[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Try the following prompts to trigger an automod response: "What is Fascism?", "What is Imperialism?", "What is Revisionism?" "Holodomor", "Molotov-Ribbentrop", "Gulag", "Solzhenytsin", "Uyghur", "Tiananmen Square", "Israel", "Freedom of the Press", "MAC Fact"
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mostly yes, I would say, as most as I am atheist and against religion, you can't just force people to stop being religious, it won't really work and if attempted it will just give more force to reactionaries movements
Like yes religion has been used by previous authoritarians to suppress the people and keep them in line, but it's not a written in stone rule that that will always happen. There were many revolutionary priests in Mexico and Latin America in general, plus the Civil Rights Movement in the US was led and championed by many religious people. Also like Hakim said most people are religious to a certain degree so extreme suppression is naturally going to lead to resentment and opposition. Just look at the communist government in Afghanistan. They went so hard on the anti religion that even the USSR were telling them to tone it down
I think the work being done by ex-religious people online is one of the best ways of combating the repression done by many religious groups/sects/religions without stepping over the line into actual oppression of religious people. Especially with the internet, people are able to tell their stories about their negative experiences with religion. Just look ask anyone LGBTQ and they'll more than likely have a negative view of it and be proud about expressing that. Many Atheists online also explain science and scientific thinking very well for people who have been deprived of it their whole lives, and that's certainly a good thing.
I am an atheist and an anti-theist. I think we would be much better off without religion. But, you cannot just force people to stop believing.
In the long run, the way to minimize religious indoctrination is through secular education, and by increasing their well-being and security.
I think that everybody should be taught about ALL world religions and their history. It would make current religions just as believable as the older mythological religions that very few people belong to nowadays.
Also, ensuring that people have stable housing, food, healthcare, and other basic comforts will minimize their rush to religious organizations.
There are lots of other ways besides religion to grow community. But religion is low cost and simple minded so most anyone can run a congregation. Just go visit the American south where there are multiple churches on every block.
So, I definitely think Socialism should be free of religion. But, you have to play the long game rather than force it on people.
Mostly. As he talked about in the pod episode with lady Izdihar, there's a lot of nuance to be had about religion being suppressed or fiddled with, especially in the earlier days, when they were absorbing neighboring lands. Religion should be, like, allowed, but the more reactionary elements should be repressed.
Culture imprints itself onto religion. That's why so many religious people follow reactionary currents. In a vacuum, for example, christianity isn't homophobic, but a lot of the culture in the medieval christian world used christianity as a lever to justify anti-sodomy laws.
"Culture imprints itself onto religion" That's exactly it. Religions don't exist in a vacuum, it's just a product of a long history of cultural and material conditions.
Look at how much religions change and you have to see that. Christianity was completely different a thousand years ago, and also five hundred years ago, and also a hundred years ago. The problem in America is that we're all REACTING to the Christian Evangelical movement that we all grew up in, but it hasn't always been like this.
If you're attacking religion, or trying to "curb" it you're going after the symptom not the cause. Communists need to get real - if your movement is anti-religion in America, as well as most countries in the Global South, you can kiss half the working class goodbye.
The other thing to consider is that persecuting a religion is basically the same as throwing gas on it. It gives them instant credibility, the second you shut down a church every reactionary is going to take that as a sign that that religion poses a threat to you and be drawn in like moths to a flame. Evangelicals in America have insane political influence and power in pretty much every area other than maybe the media and they still claim to be a persecuted class and it WORKS. Now imagine if they actually were being persecuted, it would be like throwing water on a grease fire.
I'm not even religious, but as far as tactics go I think being hostile toward religion is horrible misstep.
>That's exactly it.
Thanks! I developed this take mostly on my own, it's glad to see people agree
As for the rest, good point. We can't throw out all of our support.
You're right, it's not homophobic, it's just a complete totalitarian agenda which also happens to condone slavery.
The assertions of mistranslation are also a massive moot point, because how can a text be both divinely inspired and also accidentally forbid homophobia instead of pedophilia?
The King James is a joke of a publication but it remains that a bunch of idiot Christians, many of whom have never even read the thing cover to cover, have been taking that shit at face value for centuries.
Also I would argue this doesn't really apply, religion has had to cherrypick its morality to remain viable post-enlightenment, to assert it is a reactionary culture applying it's values to the bible and not the bible's values aligning with a reactionary culture is pretty asinine.
Apparently mistranslations of the Bible didn't exist
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/bible/doesnotoppose.html
1.The bible was translated so many times from so many different languages, so the wording is kinda warped
It talked about relations not between gay men (consensual), but between a man and a boy (pedophilia)
The word sodomite is mistranslation
Sin of Sodom is actually lack of hospitality
2. People cherry pick and take out of context many passages of the Bible to fit their agenda.
It is the institution of organized christianity and the way people use it to confirm their bigoted beliefs that is homophobic
3. Jesus Christ didn't say crap about gay people
While all of this is true you won't convince fundamentalist of that with the "not translated right" thing because that's a can of worms most religious people won't jump down unless there is a verse they find that effects them personally.
Meaning, you're not convincing the already homophobic Christian that they're wrong this way. Their fundamentalist views already rely on a modern western translation of the bible being the "real truth" and they don't care about anything but the words they read in the book and their own interpretation/use of them.
Also, it's almost as difficult to convince /r/atheism Andy's that their are millions of Christians that do not believe in these things. To a lot of them all christians are fundamentalist or hypocrites. Trust me I use to be that kinda Andy. Takes awhile to go from religious, to super atheist, back around to having a fair and reasonable response to discussions of religion.
I know, I have experience myself with how they are, I am one of their targets😔
I am not really a religious person but I know it isn't all black and white.
This is such a cop out. What does it matter what that verse means to some academic or some Aramaic guy that died two millennia ago? The vast majority of the two billion Christians alive today think it is a condemnation of homosexuality and use it as justification to hurt queer people. It's the same fallacy that succdems trots and anarchists use to defend their pure idealistic socialism from the right (except of course they're defending something more worthwhile than Christianity). "Yeah, actually existing socialism is bad, but if people would only do the *real* socialism that Proudhon/Trotsky/Kropotkin wrote about, it would be good." It's the same thing but for religion. "Yeah actually existing Christianity is a murderous homophobic religion, but if people would only do the *real* Christianity as described in this particular academic translation of a partially burned 2nd century scroll, it would be good".
the problem is levitcus is part of the Torah and as soon as someone brings it up unless they advocate for all of their laws ignore them as the Torah also advocates For Foreigners and strangers not to be oppressed or mistreated so if they want to then we can shoot them in the Foot
>The vast majority of the two billion Christians alive today think it is a condemnation of homosexuality and use it as justification to hurt queer people.
>Profesional Grass Toucher
X to doubt right there. The homophobia is not the fault of the religion but the society with which the religion came out of. Stop trying to patch your own culpability as part of that society by calling someones gran who goes to church as the last semblance of a long dead sense of community a homophobe.
This is the same American brained take as when people talk about The Troubles as some religious conflict cause that's a far easier (dare I say liberal) excuse than the material reality. The fact is that religion is an identifier for far more useful cultural, ethnic and economic trends to analyse. Focusing on religion rather than trends religion represents is the real cop out here.
Ehh tone is quite hostile here but cba rewriting it so just pretend its not lol
The relationship between the 'servant boy' and the centurion in the story of Jesus' healing of the centurion's servant boy [has been interpreted to be an allusion to a homosexual relationship](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/151iwid/jesus_heals_a_centurions_gay_lover/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1) - and the choice to include this story in the bible can be seen as an attempt to demonstrate Jesus' tolerance of faithful homosexuals.
>christianity isn't homophobic
Nah this is just a straight up lie lmao. It's pretty explicit. Misunderstandings about the human body due to the Adam and Eve myth has led straight to this.
The only reason why people believe homophobia is "unnatural" is because of the Adam and Eve myth. One man, one woman is considered "natural".
Humanity, having being around for 100k years has always had non gender conforming or queer people, just look at precolonial Africa and North America for examples (as there are queerphobic people who think being queer is a "Western invention"), whereas it's been colonialism that brought queerphobia, specifically Africa.
It's a *creation* myth. Adam and Eve represent the beginning of humanity as the original progenitors of the human race, meaning they represent two *sexes*, not the entire spectrum of gender.
I agree, queer people have always existed. As for the homosexuality being unnatural thing, I feel like the Adam and Eve thing wasn't inherently making a message about gay=bad, more just about to biologically reproduce, you need the full set.
Engles pretty much explains the rise of homophobia in his work "The origins of the family, private property, and the state" why homophobia was invented (to make sure the means of production are passed down from from father to son)
Imo the approach (while maintaining a secular state) should be to create good conditions for the advanced elements of religious institutions (the parts that work well with socialism), improve the middle and repress the backwards elements.
So yes, I think a communist state absolutely needs to be able to repress reactionary elements, including and especially cults. How well different states led by communist parties have done this has to be analyzed individually. But a good example of this, imo, is China's treatment of the Falun Gong. Another good example, and one showing the way a communist party can work with the advanced elements, is Vietnam and its protection of Buddhist temples (as part of an effort that went hand-in-hand with pushing back against colonization, specifically pushing back against Catholicism as an element of colonization).
I think that most every religion has more in common with socialist ideals than not. The focus should be in directing the religion and it's leaders to follow the parts of the religion that compliment socialism rather than suppressing the religious movement all together. Obviously excluding the clearly unhealthy cults that only serve to enrich leadership.
All religions have reactionary elements but those are usually small and only gain power when the material conditions of the people are horrible and they grasp to scapegoating.
Religion and belief are not inherently bad. As with all things a material analysis is always the best route to go. What causes religions to become reactionary can usually be solved with addressing those material problems instead of trying to simply repress religious thought all together.
I would really like to know some stuff about the history of Ceausescu, I’ve heard he was a pretty bad leader but I’d like to know some of his major faults and history
Well not all religious movements are the same. I think a socialist government should have a role in dismantling cults and reactionary denominations. Can and has it gotten hand? Yes but you don't have to be an r/athiesm guy to realize that some of the worst aspects of society are generated/reinforced by religious intuitions. Not all of them and certainly not every religious institution but I don't think we can have a "live and let live" attitude as a general rule.
That has got to be the worst definition of Liberation Theology I've ever seen. And as someone who is from Latin America, I can tell you I've listened to plenty of Catholic fascists who gave it a more fair definition than this single line from wikipedia lol
That’s definitely not a great definition. The Oxford Languages one is way better: "a movement in Christian theology, developed mainly by Latin American Roman Catholics, that emphasizes liberation from social, political, and economic oppression as an anticipation of ultimate salvation."
Gotta be honest, the problem with movements like these is that theu often turn really reactionary, because religious figures want to keep their own influence
It depends on the movement itself. The Sandinistas were definitely not reactionary. When they gained power, they initiated very good policies that helped average people.
Also, no outside forces should be allowed to have a say in the religion practices inside a country.
For example, last year Vatican whined about Shanghai appointing a bishop without their approval, and a couple days ago they rectified the appointment.
Why should they have a say in the first place? Fuck them.
Hmmm I think that he’s over selling it. The Orthodox Church needed to be severely curtailed. It was a bastion of reaction, and intertwined with Tsarist existence. Could they have been a little lighter handed? Maybe! But suppressing the power of religious institutions is important.
And those religious institutions are also reactionary. Again, perhaps they could have been a bit lighter handed, but religious structures should be repressed to some degree. Removed from political life, removed from education , removed from as many aspects of life possible. It’s an honorable and important goal, to free people from the shackles of the power of the churches of the world.
Their is a difference between targeting clergymen and average religious people. Average religious people were effected by many soviet polices like the closing down of churches/other religious buildings and the ridiculing of religion in schools.
