Christianity and Marxism

[Unknown Soldier]

I can assure Senator McCarthy and everybody else that I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Communist Party. That said, I can see some good in Marxist philosophy, and I've argued elsewhere that it's silly to blame the deadly acts of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao on simply being exposed to the ideas of Marx and other Communist philosophers. The facts are that all three of these dictators suffered from paranoia and other mental illnesses that easily could have caused them to turn violent, and their followers were suffering, angry people who believed that violence could free them from their woes.

This perspective on Marxist philosophy is relevant to explaining the social impact of religious doctrine. It appears that the dogmas of Christianity and other religions are not the actual bases for religious violence, or at least those dogmas are not the immediate causes for religious violence. Who in their right mind is going to kill people merely because somebody told them that God wants them to? It seems more likely to me that what causes religious violence involves social unrest, fear, and resentment. Religion is more the effect of people's drive to be violent rather than the cause of that violence. The genocides of Communist dictators demonstrate that the very same kind of violence we see in the religious can happen among the nonreligious and for the same reasons.

I'm not saying that religious dogma is good; I don't think it's good. Religion tends to glorify violence inflicted on people for no good reasons. People who are already violent and/or mentally ill can be attracted to religion as a means of justifying their deadly acts. But let's just make sure we understand the root causes of violence and not blame ideas used to justify violence.

Finally, I should stress that I'm not characterizing people who are mentally ill as necessarily violent. Most mentally ill people are harmless and are worthwhile people whom we should respect and value as equal members of society.

 

[steve_bank]

Die hard Marxists on the forum in the past say Russian communism was not really communism. Real communism is something else. To me communism is more of a myth. Ask a communist how a complex nation based in communism would actually be structured and there is usually no response. Max was a social and political scientist. He did not offer any actual structure or rules or practical forms of implementation.

Christians say about other Christians that they are not real Christians. Jesus whoever he was left no structured theology or set of rules.

Communist or Christian the individual is free to make it into what he or she thinks is right. Communism and Christianity are based in mythology.

The Russian system was Marxist-Leninist with a touch of Stalinism.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Die hard Marxists on the forum in the past say Russian communism was not really communism. Real communism is something else. To me communism is more of a myth. Ask a communist how a complex nation based in communism would actually be structured and there is usually no response. Max was a social and political scientist. He did not offer any actual structure or rules or practical forms of implementation.

Christians say about other Christians that they are not real Christians. Jesus whoever he was left no structured theology or set of rules.

Communist or Christian the individual is free to make it into what he or she thinks is right. Communism and Christianity are based in mythology.

The Russian system was Marxist-Leninist with a touch of Stalinism.

So if we assume that Christian doctrine caused the Inquisition and the Crusades, is it fair to assume that Marx's doctrines caused Stalin's purges and Mao's Great Leap Forward? I'm wondering how doctrine can cause anything when people create it and follow what those creator's said. Can content, peace-loving people become monsters simply being exposed to ideas, or were they monsters to begin with?

 

[steve_bank]

I wold not put it in terms of an exact causality. G back one step in causality and Mark wrote about the abysmal capitalism of the day. So you can say economic and social conditions created Marxism.

The view I have come to is it is all human groups are manifestations of the same human attributes. Nothing else makes sense to me.

Jesus appears to have been preching to those at the bottom of Jewish society of the day. Life was brutal. A message of eternall happiness in a heaven if you belive would be very appealing. American black Christianity that came out of slavery was one of hope for the future and glory in heaven.

The communist myth of workers liviing in a workers' paradise was a secular heaven on Earth myth. Despite the examples of communist systems current and in the last century there are still communist true deliverers. Get rid of capitalism and all will be well.

 

[Bomb#20]

The genocides of Communist dictators demonstrate that the very same kind of violence we see in the religious can happen among the nonreligious and for the same reasons.

Marxists are not the nonreligious.

