracting things to the point that unintentional strategies bear the same weight as intentionally constructed systems of governance, neither formalized greed nor collectivism are inventions of the 19th century. Indeed, collective ownership of most goods is a far, far older idea than currency and its perpetual accumulation are.

I think all economic ideologies are pseudoscience, so there's some common ground there.

I think you're missing my point - 'capitalism' didn't exist until it was labelled as such, and communism as it's thought about today couldn't have existed before the nation state. And this thought has set the framework for the global conversation in the past century or so. Whether hunter-gatherers shared their food has no bearing on what's happening in the 21st century.

And this goes back to my original point: you have the way the world works, and you have ideas about how to change it. The world is the world, communist thought as it exists today is an idea - you can't really contrast the preexisting world with a largely pseudoscientific theory.

That doesn't mean it isn't productive to think about collective ownership, or even strive for it, but we should probably try to make pains to be more empirical about our economic theories.

 

[southernhybrid]

Capitalism mixed with effective regulation as well as a decent safety net, or Democratic socialism if one must label it, is the best system that humans have ever invented. Still, every religion, organization, economic system, political ideology are all myths, imo. They all have flaws, but mixing the best of each is better than becoming an absolutist in regards to any of them.

I don't think everything should be shared equally. As I said earlier, that only works in very small groups of people that are related or like each other and want to share. Different occupations have different value to society and should be rewarded for that value. But, all work should be paid a living wage, if a country is prosperous enough to achieve that goal. In the modern world, communism has always lead to authoritarianism. Communism has always left a large percentage of the citizens living in poverty.

Everyone should have access to nutritious food, a decent shelter, basic medical etc. That should be the goal, although it's easier said than done.

There are things that should be shared. We need decent public schools, parks, roads etc. for all to share. But, we don't need to share all of the wealth. That leaves most people in poverty. It dampens down creativity and innovation.

Besides, that type of economic system gets every bit as corrupted and just as misused as capitalism. But, at least capitalism motivates production, new ideas, creativity. Not everyone is motivated by getting ahead materially, but most people are to some extent. There are those who are perfectly content and successful living a minimalist lifestyle. Apparently, there are those who are only motivated by acquiring wealth. That doesn't mean we should put a value judgement on either lifestyle.

Humans are the problem!

I'm PWI, but how did we get into this discussion about economic systems?

 

[steve_bank]

The way I see it religion is one manifestation of a common human need ot dynamic.

Religion, unions, political parties, unions and all human social groups are fundamentally the sme thing. Power, leaders and followers, ideology and norms, group identity.

Dead Heads followed the Grateful Dead around the world. People made Bob Dylan into a mystical prophet, which he publicly rejected. His followers were literally horrified when he went electric at the Newport Folk Festival.

More accurate to say po0lical faction can become religious like.

 

[Bomb#20]

People always say that communism doesn't work out as well in practice as it does in theory. Have they ever looked at capitalism with the same critical eye?

Yes.

That's the fence of the West German embassy in Prague. Those are East Germans who found out there was a hole in the curtain separating communism and capitalism.

Wealth for a tiny cluster of elites, dismal drudgery for the rest of the world?

Dismal drudgery is the common heritage of mankind; capitalism is what made it possible for ordinary people to pull themselves up out of the ditch our species was born in.

The most religion-like aspects of communism are its faith that the rich are the cause of poverty, much like fundamentalists' faith that the Jews were the cause of Jesus' crucifixion, and the magical thinking it engages in to convince itself modern civilization's enormous production caused by private property rights would still exist in the absence of private property rights, much like the magical thinking fundamentalists engage in to convince themselves species would still exist in the absence of any physical mechanism causing origin of species.

 

[steve_bank]

There is a saying that goes capitalism is the worse possible system until something better better comes a long.

The Chinese and Russian communism failed to delver even basic needs like food and housing.

China morphed to communism in name only becoming free market in a general sense. Western capital built modern China.

Free market capitalism with all its problems and inequities has raised the bottom along with the top. A rising tide raises all boats is the saying. Until climate change started to kick I the UN had been reporting a steady decline in global poverty. Food insecurity was going down.

A political derail.