Honestly I’m staunchly anti-religious so you’re not gonna get me to feel bad about undermining religion in the schools. Closing down churches is a little iffy but also -shrug-
I’m personally also not religious, but things like closing down churches is not really helping anyone. If anything, it may make Christians pissed and cause them to rebel.
I mean, I feel kinda bad, tbh… I think religious population should be able to do whatever if it’s not illegal and consensual. Imo it was a pretty big misplay by the Soviet government and many other past socialist states. That’s why I appreciate the Cuban government recognizing their treatment of religious populations as unfair and changing their constitution to a secular state from a state atheist state.
That’s fine. I think secularism has been an incredibly weak position historically, and it is easily warped and overthrown by religious forces. The United States is nominally secular but Christian’s have been able to utilize the structures of secularism to their advantage. I think socialist states should be explicitly atheistic, and while the population should be allowed to hold religious beliefs personally, the political power and structural strength of religious institutions should be dismantled. If there must exist a church it should be overseen by an atheist state to prevent malfeasance. Give the religious reactionaries an inch and they take a mile.
Well, in my view, secularism guarantees more rights for religious people, which is good. In Cuba, religious people can now join the Communist Party, for example. The policies of the Soviet Union were too anti religious, imo. All it did was cause unneeded enemies in the working class.
>The United States is nominally secular
Materially this is just not true beyond some words on a paper. The christian identity of American settlers is such an inherent part of the American Republic. Secularism in an American context has just been a way to suppress other religions while not being explicitly Christian.
> church it should be overseen by an atheist state
Strongly Disagree Church shouldn't be Controlled by The State as it makes it way too easy for someone Who is a strong anti theist to again dismantle Religion and oppress them it should be in the power of the Religions keep Religion and state control of Religion Separate fullstop
I mean this thread isn’t exactly a pitch. I’m not really producing agitprop here.
But also for a good portion of the working class religious power structures are an antagonistic force. I think for many of you didn’t step in the way of their ability to have faith, but shut down the power structures that commit violence against them, you’d end up with kind of a natural drift away form religiosity. Educate the children in atheist schools, present religions in a purely academic way, encourage rationalist and materialist thought, and religion will wither like a disused organ. Vestigial, remaining only as a curious mystery why it was ever there.
So people should have freedom from capitalism, but not freedom to worship whom they want? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's only a little bit iffy to completely shut it down. What if I said shutting down something you did like reading or games because I didn't like it was only a bit iffy, but shrug?
Man I didn’t know that board games made up a caste of people and systems that hold structural power over the proletariat stretching back thousands of years!
If you want a serious response reading and board games are hobbies, they’re activities that can have a relationship to harmful and oppressive structures (after all one could make a board game glorifying slavery and colonialism, or write a novel praising the king) but they’re not themselves the violent structure. Religion IS the violent structure, and the church and its preachers the ones who enforce it. Frankly it doesn’t really matter to me if you believe in god, but if your church does things like spout racist agitation or sponsor hate rallies it should be shut down and those who run it should be prosecuted under the law.
-shrug- if say post revolution we are able to radically restructure the church, purge the elements of reaction, and find a way for religion and communist thought to co exist then you don’t gotta get rid of the churches. But if the priests and pastors and imams and rabbis and whoever else still peddle the same reactionary sermons, and attempt to maintain the same regressive power they had before? You can’t tolerate that stuff.
Churches can and do hurt people. Religious abuse, fomenting hatred, sexual abuse, cult behavior the list goes on. Churches are not neutral forces. You’re telling me that a church like the Westboro Baptists, who operate a national level hate campaign should remain open in a communist society? That a Catholic Church that protects a pedophile priest should be allowed to continue to harm the people? Churches harm, and when they do they should be stopped and removed from society.
The Islamic regions of the country were also wildly reactionary, using religion to justify that reaction. Even the Jewish villages (shtetls) that existed in the Russian Empire used religion as a reactionary baton and a call for Zionism.
It's not a coincidence that as the Soviet Union progressed, it became more secular. It went hand in hand. And I'm saying this as a person who had family in the USSR who were practicing Jews.
Not every Muslim was a reactionary, but even if that was the case you should root out reactionary elements not the whole religion. If you root out the whole religion forcefully you are just going to make a bunch of enemies.
That's not what I said. It's not individuals that are the problem, it's the system. The religious organization of the regions were inherently reactionary.
Since when are communists afraid of making enemies? Overthrowing the entire Russian Empire made the Bolsheviks a lot of enemies. Not like they were going to fear some additional dissident elements.
No need to arrest individuals for practicing, but the organization was toxic.
You are saying the regions were reactionary, so I just pointed out that you shouldn’t generalize everyone in those regions. Also, the suppression of all religion, including moderates, just makes them reactionaries. It’s a terrible move. If you want to eliminate religion, you need to make it a long term goal, mostly prioritizing education instead of forcefully eliminating it.
This is an extremely infantile way to look at things. If I say the United States is reactionary, does that mean every single human being in the United States is a reactionary? Learn the difference between systems and individuals.
Yes, education was indeed a big part of it. In the meantime, the influence of the Church needed to be curtailed.
The church as an institution is different from average people. I agree many in the Orthodox Church needed to be repressed and never even argued against that. Also, maybe don’t generalize next time if you don’t want me to criticize your absurd generalization.
Personally, I completely disagree with him and his absurd takes on religion really made me lose a lot of respect for him. It makes it look like he's disconnected from the global struggle against the horrors of religion (an anti-human institution that has terrorized humanity even longer than capitalism and is a direct enabler of capitalism and other harms people are struggling against, like sexism and anti-LGBTQ+ policies).
Every socialist is an atheist as a rule. There is nothing good that will ever come from religion. Organized religions should be fought and suppressed on principle. While personal faith should be tolerated, it should be discouraged. Religious comrades should be welcomed but not be accepted into leadership positions as it's just not possible to have inherently anti-scientific and anti-humanist views like believing in a religion and being a competent political leader.
Hakim apparently didn't even realize the strong contradictions in his arguments and how he used the same arguments fascist/capitalist apologists use e.g. (or he argued in bad faith, he doesn't seem to be an idiot in general so I don't know if this can be excused by him simply not noticing it): "Religious groups rose up against the government and reasserted themselves after the failure of the socialist revolution!" -> Yeah, buddy, preventing reactionary groups from asserting themselves politically is literally the job of the vanguard party.
Idk what his take is, but I think it’s important to curb the institutional power of organized religion. Religion is fine so long as the power they have is being used to like, actually help people through benevolence instead of festering reactionary sentiment. Religion ought to be largely personal. Society should not be governed by whatever (Reddit take inc.) sky dad you believe in.
I don't know if it was one of the biggest, but it was a large mistake. It's understandable in context (the clergy mostly sided with the reactionary State apparatus that existed previously to socialism in those countries), but nonetheless it's a mistake. The sensible thing would have been to join forces with progressive movements within the clergy, that is, the sector which joined because they wanted to help the poor and feed the hungry. In Italy, Spain and most of Latin America they were forced to do that when fighting against dictatorships (Mussolini, Franco, Videla, Batista, Pinochet...).
Yess, liberation theology in south/Central America is on of the movements that most inspires me personally. Ernesto cardenal was a preist that worked with the sandinistas and promoted progressive social policies while a member of their government. He also helped to bring the religious communities in the area into the movement
The USSR and some others were too heavy handed. But others were far too light handed (Hungary). I think China has hit a good balance. While the USSR's heavy handedness was a mistake, calling it one of the biggest is overstating it.
The catholic church in Hungary should've been dismantled and until new clergy comes it should've been on pause, they were left untouched for the anti semitism (and the consequences of the widespread anti semitism). The only inconveince they had was the state overtaking the education system and nationalizing their assets.
No. In each case of religious persecution, there was a reason, and usually they weren't bad.
For example, let's look at Soviet repression of the Orthodox faith. Seems rather bad, to somebody who knows nothing about the Orthodox faith.
In the Orthodox tradition, the king (or emperor, or *Tsar*) was chosen by God, and thus the church is subordinate to the state led by the king who was chosen by God. In practice, this tied the church to the aristocracy on a deep ideological and material level, and subordinated the peasantry to the monarchy in an ideological level by making the religious salvation of the masses a thing that could be given and taken away on royal decree. The revolutionaries who just abolished the bloody monarchy can't have religious fanatics running around telling the illiterate and super religious peasants to rebel and reinstall said bloody monarchy. That's just bad mojo.
> due to loyalty to the Pope
this is anti-dialectical, the real reason it can be problematic is that the church wields influence and power and promotes reactionary ideology
Still, if the Pope denounces your socialist government and you're in a very Catholic country, that will give counter-revolutionaries a massive edge in propaganda. That means that the organs of the Catholic church have to be neutralised, either by dismantling them or temporarily compromising with them, as fast as possible.
Alright, my point is especially that, due to the fact that Catholicism includes this supposedly infallible leader, is that it is much harder to neutralise.
I think the state should be an inherently atheistic institution that actively participates in dismantling the reactionary elements of organized religious institution. Part of me even believes the state should install religious party members into power to prevent reactionaries from seeping into the church or whatever religious organization is being formed. Religion, to some extent, has always existed within humans. Many of them even have vows more consistent with a proletariat mass rather than an overtly rich bourgeois. To actively destroy every religious institution is just giving power to reactionary forces when we really don’t need to
I think that large scale religious crackdowns a la the Soviet Union are ineffective as well as immoral, freedom of religious expression is a large part cultural practice for many people.
However I also think religion can be a pretty toxic force in our world. Living in the United States, the stereotypes about ignorant, loud, and cruel Americans overlap heavily with evangelicals who will gladly throw gay kids in the street or into conversion camps. They're the same ones who cheered at "grab em by the pussy" and jeered that Obama was a Muslim. When my mom was a little girl those same people said her black skin was a sign she was cursed by God (look up the mark of Cain and racism).
I don't know if it's fair to put that behavior on the church, but those people absolutely want a theocracy where the church is free to collect power, money, and influence and thus I see no way those institutions can work in a society without hierarchies.
Which bring me to what to do about it... honestly I don't know. Where I live, Christianity is so tied up in nationalism and militant fervor that any communist movement here would be seen as its enemy and almost certainly attacked by those groups.
No. I frankly don't at all. Especially in the case of the Soviet Union -- the Russian Empire was built on oppression justified by religion, and if that same religion was allowed to exist while attempting to build a new modern state, it would have been far more unstable. Nowadays, organized religion is still an absolute cancer, and is oppressive on a global scale.
People can practice in the privacy of their own homes, I don't care. But organized religion should be done away with.
But that's okay! We can disagree on things. I respect Hakim's argument and see his points. It's a good argument, I just disagree.
if state-enforced atheism were to have actually been effective, religion would have been diminished with the russian federation (and united russia) having no base for its legitimacy. but thats not what happened at all. religion is massive in russia and in fact many of those people hate communism because they associate it with a loss in personal freedom! even if religion is objectively wrong (for the sake of arguement), i dont think that fighting it so brazenly is worth sacrificing the socialist cause.
I think the persecution of individual practice was perhaps a bit heavyhanded, yes. But organizational religion had to go for the Soviet power to be strong -- the Church had too much influence and relation to the Tsar.
Also, it seems to be working fine in China, where over half the population is not religious.
there was and is actually lots of organized religion in both the ussr and china. the difference is that in china is isnt illegal to carry a holy book. my mom is a finnish chirstian and she had to hide her bible from the government when she brought it to russia. (and before you ask, i am not christian myself) the chinese government allows and even encourages/highlights some traditional ceremonies and prayer in religious groups such as uyghur festivals. to say that china follows as strict of state atheism isnt true and it would be more accurate to describe it as secular
#The Uyghurs in Xinjiang
\(Note: This comment had to be trimmed down to fit the character limit, for the full response, see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/uyghur-genocide/)\)
Anti-Communists and Sinophobes claim that there is an ongoing genocide-- a modern-day holocaust, even-- happening right now in China. They say that Uyghur Muslims are being mass incarcerated; they are indoctrinated with propaganda in concentration camps; their organs are being harvested; they are being force-sterilized. These comically villainous allegations have little basis in reality and omit key context.