Not only is Marxism every bit as much a religion as Christianity, at their cores they're the same religion. They're both expressions of the same underlying premises: that what makes anything moral is the will of the Supreme Wisher and that human rights do not exist. The rest is window dressing. When people who embrace such beliefs find it easy to rationalize violence against the innocent, who could ever have seen that coming?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I wold not put it in terms of an exact causality. G back one step in causality and Mark wrote about the abysmal capitalism of the day. So you can say economic and social conditions created Marxism.

Actually Marx created Marxism, but he was led to create his ideas by the terrible conditions under which people in his day worked and lived. If those conditions had not been present, then Marx's philosophy in all probability would never had much of an effect on anybody. Some people who oppose Marx's ideas blame those ideas for the atrocities of communist leaders like Stalin and Mao while ignoring the conditions under which people in Russia and China lived. Those conditions and the attendant resentment of those living under them I think are the real bases for Communist atrocities.

Jesus appears to have been preching to those at the bottom of Jewish society of the day. Life was brutal. A message of eternall happiness in a heaven if you belive would be very appealing. American black Christianity that came out of slavery was one of hope for the future and glory in heaven.

Yes, the early Christians living under Roman rule were no doubt attracted to anybody preaching any kind of salvation. The details of how to achieve that salvation were not terribly important as long as those accepting them could be saved. So all the persecutions and wars under Christianity were not really caused by Christian dogma but were excused by Christian dogma. In other words, the violence came first, and then came the rationalization. It was God's will to crush all the enemies of Christ!

The communist myth of workers liviing in a workers' paradise was a secular heaven on Earth myth. Despite the examples of communist systems current and in the last century there are still communist true deliverers. Get rid of capitalism and all will be well.

I don't think Communism will ever go away as long as people blame capitalism for their economic woes.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The genocides of Communist dictators demonstrate that the very same kind of violence we see in the religious can happen among the nonreligious and for the same reasons.

Marxists are not the nonreligious.

That depends on what is meant by "religious." I understand religion as systems of beliefs in God(s), miracles, divine revelations and/or life after death.

Not only is Marxism every bit as much a religion as Christianity, at their cores they're the same religion. They're both expressions of the same underlying premises: that what makes anything moral is the will of the Supreme Wisher and that human rights do not exist. The rest is window dressing.

I don't know if I would describe religion, even in a broad sense, so loosely. What, for example, is a "Supreme Wisher"? I know of no such concept in Marx's philosophy.

When people who embrace such beliefs find it easy to rationalize violence against the innocent, who could ever have seen that coming?

I can see it coming whenever people feel resentment regarding their problems. If they rebel against their oppressors, then they'll come up with ideology to justify whatever they do.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't think Communism will ever go away as long as people blame capitalism for their economic woes.

The way I read the Marx ideal of communism, there has never been a communist country. Communism is a system of social order, an anarchy where there is no private property, no government, no leadership, no class distinctions, and everyone shares everything... sorta like a colony of ants. Socialism was seen by Marx as only a necessary step to eliminate private property, by force if necessary so needing a strong authoritarian central government, on the way toward communism. There have been several socialist governments but those in power hang onto that power remaining strongly authoritarian.

I heard there was a common joke in the USSR. One worker asks the other if they were communist yet. The other replies "No, not yet. We are still socialist and It is going to get a lot worse."

 

[Bomb#20]

Marxists are not the nonreligious.

That depends on what is meant by "religious." I understand religion as systems of beliefs in God(s), miracles, divine revelations and/or life after death.

What's a god? What's a miracle? Marxists take all manner of Marx's revelations on faith. They believe in the Labor Theory of Value; they believe in plenty without incentives for the creation of plenty; they believe in states withering away. How are these any less miraculous than water to wine? I understand a religion as a contagious disease of the moral sense.

Not only is Marxism every bit as much a religion as Christianity, at their cores they're the same religion. They're both expressions of the same underlying premises: that what makes anything moral is the will of the Supreme Wisher and that human rights do not exist. The rest is window dressing.

I don't know if I would describe religion, even in a broad sense, so loosely. What, for example, is a "Supreme Wisher"? I know of no such concept in Marx's philosophy.