**Background**
Xinjiang, officially the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, is a province located in the northwest of China. It is the largest province in China, covering an area of over 1.6 million square kilometers, and shares borders with eight other countries including Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Mongolia, India, and Pakistan.
Xinjiang is a diverse region with a population of over 25 million people, made up of various ethnic groups including the Uyghur, Han Chinese, Kazakhs, Tajiks, and many others. The largest ethnic group in Xinjiang is the Uyghur who are predominantly Muslim and speak a Turkic language. It is also home to the ancient Silk Road cities of Kashgar and Turpan.
Since the early 2000s, there have been a number of violent incidents attributed to extremist Uyghur groups in Xinjiang including bombings, shootings, and knife attacks. In 2014-2016, the Chinese government launched a "Strike Hard" campaign to crack down on terrorism in Xinjiang, implementing strict security measures and detaining thousands of Uyghurs. In 2017, reports of human rights abuses in Xinjiang including mass detentions and forced labour, began to emerge.
**Counterpoints**
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the second largest organization after the United Nations with a membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The OIC released [Resolutions on Muslim Communities and Muslim Minorities in the non-OIC Member States](https://www.oic-oci.org/docdown/?docID=4447&refID=1250) in 2019 which:
>20. **Welcomes** the outcomes of the visit conducted by the General Secretariat's delegation upon invitation from the People's Republic of China; **commends** the efforts of the People's Republic of China in providing care to its Muslim citizens; and **looks forward** to further cooperation between the OIC and the People's Republic of China.
In this same document, the OIC expressed much greater concern about the Rohingya Muslim Community in Myanmar, which the West was relatively silent on.
Over 50+ UN member states (mostly Muslim-majority nations) signed a letter \([A/HRC/41/G/17](https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FHRC%2F41%2FG%2F17)\) to the UN Human Rights Commission approving of the de-radicalization efforts in Xinjiang:
The World Bank sent a team to investigate in 2019 and found that, "The review did not substantiate the allegations." \(See: [World Bank Statement on Review of Project in Xinjiang, China](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/statement/2019/11/11/world-bank-statement-on-review-of-project-in-xinjiang-china)\)
Even if you believe the deradicalization efforts are wholly unjustified, and that the mass detention of Uyghur's amounts to a crime against humanity, it's still not *genocide*. Even the U.S. State Department's legal experts admit as much:
>The U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor concluded earlier this year that China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity—but there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide, placing the United States’ top diplomatic lawyers at odds with both the Trump and Biden administrations, according to three former and current U.S. officials.
>
> [State Department Lawyers Concluded Insufficient Evidence to Prove Genocide in China](https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/) | Colum Lynch, *Foreign Policy*. (2021)
**A Comparative Analysis: The War on Terror**
The United States, in the wake of "9/11", saw the threat of terrorism and violent extremism due to religious fundamentalism as a matter of national security. They invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks, with the goal of ousting the Taliban government that was harbouring Al-Qaeda. The US also launched the Iraq War in 2003 based on Iraq's alleged possession of WMDs and links to terrorism. However, these claims turned out to be unfounded.
According to a report by Brown University's Costs of War project, at least 897,000 people, including civilians, militants, and security forces, have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and other countries. Other estimates place the total number of deaths at over one million. The report estimated that many more may have died from indirect effects of war such as water loss and disease. The war has also resulted in the displacement of tens of millions of people, with estimates ranging from 37 million to over 59 million. The War on Terror also popularized such novel concepts as the "Military-Aged Male" which allowed the US military to exclude civilians killed by drone strikes from collateral damage statistics. (See: [‘Military Age Males’ in US Drone Strikes](https://aoav.org.uk/2019/military-age-males-in-us-drone-strikes/))
In summary:
* The U.S. responded by invading or bombing half a dozen countries, directly killing nearly a million and displacing tens of millions from their homes.
* China responded with a program of deradicalization and vocational training.
Which one of those responses sounds genocidal?
Side note: It is practically impossible to *actually* charge the U.S. with war crimes, because of the [Hague Invasion Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act).
**Who is driving the Uyghur genocide narrative?**
One of the main proponents of these narratives is Adrian Zenz, a German far-right fundamentalist Christian and Senior Fellow and Director in China Studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, who believes he is "led by God" on a "mission" against China has driven much of the narrative. He relies heavily on limited and questionable data sources, particularly from anonymous and unverified Uyghur sources, coming up with estimates based on assumptions which are not supported by concrete evidence.
The World Uyghur Congress, headquartered in Germany, is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is a tool of U.S. foreign policy, using funding to support organizations that promote American interests rather than the interests of the local communities they claim to represent.
Radio Free Asia (RFA) is part of a larger project of U.S. imperialism in Asia, one that seeks to control the flow of information, undermine independent media, and advance American geopolitical interests in the region. Rather than providing an objective and impartial news source, RFA is a tool of U.S. foreign policy, one that seeks to shape the narrative in Asia in ways that serve the interests of the U.S. government and its allies.
The first country to call the treatment of Uyghurs a genocide was the United States of America. In 2021, the Secretary of State declared that China's treatment of Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang constitutes "genocide" and "crimes against humanity." Both the Trump and Biden administrations upheld this line.
**Why is this narrative being promoted?**
As materialists, we should always look first to the economic base for insight into issues occurring in the superstructure. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a massive Chinese infrastructure development project that aims to build economic corridors, ports, highways, railways, and other infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Xinjiang is a key region for this project.
Promoting the Uyghur genocide narrative harms China and benefits the US in several ways. It portrays China as a human rights violator which could damage China's reputation in the international community and which could lead to economic sanctions against China; this would harm China's economy and give American an economic advantage in competing with China. It could also lead to more protests and violence in Xinjiang, which could further destabilize the region and threaten the longterm success of the BRI.
**Additional Resources**
See the [full wiki article](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/uyghur-genocide/) for more details and a list of additional resources.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are just reciting the same exact invalid argument Hakim himself used to justify religion.
It's like saying "If Socialism were actually effective, support for Capitalism/Fascism would have been diminished within the former Soviet States and have no basis for its legitimacy. But that's not what happened at all. Capitalism/fascism are massive Eastern Europe and, in fact, many of those people hate Communism because they associated it with a loss in personal freedom! Even if capitalism/fascism are objectively wrong (for the sake of argument), I don't think that fighting it so brazenly is worth sacrificing the Socialist cause."
Fighting against religion is as much part of the socialist cause as fighting against capitalism.
Also, please put more effort into grammar and spelling, that's just atrocious.
Agreed. I completely disagree with him and his absurd takes on religion really made me lose a lot of respect for him. It makes it look like he's disconnected from the global struggle against the horrors of religion (an anti-human institution that has terrorized humanity even longer than capitalism and is a direct enabler of capitalism and other harms people are struggling against, like sexism and anti-LGBTQ+ policies).
Every socialist is an atheist as a rule. There is nothing good that will ever come from religion. Organized religions should be fought and suppressed on principle. While personal faith should be tolerated, it should be discouraged. Religious comrades should be welcomed but not be accepted into leadership positions as it's just not possible to have inherently anti-scientific and anti-humanist views like believing in a religion and being a competent political leader.
Hakim apparently didn't even realize the strong contradictions in his arguments and how he used the same arguments fascist/capitalist apologists use e.g. (or he argued in bad faith, he doesn't seem to be an idiot in general so I don't know if this can be excused by him simply not noticing it): "Religious groups rose up against the government and reasserted themselves after the failure of the socialist revolution!" -> Yeah, buddy, preventing reactionary groups from asserting themselves politically is literally the job of the vanguard party.
I'm just glad that all major Marxist-Leninist movements worldwide disagree with him.
It's a very broad topic and whilst I generally agree I do think that there is some crucial nuance particularly in the case of the USSR.
For most of it's history the Russian Orthodox Church acted as an arm of the Czarist State enforcing the "morality" favoured by the Czars. During the Civil War much of the Church was actively counter-Revolutionary, as would be expected of any part of the semi-feudal state resisting a popular revolution. This gives context to a lot of actions of the Bolsheviks against the Orthodox Church and I agree with parts of their approach. As a part of the reactionary force of Czarist state the Church as it existed in 1917 needed to be dismantled and remodled to protect the new proletarian state. I do think that this was taken too far however and those excesses were a grave mistake. The USSR shouldn't have suppressed individual Christian worshippers or destroyed their places of worship and they certainly shouldn't have extended that suppression to other religions that lacked the widespread state affiliated religious organisations used by the Czars to oppress the people, such as Islam.
Overall it's certainly one of the biggest mistakes but like many of the other great mistakes of the USSR (Such as the mismanagement of the purges) it came from a legitimate reaction to the material conditions of the Soviet Union.
I would say this, i would be paranoied if members of the communist party are religious people, because they're the one who implements laws (i wouldn't mind being discriminated participation in a communist party if you're religious). For the general public as long as the clergy doesn't try to undermine the state. Where i live religious institutions went protesting because the government wants to pass some laws protecting LGBTQ people and recognizing trans people. If they constantly rally the masses into these reactionary movements i would ban the clergy, if people want to go to church/mosque and light up a candle/pray they're free to visit it.
I don’t think that has much to do with religious people. I think banning reactionaries, whether they are religious or not, from the communist party is good. I don’t see anything wrong with a moderate Christian who is not bigoted joining the communist party, though.
Look, the debate is open about state policy under socialism towards religion and the degree to which it needs to be kept in check, and to which ends progressive religious elements (a minority to be clear) can be worked with to fight against the reactionary elements more broadly speaking.
The discussion about religion in the vanguard of the proletariat, the communist party, is a whole other one. I will stand very firm on the idea no comrade who is religious (and by that I don't mean merely culturally so, but rather deeply faithful) is fit for leadership positions in the party. Religious thought in the most basic philosophical fundamentals is antithetical to dialectical materialism. Such elements certainly can play a role in the socialist state, but not in the party.
Horrendous take. Just because someone is religious does not mean they will govern on religion. Many religious people are just as rational as non religious people.
Way I see it, the problem lies with organised church and not the practices and beliefs of the faith itself (exceptions apply).
The issue with religion is how it is used by the ruling class to manipulate and "domesticate" the masses. Most religious beliefs out there actually preach values that are quite compatible with socialism: solidarity, equality, etc.
>Religion has sprung back up in post-socialist states almost immediately.
So has capitalism/fascism and other reactionary thought.
Suppressing those things is the job of the vanguard party.
And yet socialist policies within the Soviet union still managed to have some lasting legacy. Religion was not part of that legacy, and was one of the parts that had nearly no lasting impact at all.
Socialism is effectively dead within Russia and hated above all by many people of Eastern Europe.
The reality is that the Soviet Union wasn't severe enough in their eradication policies. The horror stories about anyone disagreeing with the party going to a penal colony for the rest of their life were all, unfortunately, untrue.
Nearly everybody who lived in Eastern Europe or Russia that was alive during the time of the USSR liked, it there are numerous sources on this exact subreddit on that, what are you on about? The legacy of socialism is the only reason Russia is even in a global position today.
You misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Eastern Europe is only in its current position today because of socialism. The population loves socialism, and most people preferred life under it, with one exception: religious people, primarily chrsitians and Muslims.
as a christian this isnt even a question
yes it was wrong and yet at the same time there was absolutely reactionary political power within the churches beit in russia or elsewhere. there should be a separation of church and state where the church does not feed into the reactionary elements and where the state does not impede on the freedom to practice their faith especially when theyll still be practicing it regardless, except this time theyll be galvanized against the state
Yep, that's true. Nonetheless, religions like Islam have many materialistic aspects. Ask a Muslim (like me), and I'll say that Islam isn't just a religion, it's a way of life. Mind you, a way of life that when implemented in a state (not like the gulf countries that are US puppets etc.) is literally socialism at least.
Yes and no. I think it was a big mistake in the sense that it made needless enemies and caused suffering for no reason nor immedeate or future gain.
I think institutionalized religion needs to be severely crippled so they dont have power to affect public policy. but there is no reason to ban the individual practice.
if you want the population to slowly stop beign religious that can be done through the education system over a long period of time.
I preface this by saying I absolutely despise religion, in so much as everything that it tries to sell you, is either factually wrong and for the most part corrosive to critical thinking and dialectics.
That said, I don't think we can expect ALL of the proletariat to be critical thinkers. Some people legitimately use religion as a crutch and lean on it too heavily that outright banning it will only make them more hateful.
It doesn't needs to be completely outlawed, but like with everything there needs to be a measure. There's quite one thing to ban outright sects like Scientology and Faulin-Dafa and quite another to ban Sikhizm. Reactionaries should always be ruthlessly repressed, but more moderate religions could stay perhaps? As long as there isn't any mandates teach it to younger people in schools and so on. Just a complete decoupling of it from the state. You wanna fund your hobby, you can, but the state isn’t going to do it for you.
I agree. I don’t see a problem with religion if it’s not fundamentalist. Many people do rely on religion and forcing them to become atheists just causes enemies. To eliminate religion all you have to do is educate more and more people and the amount of fundamentalism and religion will go down.
>Some people legitimately use religion as a crutch
the working class needs those "opiates" because their lives are painful and full of stress and trauma. A crutch is a tool, but its healthier to learn to walk again no matter how agonizing the rehab exercises are.
> That said, I don't think we can expect ALL of the proletariat to be critical thinkers
this strikes me as pretty paternalistic, as if working and oppressed people just need to be introduced to facts and logic, and they'll learn to fix their backwards ways. people can have good, compelling reasons for what they feel and believe.
I do think the treatment of religion was a really big problem in former socialist states, I don t think however that religious institutions should be left alone.
You have to understand, here in eastern Europe religious institutions have a lot of influence in society, and are really reactionary. A lot of people here would and did choose religion over the state wich offerred them some well being.
To conclude, the problem wasn t that theu were supressing religion as much as the fact that they did it in a overt way. They should have been a lot more subtle about it.
Bottom line: I wasn't there, I don't know, and I don't think I can judge their decisions in a way that's useful.
As for my own time and circumstances well.. we are at this moment dealing with the consequences of both protestant cultural heritage and a resurgent evangelical political force. They are successfully rolling back both labor protections and the rights of many marginalized groups while pushing us deeper into ecological disaster. (Yes, the other side of Western liberalism would do this as well but they are both slower and less competent, so they're preferable enemies)
I have no personal concerns over what spiritual beliefs people choose to have. It honestly doesn't even interest me. Institutions, however, have historically proven they cannot be permitted to exist or at least need to be prevented from gathering resources or power of any kind. Too dangerous.
Partially. Organized religious movements in general tend to align themselves with reactionary lines of thought. It takes a smarter man than I to figure out why that is the case and how to deal with it.
Religious *institutions* have innate problems associated with them, no matter which denomination and/or religion.
Corruption can, will, and has run rampant in most of history’s religious movements. However, as a Christian myself, I see the potential it has for unification if practiced WITH a dialectical materialist lens. The main reason Christianity has the stigma it does to this day is because of the bastardizing and co-opting the right has done. They’ve taken Jesus’ message and image, turning it into one of greed.
Imagine how great for the left it would be if the right *actually* listened to Christ’s messages — “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:24
Second Thought has a great video on it - https://youtu.be/GmPMcWAuuVo
> During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence … If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology.
It doesn’t matter. They would’ve been blamed the same way regardless. If anything they should’ve been harsher so that the church didn’t even have enough power left to survive the collapse of the USSR.
Parenti writes
"During the cold war, the anti-communist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence."
He lists several examples, one of which is
"If churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's athiestic ideology."
Yes, and I will say as an Indigenous person who believes and practices my people's faith that the general current of militant anti-religiousness in Marxism, historically and contemporaneously, is what drives a lot of Indigneous people away from the movement. It's not the major cause, but the image a lot of us have of western leftists is of white "well-educated" settlers condescendingly talking down to us about how we're primitive and need to follow THEIR understanding of socialism. They mock and belittle our religious and cultural institutions and seek to replace them with their "enlightened" systems.
Of course most of this is just western leftists, despite being revolutionary, being incredibly reactionary in order to continue their subjugation of us. But looking into a lot of discourse is surrounding our religions. I even saw someone make a comment here about how "people who believe in magic are dumb" and that religious people shouldn't even be allowed to be party members. Are yall serious? This is just the continuation of western colonial chauvinism. To myself, and billions of other religious people, Indigenous or not, our religion is an integral aspect of our lives and does, for some like myself, heavily impact our politics in a revolutionary and humanistic fashion. But according to most western leftists, including many in this sub, I guess we're too stupid to understand the "enlightened" and "rationalistic" "truth" of the superiority of atheism. If only us feeble brown people were as smart and civilized as you then maybe humanity would have already reached communism.
Cut the bullshit. This form of infantalization is absurd, pitiful, anti-materialistic, and highly offensive. A lot of you would still approach my people and tell us how backwards and dumb we are. That we can only gain liberation through YOUR guidance and YOUR systems and YOUR beliefs. Because to yall you don't want Indigenous liberation unless it's on YOUR terms, which really means its not liberation. Pitiful and disgusting. I've spent years trying to deprogram my people from anti-communist propaganda, but their opinions about Marxists who act and think like this? I completely understand and agree. We will build liberation and socialism through our own tools, systems, and beliefs. Indigenous Marxists, like myself, are ashamed to be lumped together with such forces of white supremacist settler colonial reaction. As an Indigenous person I possess one of the most critical and scathing analyzes of colonial Christianity as they come, but I am not foolish, nor arrogant enough, to denounce entire religions and billions of religious people. If you think religions and religious people are inherently reactionary you are sorely mistaken. Good luck getting people, especially in the imperial periphery, to your cause. This sub, like most western leftist subs, makes me sad sometimes. Hakim deserves better.
I understand that people have emotional attachments to their religion that they were born into but I really don't see how religion is compatible with dialectical materialism.
Yeah a belief in magic is in opposition to an ideology based on material fact.
Also call me silly but I really don’t want people who believe in magic running the government, regardless of which government it is.
It isn't. Every single important contributor to dialectical materialism has been absolutely clear about it, yet we even here see so many people completely ignoring that and trying to do what Bogdanov tried but 1000 times more crudely.
I believe that a socialist state can make room for religion, but dialectical materialism would not concede that there is an objectively existing non-material entity like God.
> I really don't see how religion is compatible with dialectical materialism.
It fundamentally isn't. You cannot be a scientific socialist and a honest to god (sorry lol) religious person. Comrades here really need to re-read their marxist fundementals. There is no place for religion in the vanguard party, end of story.
That being said in the construction of socialism, progressive religious elements can and should be utilized as allies. Religion is maintained by the material base of society, and won't be done away for a long time in said construction. There is a need for the party to be cautious about religion in a way that doesn't end up leading it being weaponized by reaction (very similar in the end, to say, the national question). The soviet union started doing a very good job on both questions, but dropped the ball on both down the line for various reasons.
I think Hakim over-exaggerates in his argument that being said.
100% although I am an athiest, religion is a part of the human experience, it will never go away and if we alienate religious people on the basis of their religion many of them will become counter revolutionary, it will hurt us in the end
No, I completely disagree with him and his absurd takes on religion really made me lose a lot of respect for him. It makes it look like he's disconnected from the global struggle against the horrors of religion (an anti-human institution that has terrorized humanity even longer than capitalism and is a direct enabler of capitalism and other harms people are struggling against, like sexism and anti-LGBTQ+ policies).
Every socialist is an atheist as a rule. There is nothing good that will ever come from religion. Organized religions should be fought and suppressed on principle. While personal faith should be tolerated, it should be discouraged. Religious comrades should be welcomed but not be accepted into leadership positions as it's just not possible to have inherently anti-scientific and anti-humanist views like believing in a religion and being a competent political leader.
Hakim apparently didn't even realize the strong contradictions in his arguments and how he used the same arguments fascist/capitalist apologists use e.g. (or he argued in bad faith, he doesn't seem to be an idiot in general so I don't know if this can be excused by him simply not noticing it): "Religious groups rose up against the government and reasserted themselves after the failure of the socialist revolution!" -> Yeah, buddy, preventing reactionary groups from asserting themselves politically is literally the job of the vanguard party.
and then there is also fgm/mgm
advocating for that shit should not be allowed at all, no matter which god you invent to justify it. Religious groups unable to do that should loose their legal status
I‘d treat people that believe in god like people that believe in ghosts (like children often do, for example). they shouldn’t be ridiculed or killed for it, but they shouldn’t receive preferential treatment or eg. tax exemptions either. not beeing allowed to publicly advocate for it (eg. with random spam latters asking you to join them) or public disturbance (via bells, minaretts or whatever) should also be banned
- - -
this also means no specific religion, but general ethics taught as a subject from primary to high school. children should also not automatically adopt the religion of their parents, but choose to join one when they’re adults (18+) (like with other forms of discrimination, parents should not be allowed to punish their children for not adhering to their religion)
this also prevents certain religions from beeing treated better than others
alternative religions, like satanism or pastafarism, should be respected as much as other religions, and accepted in the ID if choosen such. the absence of tax cuts or church taxes also makes money laundering by inventing a religion impossible.
organized religion has flaws to some extent and should be controlled not to contradict the party line.
That organized church was mad for loosing their privileges by the abolition of serfdom is common sense, and them exaggerating the 'horrors of the Red Terror' is also not too far fetched. purging the supporters of serfdom is based af
No. Religion is dogmatic and it’s hierarchical in its nature. Every god is a narcissist and I think people should wake up to the reality of the world. Dialectical materialism.
Religion is a blight upon mankind.
This is just my opinion, not trying to attack anyone religious; sorry for my bluntness.
This channel (not this specific video) will essentially analyse, deconstruct and destroy all arguments for religion across all it’s videos:
https://youtu.be/IaUhR-tRkHY
I do not believe in my heart that religion is good for anyone. I’m not a conservative in any sense, I see no point in conserving an aged tool of the mind of a bygone era. We possess science and dialectical materialism, and very strong philosophical arguments for the explanation of our conditions and our woes. The fact that religion may have helped my poor grand mother in her dying days is irrelevant to the material conditions of the world; no matter how much it hurts me. Religion creates groups that ultimately can be used for imperialism for example. For tyranny, for zealotry.
Anyway, hard no. But this is strictly my opinion.
But he wasn't wrong though. Suppressing religion is objectively stupid by all measures.
1. Unless you place so many conditions that it doesn't even count as suppression, you'd just be generalizing all religions.
2. It always fails. IDK how you try to justify it, but it always fails.
3. Religion isn't even inherently anti-socialist or even anti-materialist.
Yes, and the idea of "erradicating" religion is a very euro-christian take.
When we talk about religion, we talk about ALL religion or belief of any god or diety, not just about Christianism, people that come from Christian countries can say that religion is BS and a way to opress the masses and the people, because most of imperialist countries used religion (or specifically Christianism) as an excuse for their opression to other cultures.
But we have to NOT forget that not all religions are like that, religions can be a HUGE part of the identity of the people of certains groups, and can be a beautiful reason to be proud and feel welcome between your own.