A Supreme Wisher is a putative entity with the supposed power to make something right by preferring it. Christianity's Divine Command Theory is the archetypical example, but people often substitute their own alternative candidates for who the Supreme Wisher is, and that doesn't change anything essential about the theory. Hobbes made the King of England the Supreme Wisher in his Social Compact theory; that version's aftereffects are still echoing down the ages, from Locke to Rawls.

Marxism is a spinoff of Hegelianism. In Hegel's philosophy, the Supreme Wisher is the "General Will", the preferences of the people collectively. Hegel put it in explicitly religious terms: "State is the march of God on Earth". The attitude infects Marx. The only justification he offers the workers for why they should seize the means of production is "They have a world to win". The proletariat is Marx's Supreme Wisher.

When people who embrace such beliefs find it easy to rationalize violence against the innocent, who could ever have seen that coming?

I can see it coming whenever people feel resentment regarding their problems. If they rebel against their oppressors, then they'll come up with ideology to justify whatever they do.

And when they've been taught to equate justice with getting what they want, they can rationalize classifying anyone as an oppressor.

 

[Elixir]

And when they've been taught to equate justice with getting what they want, they can rationalize classifying anyone as an oppressor.

That’s a golden line.
I recall hearing that Fred Trump taught exactly that life tactic to his favorite son. That’s son’s followers, supplicants and mentor all perform the same trick ad nauseum. Victims of CRT, Wokeism, poor people and electoral fraud, one and all.

 

[steve_bank]

Religion is a good metaphor for blind group think.

 

[BH]

From what I read of Marx there will always be a need for government, but the state will wither away. the state is an entity/society controlled by a certain class, forcing its will on other classes. The government is just one aspect of the state controlled by a certain class.


I did about a 120 book self study of Marx and his early associates. And I didnt rely on too many secondary sources--i read their writings directly or through translations. There was so much outright lying about him by his opponents living since his time I'd be skeptical over anything said about communism.

 

[BH]

in my opinion the discussion over economics and which system works is not so much about actual production and distribution as it is about morality and how the goodies should be divided up. if the goodies arent divided according to how a person thinks they should be, that system doesnt work, regardless of whether goods and services are actually being produced. And arguing against this moral economic view point is as useless as arguing against a creationist over evolution.

 

[steve_bank]

Forced equality failed in China and Russia.

China adapted allowing for personal initiative and making money in a qusi free market system. Russia never changed.

I think communism failed because it does not take into account human nature. I think it was Smith who said capitalism is a fit for human nature. Humans are competitive.

Regardless of the sytem ecions have to be made and the question is how rto make decisions. Who does what, how much and what gets produced, and how much each individual gets.

IMO the major question is how ro resolve conlict. A swe see in ur politcs, it is no longer possible to resolve disputes by compromise and democratic processes.

 

[bilby]

in my opinion the discussion over economics and which system works is not so much about actual production and distribution as it is about morality and how the goodies should be divided up. if the goodies arent divided according to how a person thinks they should be, that system doesnt work, regardless of whether goods and services are actually being produced. And arguing against this moral economic view point is as useless as arguing against a creationist over evolution.

Economic systems are sets of rules.

There's nothing intrinsically better about soccer rather than rugby, but people who are skilled at winning soccer matches but who tend to be on the losing side of rugby games will swear blind that soccer is the only successful game, and that playing by any other rules is disastrous.

And they're happy to point to the high injury rates amongst Rugby Union players as a justification not to even consider playing Rugby League.

If you're a winner in the world of capitalism, why would you be interested in playing a different game, that someone else might win?

Well, one reason would be if you see the game as a friendly, in which the final score is less important than that all the players on both sides had a good time. But that kind of shit is for losers, right?