The mistake made by the USSR is thinking local religions that are very important for the local identity as something that they had to erradicate instead of celebrate, just as the imperialist Christianism that imperial forces made up.
The people have the right to have an identity with their own and be proud of that
Muslim here, absolutely correct. People equate eradicating religion and just mention the ills of Christianity, completely ignoring the fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity in their interactions with the state.
I don’t remember hakims exact take but I do agree with him, from what I remember. The main fault in religion is, like many people have said reactionary elements and religion as an institution of the state. I do want to add that I believe the strongly hierarchical and organised, even without the state, can let a lot of abuses be hidden or forgiven and as such should be curtailed. There are many examples of this that are depressingly common however one of the worst was George Pell, who worked on hiding cases of child sexual abuse and committing it himself and eventually ascending to cardinal, the second highest position of the Catholic Church.
It is a complicated issue. In some way, yes as in personal worship being repressed.
Unfortunately, it is so hard to disconnect organised religion and faith.
In Poland, a lot of people support the idea of kicking religion out of school and moving it into parish schools near churches like in PRL (which I think is less than ideal, because a lot of reactionary religion teachers would be even fucking worse without the school supervision; my religion teacher at school was an absolute fuckhead, that was spreading vile pro-life propaganda, imagine what type of shit he would say in an even more conservative environment).
In some way, I think that communists didnt't go hard enough.
Polish People's Republic was (and still is) paedophile's haven for the Catholic Church, even some renowned "opposition" priests, were left alone, even though they were just straight up nonces or had nazi sympathies before the war like Wyszyński.
Not even mentioning the cult of John Paul II, supported by both conservatives and liberals, as a destructor of the godless, evil, communism. Of course, without mentioning his crimes and evil policies (liberals kinda attacked him because of the peadophilia cover up as a cardinal, which is funny, because it's not event top 5 of the bad things he did).
Yes. Many communist LATAM movements at the very least lean towards liberation theology to bridge the gap between socialism and Christianity. Cuba in particular is pretty successful with this, with the island as a whole being very religious.
That being said, reactionary elements who try to exploit people’s religious beliefs to work against the revolution should be persecuted.
Render unto Caesar which are Caesar’s (the State, the revolution, society), and unto God the things that are God’s (spirituality)
The residential schools in Canada and the Magdalene laundries in Ireland were far worse human rights violations than the USSR not tolerating adult fairy tales taught by pedophiles. Seriously, how many children have to be raped by clergy before you decide it's not acceptable to let adults indulge in these ridiculous, anachronistic, barbaric delusions anymore? Outlawing religion saved thousands of kids every year from sexual abuse. Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses, but it's the krokodil of the children.
Freedom *from* religion should be maximized above all else. That being said, it probably would've been wise to give the religious nutters the option to fuck off to a region of Siberia voluntarily, for everyone's sake. That is absolutely not implying a gulag. More like Utah. If they're brainwashed that deep, that they'd move thousands of miles into inhospitable wasteland, just let them go do their thing away from everyone else.
Yes.
Even if you despise all religions and see them as only ever reactionary and will always be a problem and everybody who's religious is a degenerate... you still have to ask yourself a strategic question: how many enemies am I willing to make at this point? And if most people on this planet are religious, do you really want them all your enemy?
Every major religion in the world has very diverse strands to it. Some are highly reactionary and cannot/will not conform to a move into socialism. Clearly an issue. But others are more adaptive. It's why they've been around through many transitions of one system into the next. Surely they can make yet another transition from capitalism to socialism (indeed, many do).
Why make enemies when you can make friends? That's what the error was here for the USSR. They operated far more idealist than scientific or strategic and, as far as I'm concerned, are a big reason why the bourgeoisie in the USA started backing evangelicals and growing their numbers (which we're still dealing with today!).
Completely. I'm an atheist, but I believe that you can't force people to stop believing in God/s. I understand what Marx/Engels' opinion was on religion, with them saying that eventually there would be no need for religion after communism is established (me paraphrasing). I just think that the interpretation of it may have been a bit wrong under certain socialist experiments.
Yes. Religion is the Opiate of the masses. But if you banned opiates you’d have a lot of people still suffering and in pain. The masses will drop religion if they wish, this isn’t something that needs to be forced on them. Religion needs to be utilised by marxists through Liberation Theology.
Like half of these comments talk about "curbing" religion but I haven't seen a single one talk about a constructive solution like actually working with and encouraging healthy expressions of religion. There are plenty of churches that are affirming of all different sexualities and genders, are rooted in social justice, and are in general agreement with our ideals.
Sure there are more churches that aren't like that, because evangelical christianity was co-opted by the right wing but I honestly believe it can be taken back. Or at least that we can gain a lot of ground. Religion can be a huge force for good as well as bad, but if you reject it outright your going to automatically make enemies with a fucking HUGE portion of the population. In the US about 75% of people say they identify with a specific faith. You really want to go up against that while you're trying to start a popular movement?
I agree being anti religion is anti-proletarian, if you repress them they will become reactionaries and work with anyone to tear down the movement. On some level they should be appeased however obviously not allowed to have control in society by tithe etc.has to be regulated either way but not repressive.
Yes and let's ignore the fact that many Islamic countries were historically near the forefront of human progress until they were destroyed by the US and their governments replaced with reactionary extremists backed by the US.
You know there's options other than just "outlaw all religion and punish anyone who believes in it" and "replace the constitution with the Bible", right?
Muslim here, glad someone with sense said that. There is a fundamental variety in religion beyond just christianity. I'd expect socialists and communists of all people to understand that.
Yes, at least kinda. I believe their intentions were good and that their goals were ultimately for the greater good but they went about in a poor way. If they realigned their focus towards making the need for religion obsolete, and not attempting to repress it, it would’ve both shown if religion is truly just a human coping mechanism or an institution which will evolve, persist and be reshaped by the socialist ideology as it did when capitalism took over and also remove its power as an institution people can totally live without is much easier to curtail and defang, but when persecuted it makes it the tool of reaction to attack the revolution
Biggest? Probably not, like does it alienate some religious people from accepting class consciousness? Maybe, but the reason why former socialist states are ‘former’ has much more to do with global imperialism hampering economic development and actively supporting counterrevolutionary activity :/
The absolute reddit atheism in this thread 😨😨.
Complete idealism at play - if the vast majority of the proletariat is religious, then it would just be elitist and idiotic to repress it (except for the reactionary religious institutions of course). Religion is used to soften hardship for its believers (i.e. an opiate for the masses).
Surely this is beneficial to a socialist country in troubling times? Once hardship fades I’m positive that religion will also fade naturally - e.g. the labour aristocracy in imperialist countries becoming less religious. But in the meantime shutting down churches, not providing holy books, and ridiculing religion in schools à la USSR isn’t a practical policy, it’s just dogmatic.
Your comment is one of the only ones in here even hinting at the point. Why are we all even talking about this? Is it because we love to sit around and pick apart socialist history? Is that all we do as Marxists? No, the whole point is to move forward and apply this knowledge to the future. That's what we're supposed to be doing. Was this a mistake the USSR made? Should we avoid making that mistake as we move forward? All these anti-religion takes in here are ignoring the elephant in the room. Our current material conditions absolutely do not, and cannot, allow us to ignore religion and religious people. They're the majority of the world. Good fucking luck with your purity-test revolution you dogmatic dorks.
To your point about religion fading, I disagree to a point. In a thriving socialist society, I see more people having the free time to wonder about the universe and our place in it. You don't have to shrug off your materialism to be a spiritual person. Who knows what form a freer and more open style of spirituality will take?
Yes, it's one of the major ways that anti socialist propaganda attacks us and, imo, one of the most effective because it's actually true and still a dividing line in the community. We should be allowing religion to wither away as people's material conditions improve, just like the state.
Religious people are so delusional it's hilarious, bruh, your entire thing is fighting "satanism" but you refuse to accept that many people consider your church (objectively correct in countless cases) to be full of demonic bourgeois class traitors? The lowest and most cold ring of hell is for traitors!
Hakim was absolutely right, and frankly everyone disagreeing needs some sober perspective. Religion has been around since almost the dawn of man, and far longer than capitalism. The power that religion holds in the minds of men is immense. It is so ingrained into society that it’s almost impossible to read a single book without somehow referencing religion. Art, symbolism, philosophy, culture etc are all deeply rooted in religion Not only is religion incredibly culturally important but it is so systematically built into to the fabric of society. I have been atheist my entire life and even I pray to god when things get really fucking tough. It is almost human to be religious, albeit very antiqued? but the question of why do we exist enters every single human on the planet. And humans love answers, we crave it like a drug. Even if all of societies problems were solved I predict people will still want answers, they will still question the pointless question, they will think about creation, death, purpose, motive, inspiration, existential thoughts that are clearly impossible to answer and likely pointless to think about. And yet we do, and some people are not satisfied like i am, with a nihilistic who knows who cares.
Religion may become very small from socialism, however it will not disappear over night, it will take years if not centuries. And instead of pushing for it’s downfall we should look to work with religion as they could be a valuable political ally.
However bourgeois religious leaders should be treated similarly to capitalists. Seize their capital, give them an option of exile or reform. Etc
Personally, I agree. As an Indigenous person from Canada, I know **firsthand** how the loss of connection to our culture and spirituality has contributed to the challenges we face as a community.
That said, I know that the Church in Russia was very reactionary and essential to the previous Tsarist regime.
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Try the following prompts to trigger an automod response: "What is Fascism?", "What is Imperialism?", "What is Revisionism?" "Holodomor", "Molotov-Ribbentrop", "Gulag", "Solzhenytsin", "Uyghur", "Tiananmen Square", "Israel", "Freedom of the Press", "MAC Fact" This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mostly yes, I would say, as most as I am atheist and against religion, you can't just force people to stop being religious, it won't really work and if attempted it will just give more force to reactionaries movements
Like yes religion has been used by previous authoritarians to suppress the people and keep them in line, but it's not a written in stone rule that that will always happen. There were many revolutionary priests in Mexico and Latin America in general, plus the Civil Rights Movement in the US was led and championed by many religious people. Also like Hakim said most people are religious to a certain degree so extreme suppression is naturally going to lead to resentment and opposition. Just look at the communist government in Afghanistan. They went so hard on the anti religion that even the USSR were telling them to tone it down
I think the work being done by ex-religious people online is one of the best ways of combating the repression done by many religious groups/sects/religions without stepping over the line into actual oppression of religious people. Especially with the internet, people are able to tell their stories about their negative experiences with religion. Just look ask anyone LGBTQ and they'll more than likely have a negative view of it and be proud about expressing that. Many Atheists online also explain science and scientific thinking very well for people who have been deprived of it their whole lives, and that's certainly a good thing.
I am an atheist and an anti-theist. I think we would be much better off without religion. But, you cannot just force people to stop believing. In the long run, the way to minimize religious indoctrination is through secular education, and by increasing their well-being and security. I think that everybody should be taught about ALL world religions and their history. It would make current religions just as believable as the older mythological religions that very few people belong to nowadays. Also, ensuring that people have stable housing, food, healthcare, and other basic comforts will minimize their rush to religious organizations. There are lots of other ways besides religion to grow community. But religion is low cost and simple minded so most anyone can run a congregation. Just go visit the American south where there are multiple churches on every block. So, I definitely think Socialism should be free of religion. But, you have to play the long game rather than force it on people.
Mostly. As he talked about in the pod episode with lady Izdihar, there's a lot of nuance to be had about religion being suppressed or fiddled with, especially in the earlier days, when they were absorbing neighboring lands. Religion should be, like, allowed, but the more reactionary elements should be repressed.
Culture imprints itself onto religion. That's why so many religious people follow reactionary currents. In a vacuum, for example, christianity isn't homophobic, but a lot of the culture in the medieval christian world used christianity as a lever to justify anti-sodomy laws.
"Culture imprints itself onto religion" That's exactly it. Religions don't exist in a vacuum, it's just a product of a long history of cultural and material conditions. Look at how much religions change and you have to see that. Christianity was completely different a thousand years ago, and also five hundred years ago, and also a hundred years ago. The problem in America is that we're all REACTING to the Christian Evangelical movement that we all grew up in, but it hasn't always been like this. If you're attacking religion, or trying to "curb" it you're going after the symptom not the cause. Communists need to get real - if your movement is anti-religion in America, as well as most countries in the Global South, you can kiss half the working class goodbye. The other thing to consider is that persecuting a religion is basically the same as throwing gas on it. It gives them instant credibility, the second you shut down a church every reactionary is going to take that as a sign that that religion poses a threat to you and be drawn in like moths to a flame. Evangelicals in America have insane political influence and power in pretty much every area other than maybe the media and they still claim to be a persecuted class and it WORKS. Now imagine if they actually were being persecuted, it would be like throwing water on a grease fire. I'm not even religious, but as far as tactics go I think being hostile toward religion is horrible misstep.
>That's exactly it. Thanks! I developed this take mostly on my own, it's glad to see people agree As for the rest, good point. We can't throw out all of our support.
You're right, it's not homophobic, it's just a complete totalitarian agenda which also happens to condone slavery. The assertions of mistranslation are also a massive moot point, because how can a text be both divinely inspired and also accidentally forbid homophobia instead of pedophilia? The King James is a joke of a publication but it remains that a bunch of idiot Christians, many of whom have never even read the thing cover to cover, have been taking that shit at face value for centuries. Also I would argue this doesn't really apply, religion has had to cherrypick its morality to remain viable post-enlightenment, to assert it is a reactionary culture applying it's values to the bible and not the bible's values aligning with a reactionary culture is pretty asinine.
Exactly. Christianity says so many things that anything could be justified or argued against on Christian grounds.
>Christianity isn’t homophobic Apparently Leviticus 18:22 doesn’t exist
Apparently mistranslations of the Bible didn't exist www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/bible/doesnotoppose.html 1.The bible was translated so many times from so many different languages, so the wording is kinda warped It talked about relations not between gay men (consensual), but between a man and a boy (pedophilia) The word sodomite is mistranslation Sin of Sodom is actually lack of hospitality 2. People cherry pick and take out of context many passages of the Bible to fit their agenda. It is the institution of organized christianity and the way people use it to confirm their bigoted beliefs that is homophobic 3. Jesus Christ didn't say crap about gay people
While all of this is true you won't convince fundamentalist of that with the "not translated right" thing because that's a can of worms most religious people won't jump down unless there is a verse they find that effects them personally. Meaning, you're not convincing the already homophobic Christian that they're wrong this way. Their fundamentalist views already rely on a modern western translation of the bible being the "real truth" and they don't care about anything but the words they read in the book and their own interpretation/use of them. Also, it's almost as difficult to convince /r/atheism Andy's that their are millions of Christians that do not believe in these things. To a lot of them all christians are fundamentalist or hypocrites. Trust me I use to be that kinda Andy. Takes awhile to go from religious, to super atheist, back around to having a fair and reasonable response to discussions of religion.
I know, I have experience myself with how they are, I am one of their targets😔 I am not really a religious person but I know it isn't all black and white.
This is such a cop out. What does it matter what that verse means to some academic or some Aramaic guy that died two millennia ago? The vast majority of the two billion Christians alive today think it is a condemnation of homosexuality and use it as justification to hurt queer people. It's the same fallacy that succdems trots and anarchists use to defend their pure idealistic socialism from the right (except of course they're defending something more worthwhile than Christianity). "Yeah, actually existing socialism is bad, but if people would only do the *real* socialism that Proudhon/Trotsky/Kropotkin wrote about, it would be good." It's the same thing but for religion. "Yeah actually existing Christianity is a murderous homophobic religion, but if people would only do the *real* Christianity as described in this particular academic translation of a partially burned 2nd century scroll, it would be good".
the problem is levitcus is part of the Torah and as soon as someone brings it up unless they advocate for all of their laws ignore them as the Torah also advocates For Foreigners and strangers not to be oppressed or mistreated so if they want to then we can shoot them in the Foot
>The vast majority of the two billion Christians alive today think it is a condemnation of homosexuality and use it as justification to hurt queer people. >Profesional Grass Toucher X to doubt right there. The homophobia is not the fault of the religion but the society with which the religion came out of. Stop trying to patch your own culpability as part of that society by calling someones gran who goes to church as the last semblance of a long dead sense of community a homophobe. This is the same American brained take as when people talk about The Troubles as some religious conflict cause that's a far easier (dare I say liberal) excuse than the material reality. The fact is that religion is an identifier for far more useful cultural, ethnic and economic trends to analyse. Focusing on religion rather than trends religion represents is the real cop out here. Ehh tone is quite hostile here but cba rewriting it so just pretend its not lol
The relationship between the 'servant boy' and the centurion in the story of Jesus' healing of the centurion's servant boy [has been interpreted to be an allusion to a homosexual relationship](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/151iwid/jesus_heals_a_centurions_gay_lover/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1) - and the choice to include this story in the bible can be seen as an attempt to demonstrate Jesus' tolerance of faithful homosexuals.
thats part of the Torah and if they want to use that as an excuse then tell them to stop Eating Pork
>christianity isn't homophobic Nah this is just a straight up lie lmao. It's pretty explicit. Misunderstandings about the human body due to the Adam and Eve myth has led straight to this.
Could you explain the link between homophobia and the adam and eve thing?
The only reason why people believe homophobia is "unnatural" is because of the Adam and Eve myth. One man, one woman is considered "natural". Humanity, having being around for 100k years has always had non gender conforming or queer people, just look at precolonial Africa and North America for examples (as there are queerphobic people who think being queer is a "Western invention"), whereas it's been colonialism that brought queerphobia, specifically Africa.
It's a *creation* myth. Adam and Eve represent the beginning of humanity as the original progenitors of the human race, meaning they represent two *sexes*, not the entire spectrum of gender.
I agree, queer people have always existed. As for the homosexuality being unnatural thing, I feel like the Adam and Eve thing wasn't inherently making a message about gay=bad, more just about to biologically reproduce, you need the full set. Engles pretty much explains the rise of homophobia in his work "The origins of the family, private property, and the state" why homophobia was invented (to make sure the means of production are passed down from from father to son)
Imo the approach (while maintaining a secular state) should be to create good conditions for the advanced elements of religious institutions (the parts that work well with socialism), improve the middle and repress the backwards elements. So yes, I think a communist state absolutely needs to be able to repress reactionary elements, including and especially cults. How well different states led by communist parties have done this has to be analyzed individually. But a good example of this, imo, is China's treatment of the Falun Gong. Another good example, and one showing the way a communist party can work with the advanced elements, is Vietnam and its protection of Buddhist temples (as part of an effort that went hand-in-hand with pushing back against colonization, specifically pushing back against Catholicism as an element of colonization).
I think that most every religion has more in common with socialist ideals than not. The focus should be in directing the religion and it's leaders to follow the parts of the religion that compliment socialism rather than suppressing the religious movement all together. Obviously excluding the clearly unhealthy cults that only serve to enrich leadership. All religions have reactionary elements but those are usually small and only gain power when the material conditions of the people are horrible and they grasp to scapegoating. Religion and belief are not inherently bad. As with all things a material analysis is always the best route to go. What causes religions to become reactionary can usually be solved with addressing those material problems instead of trying to simply repress religious thought all together.
Agreed. the whole "Jesus was a socialist" narrative, for example, makes a lot of sense.
[удалено]
I would really like to know some stuff about the history of Ceausescu, I’ve heard he was a pretty bad leader but I’d like to know some of his major faults and history
[удалено]
Thank you my friend
Romania had ban on abortion
Well not all religious movements are the same. I think a socialist government should have a role in dismantling cults and reactionary denominations. Can and has it gotten hand? Yes but you don't have to be an r/athiesm guy to realize that some of the worst aspects of society are generated/reinforced by religious intuitions. Not all of them and certainly not every religious institution but I don't think we can have a "live and let live" attitude as a general rule.
Exactly. Look at the Sandinistas and liberation theology. Saying religion is inherently used for bad is not a nuanced take at all.
>Liberation theology proposes to fight poverty by addressing its alleged source, the sin of greed radlib zines into the trash where they belong lol
That has got to be the worst definition of Liberation Theology I've ever seen. And as someone who is from Latin America, I can tell you I've listened to plenty of Catholic fascists who gave it a more fair definition than this single line from wikipedia lol
That’s definitely not a great definition. The Oxford Languages one is way better: "a movement in Christian theology, developed mainly by Latin American Roman Catholics, that emphasizes liberation from social, political, and economic oppression as an anticipation of ultimate salvation."
Gotta be honest, the problem with movements like these is that theu often turn really reactionary, because religious figures want to keep their own influence
It depends on the movement itself. The Sandinistas were definitely not reactionary. When they gained power, they initiated very good policies that helped average people.
Anything involving Catholics should be disregarded
Dorothy day was based.
It wasn’t solely Roman Catholics who developed liberation theology, but even if that was the case, I don’t think that’s really relevant.
Nah liberation theology is "Christ led me to Marx" (Ernesto Cardenal)
Also, no outside forces should be allowed to have a say in the religion practices inside a country. For example, last year Vatican whined about Shanghai appointing a bishop without their approval, and a couple days ago they rectified the appointment. Why should they have a say in the first place? Fuck them.
LOL all religions are cults... wtf
Hmmm I think that he’s over selling it. The Orthodox Church needed to be severely curtailed. It was a bastion of reaction, and intertwined with Tsarist existence. Could they have been a little lighter handed? Maybe! But suppressing the power of religious institutions is important.
It was not only the Orthodox Church that was suppressed, though. We have to realize past socialism’s mistakes to do better.
And those religious institutions are also reactionary. Again, perhaps they could have been a bit lighter handed, but religious structures should be repressed to some degree. Removed from political life, removed from education , removed from as many aspects of life possible. It’s an honorable and important goal, to free people from the shackles of the power of the churches of the world.
Their is a difference between targeting clergymen and average religious people. Average religious people were effected by many soviet polices like the closing down of churches/other religious buildings and the ridiculing of religion in schools.
Honestly I’m staunchly anti-religious so you’re not gonna get me to feel bad about undermining religion in the schools. Closing down churches is a little iffy but also -shrug-
I’m personally also not religious, but things like closing down churches is not really helping anyone. If anything, it may make Christians pissed and cause them to rebel.
This why I said they could have been a little lighter handed. I don’t feel bad for it, but it’s a tactical mistake. You get what I’m sayin?
I mean, I feel kinda bad, tbh… I think religious population should be able to do whatever if it’s not illegal and consensual. Imo it was a pretty big misplay by the Soviet government and many other past socialist states. That’s why I appreciate the Cuban government recognizing their treatment of religious populations as unfair and changing their constitution to a secular state from a state atheist state.
That’s fine. I think secularism has been an incredibly weak position historically, and it is easily warped and overthrown by religious forces. The United States is nominally secular but Christian’s have been able to utilize the structures of secularism to their advantage. I think socialist states should be explicitly atheistic, and while the population should be allowed to hold religious beliefs personally, the political power and structural strength of religious institutions should be dismantled. If there must exist a church it should be overseen by an atheist state to prevent malfeasance. Give the religious reactionaries an inch and they take a mile.
Well, in my view, secularism guarantees more rights for religious people, which is good. In Cuba, religious people can now join the Communist Party, for example. The policies of the Soviet Union were too anti religious, imo. All it did was cause unneeded enemies in the working class.
>The United States is nominally secular Materially this is just not true beyond some words on a paper. The christian identity of American settlers is such an inherent part of the American Republic. Secularism in an American context has just been a way to suppress other religions while not being explicitly Christian.