Billionaires are like the star strikers of a soccer team that's winning 52-0, and are still pushing for another goal. Mate, you already won; Let the other team at least take some enjoyment out of the game. There's no bragging rights for a premier league team that defeats the local primary school second XI by several dozen goals to nil; Win if you must, but don't be total cunts about it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

St Augustine wrote that is was acceptable for the state to proscribe heretics and force them into the orthodox church by force if necessary, Agustine's ire was agains the Docetists. But his claim that coercion in name of orthodoxy became a mosnter that gave birth to religious wars, crusades, forced conversions, heresy hunts and inquisitions. The history of the RCC by Socrates Scholasticus tells us of a religion soaked in bloodshed, religious savagery and and brutality. This Christian religious violence has long and deep roots. Anybody here that has not read this work, I highly recommend it.

Augustine's letter, Epistula 93 written in 407 or 408 to Vincent approves of state coercion against the Donatists.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I don't think Communism will ever go away as long as people blame capitalism for their economic woes.

The way I read the Marx ideal of communism, there has never been a communist country.

That's correct. Attempted communism has very often resulted in dictatorships which is ironic considering that communism is supposed to result in a classless society with no government. So obviously the ideology of communism appears to be unable to deliver on its promises. It does make sense, though, that if a despot is seeking dictatorial power, then he would do so while hiding his goal behind an ideology like communism.

Communism is a system of social order, an anarchy where there is no private property, no government, no leadership, no class distinctions, and everyone shares everything... sorta like a colony of ants.

You can find communism right next to our own ideal that all men are equal and that we live in a land of liberty. Both ideals have little to do with reality, but they sound nice and are useful to the masses as a means to rationalize their complacency.

Socialism was seen by Marx as only a necessary step to eliminate private property, by force if necessary so needing a strong authoritarian central government, on the way toward communism. There have been several socialist governments but those in power hang onto that power remaining strongly authoritarian.

So in the supposed effort to achieve a society without a government a powerful government is created to do so. That totalitarian government is just temporary, of course.

I heard there was a common joke in the USSR. One worker asks the other if they were communist yet. The other replies "No, not yet. We are still socialist and It is going to get a lot worse."

Funny! Christians tend to explain away their members' misbehavior as those members being in the early stages of their faith, "baby Christians" if you will. As in the USSR, you can reply that those Christians haven't yet matured to being fully Christian, and it will get a lot worse.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Marxists are not the nonreligious.

That depends on what is meant by "religious." I understand religion as systems of beliefs in God(s), miracles, divine revelations and/or life after death.

What's a god? What's a miracle?

In the context of religion, a god is a powerful, immortal supernatural being very often in quasi-human form who reigns from the sky or some other realm beyond the earth. A god's activities which typically involve acts beyond what we think is possible are what are known as miracles. Examples of miracles involve people rising from the dead, levitation, mind reading, and the healing of apparently unhealable wounds or the curing of incurable diseases.

Marxists take all manner of Marx's revelations on faith. They believe in the Labor Theory of Value; they believe in plenty without incentives for the creation of plenty; they believe in states withering away. How are these any less miraculous than water to wine?

We know from experience that we can create "plenty" and that states fall. Such acts don't qualify as miracles because as far as we know gods are not necessary for such events to happen.

I understand a religion as a contagious disease of the moral sense.

I suppose you're right, but I'm not sure how that relates to the definition of miracles or how to distinguish religion from nonreligion.

I don't know if I would describe religion, even in a broad sense, so loosely. What, for example, is a "Supreme Wisher"? I know of no such concept in Marx's philosophy.

A Supreme Wisher is a putative entity with the supposed power to make something right by preferring it. Christianity's Divine Command Theory is the archetypical example, but people often substitute their own alternative candidates for who the Supreme Wisher is, and that doesn't change anything essential about the theory. Hobbes made the King of England the Supreme Wisher in his Social Compact theory; that version's aftereffects are still echoing down the ages, from Locke to Rawls.

If the "supreme wisher" is a human being, then that wisher lacks the traits of a god that I listed above. Stalin, for example, is obviously not immortal and does not therefore qualify as a god in the religious sense.

So to sum up this post, I'm recommending against using the word "religion" so loosely. If a word is defined too broadly, then it loses its descriptive power. For example, if I taught a class on religion, and I told my students that the Boy Scouts is a religion, then my students might be left wondering what isn't a religion.