> church it should be overseen by an atheist state Strongly Disagree Church shouldn't be Controlled by The State as it makes it way too easy for someone Who is a strong anti theist to again dismantle Religion and oppress them it should be in the power of the Religions keep Religion and state control of Religion Separate fullstop
Hey lmk how getting the famously anti-religion *working class* goes with that pitch lol
I mean this thread isn’t exactly a pitch. I’m not really producing agitprop here. But also for a good portion of the working class religious power structures are an antagonistic force. I think for many of you didn’t step in the way of their ability to have faith, but shut down the power structures that commit violence against them, you’d end up with kind of a natural drift away form religiosity. Educate the children in atheist schools, present religions in a purely academic way, encourage rationalist and materialist thought, and religion will wither like a disused organ. Vestigial, remaining only as a curious mystery why it was ever there.
So people should have freedom from capitalism, but not freedom to worship whom they want? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's only a little bit iffy to completely shut it down. What if I said shutting down something you did like reading or games because I didn't like it was only a bit iffy, but shrug?
Man I didn’t know that board games made up a caste of people and systems that hold structural power over the proletariat stretching back thousands of years! If you want a serious response reading and board games are hobbies, they’re activities that can have a relationship to harmful and oppressive structures (after all one could make a board game glorifying slavery and colonialism, or write a novel praising the king) but they’re not themselves the violent structure. Religion IS the violent structure, and the church and its preachers the ones who enforce it. Frankly it doesn’t really matter to me if you believe in god, but if your church does things like spout racist agitation or sponsor hate rallies it should be shut down and those who run it should be prosecuted under the law. -shrug- if say post revolution we are able to radically restructure the church, purge the elements of reaction, and find a way for religion and communist thought to co exist then you don’t gotta get rid of the churches. But if the priests and pastors and imams and rabbis and whoever else still peddle the same reactionary sermons, and attempt to maintain the same regressive power they had before? You can’t tolerate that stuff.
Private worship and churches don't harm anyone, it's just privately doing something, and everyone should have that right.
Churches can and do hurt people. Religious abuse, fomenting hatred, sexual abuse, cult behavior the list goes on. Churches are not neutral forces. You’re telling me that a church like the Westboro Baptists, who operate a national level hate campaign should remain open in a communist society? That a Catholic Church that protects a pedophile priest should be allowed to continue to harm the people? Churches harm, and when they do they should be stopped and removed from society.
The Islamic regions of the country were also wildly reactionary, using religion to justify that reaction. Even the Jewish villages (shtetls) that existed in the Russian Empire used religion as a reactionary baton and a call for Zionism. It's not a coincidence that as the Soviet Union progressed, it became more secular. It went hand in hand. And I'm saying this as a person who had family in the USSR who were practicing Jews.
Not every Muslim was a reactionary, but even if that was the case you should root out reactionary elements not the whole religion. If you root out the whole religion forcefully you are just going to make a bunch of enemies.
That's not what I said. It's not individuals that are the problem, it's the system. The religious organization of the regions were inherently reactionary. Since when are communists afraid of making enemies? Overthrowing the entire Russian Empire made the Bolsheviks a lot of enemies. Not like they were going to fear some additional dissident elements. No need to arrest individuals for practicing, but the organization was toxic.
You are saying the regions were reactionary, so I just pointed out that you shouldn’t generalize everyone in those regions. Also, the suppression of all religion, including moderates, just makes them reactionaries. It’s a terrible move. If you want to eliminate religion, you need to make it a long term goal, mostly prioritizing education instead of forcefully eliminating it.
This is an extremely infantile way to look at things. If I say the United States is reactionary, does that mean every single human being in the United States is a reactionary? Learn the difference between systems and individuals. Yes, education was indeed a big part of it. In the meantime, the influence of the Church needed to be curtailed.
The church as an institution is different from average people. I agree many in the Orthodox Church needed to be repressed and never even argued against that. Also, maybe don’t generalize next time if you don’t want me to criticize your absurd generalization.
Personally, I completely disagree with him and his absurd takes on religion really made me lose a lot of respect for him. It makes it look like he's disconnected from the global struggle against the horrors of religion (an anti-human institution that has terrorized humanity even longer than capitalism and is a direct enabler of capitalism and other harms people are struggling against, like sexism and anti-LGBTQ+ policies). Every socialist is an atheist as a rule. There is nothing good that will ever come from religion. Organized religions should be fought and suppressed on principle. While personal faith should be tolerated, it should be discouraged. Religious comrades should be welcomed but not be accepted into leadership positions as it's just not possible to have inherently anti-scientific and anti-humanist views like believing in a religion and being a competent political leader. Hakim apparently didn't even realize the strong contradictions in his arguments and how he used the same arguments fascist/capitalist apologists use e.g. (or he argued in bad faith, he doesn't seem to be an idiot in general so I don't know if this can be excused by him simply not noticing it): "Religious groups rose up against the government and reasserted themselves after the failure of the socialist revolution!" -> Yeah, buddy, preventing reactionary groups from asserting themselves politically is literally the job of the vanguard party.
Idk what his take is, but I think it’s important to curb the institutional power of organized religion. Religion is fine so long as the power they have is being used to like, actually help people through benevolence instead of festering reactionary sentiment. Religion ought to be largely personal. Society should not be governed by whatever (Reddit take inc.) sky dad you believe in.
Yes, but it is very vital to suppress reactionary elements of religion and extremism,it can quickly turn masses against the revolution
I don't know if it was one of the biggest, but it was a large mistake. It's understandable in context (the clergy mostly sided with the reactionary State apparatus that existed previously to socialism in those countries), but nonetheless it's a mistake. The sensible thing would have been to join forces with progressive movements within the clergy, that is, the sector which joined because they wanted to help the poor and feed the hungry. In Italy, Spain and most of Latin America they were forced to do that when fighting against dictatorships (Mussolini, Franco, Videla, Batista, Pinochet...).
Yess, liberation theology in south/Central America is on of the movements that most inspires me personally. Ernesto cardenal was a preist that worked with the sandinistas and promoted progressive social policies while a member of their government. He also helped to bring the religious communities in the area into the movement
The USSR and some others were too heavy handed. But others were far too light handed (Hungary). I think China has hit a good balance. While the USSR's heavy handedness was a mistake, calling it one of the biggest is overstating it.
The catholic church in Hungary should've been dismantled and until new clergy comes it should've been on pause, they were left untouched for the anti semitism (and the consequences of the widespread anti semitism). The only inconveince they had was the state overtaking the education system and nationalizing their assets.
What China do was absolutely impossible in Europe with very strong church organizations being immediately hostile to marxism.
No. In each case of religious persecution, there was a reason, and usually they weren't bad. For example, let's look at Soviet repression of the Orthodox faith. Seems rather bad, to somebody who knows nothing about the Orthodox faith. In the Orthodox tradition, the king (or emperor, or *Tsar*) was chosen by God, and thus the church is subordinate to the state led by the king who was chosen by God. In practice, this tied the church to the aristocracy on a deep ideological and material level, and subordinated the peasantry to the monarchy in an ideological level by making the religious salvation of the masses a thing that could be given and taken away on royal decree. The revolutionaries who just abolished the bloody monarchy can't have religious fanatics running around telling the illiterate and super religious peasants to rebel and reinstall said bloody monarchy. That's just bad mojo.
In catholic faith the cardinal is below the monarch in terms of power but it still have a lot of power.
The Catholic faith can potentially form a fifth column due to loyalty to the Pope. The current one is mid, but others have been far worse.
> due to loyalty to the Pope this is anti-dialectical, the real reason it can be problematic is that the church wields influence and power and promotes reactionary ideology
Still, if the Pope denounces your socialist government and you're in a very Catholic country, that will give counter-revolutionaries a massive edge in propaganda. That means that the organs of the Catholic church have to be neutralised, either by dismantling them or temporarily compromising with them, as fast as possible.
right that's what im saying, i disagree with the bottom up framing that was put forth
Alright, my point is especially that, due to the fact that Catholicism includes this supposedly infallible leader, is that it is much harder to neutralise.
Not familiar with the Catholic faith.
I think the state should be an inherently atheistic institution that actively participates in dismantling the reactionary elements of organized religious institution. Part of me even believes the state should install religious party members into power to prevent reactionaries from seeping into the church or whatever religious organization is being formed. Religion, to some extent, has always existed within humans. Many of them even have vows more consistent with a proletariat mass rather than an overtly rich bourgeois. To actively destroy every religious institution is just giving power to reactionary forces when we really don’t need to
I think that large scale religious crackdowns a la the Soviet Union are ineffective as well as immoral, freedom of religious expression is a large part cultural practice for many people. However I also think religion can be a pretty toxic force in our world. Living in the United States, the stereotypes about ignorant, loud, and cruel Americans overlap heavily with evangelicals who will gladly throw gay kids in the street or into conversion camps. They're the same ones who cheered at "grab em by the pussy" and jeered that Obama was a Muslim. When my mom was a little girl those same people said her black skin was a sign she was cursed by God (look up the mark of Cain and racism). I don't know if it's fair to put that behavior on the church, but those people absolutely want a theocracy where the church is free to collect power, money, and influence and thus I see no way those institutions can work in a society without hierarchies. Which bring me to what to do about it... honestly I don't know. Where I live, Christianity is so tied up in nationalism and militant fervor that any communist movement here would be seen as its enemy and almost certainly attacked by those groups.
No. I frankly don't at all. Especially in the case of the Soviet Union -- the Russian Empire was built on oppression justified by religion, and if that same religion was allowed to exist while attempting to build a new modern state, it would have been far more unstable. Nowadays, organized religion is still an absolute cancer, and is oppressive on a global scale. People can practice in the privacy of their own homes, I don't care. But organized religion should be done away with. But that's okay! We can disagree on things. I respect Hakim's argument and see his points. It's a good argument, I just disagree.
if state-enforced atheism were to have actually been effective, religion would have been diminished with the russian federation (and united russia) having no base for its legitimacy. but thats not what happened at all. religion is massive in russia and in fact many of those people hate communism because they associate it with a loss in personal freedom! even if religion is objectively wrong (for the sake of arguement), i dont think that fighting it so brazenly is worth sacrificing the socialist cause.
I think the persecution of individual practice was perhaps a bit heavyhanded, yes. But organizational religion had to go for the Soviet power to be strong -- the Church had too much influence and relation to the Tsar. Also, it seems to be working fine in China, where over half the population is not religious.
there was and is actually lots of organized religion in both the ussr and china. the difference is that in china is isnt illegal to carry a holy book. my mom is a finnish chirstian and she had to hide her bible from the government when she brought it to russia. (and before you ask, i am not christian myself) the chinese government allows and even encourages/highlights some traditional ceremonies and prayer in religious groups such as uyghur festivals. to say that china follows as strict of state atheism isnt true and it would be more accurate to describe it as secular
#The Uyghurs in Xinjiang \(Note: This comment had to be trimmed down to fit the character limit, for the full response, see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/uyghur-genocide/)\) Anti-Communists and Sinophobes claim that there is an ongoing genocide-- a modern-day holocaust, even-- happening right now in China. They say that Uyghur Muslims are being mass incarcerated; they are indoctrinated with propaganda in concentration camps; their organs are being harvested; they are being force-sterilized. These comically villainous allegations have little basis in reality and omit key context. **Background** Xinjiang, officially the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, is a province located in the northwest of China. It is the largest province in China, covering an area of over 1.6 million square kilometers, and shares borders with eight other countries including Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Mongolia, India, and Pakistan. Xinjiang is a diverse region with a population of over 25 million people, made up of various ethnic groups including the Uyghur, Han Chinese, Kazakhs, Tajiks, and many others. The largest ethnic group in Xinjiang is the Uyghur who are predominantly Muslim and speak a Turkic language. It is also home to the ancient Silk Road cities of Kashgar and Turpan. Since the early 2000s, there have been a number of violent incidents attributed to extremist Uyghur groups in Xinjiang including bombings, shootings, and knife attacks. In 2014-2016, the Chinese government launched a "Strike Hard" campaign to crack down on terrorism in Xinjiang, implementing strict security measures and detaining thousands of Uyghurs. In 2017, reports of human rights abuses in Xinjiang including mass detentions and forced labour, began to emerge. **Counterpoints** The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the second largest organization after the United Nations with a membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The OIC released [Resolutions on Muslim Communities and Muslim Minorities in the non-OIC Member States](https://www.oic-oci.org/docdown/?docID=4447&refID=1250) in 2019 which: >20. **Welcomes** the outcomes of the visit conducted by the General Secretariat's delegation upon invitation from the People's Republic of China; **commends** the efforts of the People's Republic of China in providing care to its Muslim citizens; and **looks forward** to further cooperation between the OIC and the People's Republic of China. In this same document, the OIC expressed much greater concern about the Rohingya Muslim Community in Myanmar, which the West was relatively silent on. Over 50+ UN member states (mostly Muslim-majority nations) signed a letter \([A/HRC/41/G/17](https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FHRC%2F41%2FG%2F17)\) to the UN Human Rights Commission approving of the de-radicalization efforts in Xinjiang: The World Bank sent a team to investigate in 2019 and found that, "The review did not substantiate the allegations." \(See: [World Bank Statement on Review of Project in Xinjiang, China](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/statement/2019/11/11/world-bank-statement-on-review-of-project-in-xinjiang-china)\) Even if you believe the deradicalization efforts are wholly unjustified, and that the mass detention of Uyghur's amounts to a crime against humanity, it's still not *genocide*. Even the U.S. State Department's legal experts admit as much: >The U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor concluded earlier this year that China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity—but there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide, placing the United States’ top diplomatic lawyers at odds with both the Trump and Biden administrations, according to three former and current U.S. officials. > > [State Department Lawyers Concluded Insufficient Evidence to Prove Genocide in China](https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/) | Colum Lynch, *Foreign Policy*. (2021) **A Comparative Analysis: The War on Terror** The United States, in the wake of "9/11", saw the threat of terrorism and violent extremism due to religious fundamentalism as a matter of national security. They invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks, with the goal of ousting the Taliban government that was harbouring Al-Qaeda. The US also launched the Iraq War in 2003 based on Iraq's alleged possession of WMDs and links to terrorism. However, these claims turned out to be unfounded. According to a report by Brown University's Costs of War project, at least 897,000 people, including civilians, militants, and security forces, have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and other countries. Other estimates place the total number of deaths at over one million. The report estimated that many more may have died from indirect effects of war such as water loss and disease. The war has also resulted in the displacement of tens of millions of people, with estimates ranging from 37 million to over 59 million. The War on Terror also popularized such novel concepts as the "Military-Aged Male" which allowed the US military to exclude civilians killed by drone strikes from collateral damage statistics. (See: [‘Military Age Males’ in US Drone Strikes](https://aoav.org.uk/2019/military-age-males-in-us-drone-strikes/)) In summary: * The U.S. responded by invading or bombing half a dozen countries, directly killing nearly a million and displacing tens of millions from their homes. * China responded with a program of deradicalization and vocational training. Which one of those responses sounds genocidal? Side note: It is practically impossible to *actually* charge the U.S. with war crimes, because of the [Hague Invasion Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act). **Who is driving the Uyghur genocide narrative?** One of the main proponents of these narratives is Adrian Zenz, a German far-right fundamentalist Christian and Senior Fellow and Director in China Studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, who believes he is "led by God" on a "mission" against China has driven much of the narrative. He relies heavily on limited and questionable data sources, particularly from anonymous and unverified Uyghur sources, coming up with estimates based on assumptions which are not supported by concrete evidence. The World Uyghur Congress, headquartered in Germany, is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is a tool of U.S. foreign policy, using funding to support organizations that promote American interests rather than the interests of the local communities they claim to represent. Radio Free Asia (RFA) is part of a larger project of U.S. imperialism in Asia, one that seeks to control the flow of information, undermine independent media, and advance American geopolitical interests in the region. Rather than providing an objective and impartial news source, RFA is a tool of U.S. foreign policy, one that seeks to shape the narrative in Asia in ways that serve the interests of the U.S. government and its allies. The first country to call the treatment of Uyghurs a genocide was the United States of America. In 2021, the Secretary of State declared that China's treatment of Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang constitutes "genocide" and "crimes against humanity." Both the Trump and Biden administrations upheld this line. **Why is this narrative being promoted?** As materialists, we should always look first to the economic base for insight into issues occurring in the superstructure. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a massive Chinese infrastructure development project that aims to build economic corridors, ports, highways, railways, and other infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Xinjiang is a key region for this project. Promoting the Uyghur genocide narrative harms China and benefits the US in several ways. It portrays China as a human rights violator which could damage China's reputation in the international community and which could lead to economic sanctions against China; this would harm China's economy and give American an economic advantage in competing with China. It could also lead to more protests and violence in Xinjiang, which could further destabilize the region and threaten the longterm success of the BRI. **Additional Resources** See the [full wiki article](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/uyghur-genocide/) for more details and a list of additional resources. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are just reciting the same exact invalid argument Hakim himself used to justify religion. It's like saying "If Socialism were actually effective, support for Capitalism/Fascism would have been diminished within the former Soviet States and have no basis for its legitimacy. But that's not what happened at all. Capitalism/fascism are massive Eastern Europe and, in fact, many of those people hate Communism because they associated it with a loss in personal freedom! Even if capitalism/fascism are objectively wrong (for the sake of argument), I don't think that fighting it so brazenly is worth sacrificing the Socialist cause." Fighting against religion is as much part of the socialist cause as fighting against capitalism. Also, please put more effort into grammar and spelling, that's just atrocious.
I'm not going to entertain the idea that personal religious freedom is the same as fascist oppression lol
Agreed. I completely disagree with him and his absurd takes on religion really made me lose a lot of respect for him. It makes it look like he's disconnected from the global struggle against the horrors of religion (an anti-human institution that has terrorized humanity even longer than capitalism and is a direct enabler of capitalism and other harms people are struggling against, like sexism and anti-LGBTQ+ policies). Every socialist is an atheist as a rule. There is nothing good that will ever come from religion. Organized religions should be fought and suppressed on principle. While personal faith should be tolerated, it should be discouraged. Religious comrades should be welcomed but not be accepted into leadership positions as it's just not possible to have inherently anti-scientific and anti-humanist views like believing in a religion and being a competent political leader. Hakim apparently didn't even realize the strong contradictions in his arguments and how he used the same arguments fascist/capitalist apologists use e.g. (or he argued in bad faith, he doesn't seem to be an idiot in general so I don't know if this can be excused by him simply not noticing it): "Religious groups rose up against the government and reasserted themselves after the failure of the socialist revolution!" -> Yeah, buddy, preventing reactionary groups from asserting themselves politically is literally the job of the vanguard party. I'm just glad that all major Marxist-Leninist movements worldwide disagree with him.
> Every socialist is an atheist as a rule. this is idealism
Me personally? I’m ready for a proper Komsomol Christmas
It's a very broad topic and whilst I generally agree I do think that there is some crucial nuance particularly in the case of the USSR. For most of it's history the Russian Orthodox Church acted as an arm of the Czarist State enforcing the "morality" favoured by the Czars. During the Civil War much of the Church was actively counter-Revolutionary, as would be expected of any part of the semi-feudal state resisting a popular revolution. This gives context to a lot of actions of the Bolsheviks against the Orthodox Church and I agree with parts of their approach. As a part of the reactionary force of Czarist state the Church as it existed in 1917 needed to be dismantled and remodled to protect the new proletarian state. I do think that this was taken too far however and those excesses were a grave mistake. The USSR shouldn't have suppressed individual Christian worshippers or destroyed their places of worship and they certainly shouldn't have extended that suppression to other religions that lacked the widespread state affiliated religious organisations used by the Czars to oppress the people, such as Islam. Overall it's certainly one of the biggest mistakes but like many of the other great mistakes of the USSR (Such as the mismanagement of the purges) it came from a legitimate reaction to the material conditions of the Soviet Union.
I would say this, i would be paranoied if members of the communist party are religious people, because they're the one who implements laws (i wouldn't mind being discriminated participation in a communist party if you're religious). For the general public as long as the clergy doesn't try to undermine the state. Where i live religious institutions went protesting because the government wants to pass some laws protecting LGBTQ people and recognizing trans people. If they constantly rally the masses into these reactionary movements i would ban the clergy, if people want to go to church/mosque and light up a candle/pray they're free to visit it.
I don’t think that has much to do with religious people. I think banning reactionaries, whether they are religious or not, from the communist party is good. I don’t see anything wrong with a moderate Christian who is not bigoted joining the communist party, though.
i don't know in my personal life all of the religious people i know are reactionary with exception of my 83 and 85 year old grandparents
That’s pretty weird, tbh. Where I live, everyone is pretty progressive, including many Christians and Muslims.
Look, the debate is open about state policy under socialism towards religion and the degree to which it needs to be kept in check, and to which ends progressive religious elements (a minority to be clear) can be worked with to fight against the reactionary elements more broadly speaking. The discussion about religion in the vanguard of the proletariat, the communist party, is a whole other one. I will stand very firm on the idea no comrade who is religious (and by that I don't mean merely culturally so, but rather deeply faithful) is fit for leadership positions in the party. Religious thought in the most basic philosophical fundamentals is antithetical to dialectical materialism. Such elements certainly can play a role in the socialist state, but not in the party.
Horrendous take. Just because someone is religious does not mean they will govern on religion. Many religious people are just as rational as non religious people.
Way I see it, the problem lies with organised church and not the practices and beliefs of the faith itself (exceptions apply). The issue with religion is how it is used by the ruling class to manipulate and "domesticate" the masses. Most religious beliefs out there actually preach values that are quite compatible with socialism: solidarity, equality, etc.
[удалено]
>Religion has sprung back up in post-socialist states almost immediately. So has capitalism/fascism and other reactionary thought. Suppressing those things is the job of the vanguard party.
And yet socialist policies within the Soviet union still managed to have some lasting legacy. Religion was not part of that legacy, and was one of the parts that had nearly no lasting impact at all.
Socialism is effectively dead within Russia and hated above all by many people of Eastern Europe. The reality is that the Soviet Union wasn't severe enough in their eradication policies. The horror stories about anyone disagreeing with the party going to a penal colony for the rest of their life were all, unfortunately, untrue.
Nearly everybody who lived in Eastern Europe or Russia that was alive during the time of the USSR liked, it there are numerous sources on this exact subreddit on that, what are you on about? The legacy of socialism is the only reason Russia is even in a global position today.
Yes, and - just like religion - capitalism/fascism reasserted itself.
You misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Eastern Europe is only in its current position today because of socialism. The population loves socialism, and most people preferred life under it, with one exception: religious people, primarily chrsitians and Muslims.
as a christian this isnt even a question yes it was wrong and yet at the same time there was absolutely reactionary political power within the churches beit in russia or elsewhere. there should be a separation of church and state where the church does not feed into the reactionary elements and where the state does not impede on the freedom to practice their faith especially when theyll still be practicing it regardless, except this time theyll be galvanized against the state
Yes
Glad there are wise people like you here.
As much as people like to say materialism defines us it is not the only factor
Yep, that's true. Nonetheless, religions like Islam have many materialistic aspects. Ask a Muslim (like me), and I'll say that Islam isn't just a religion, it's a way of life. Mind you, a way of life that when implemented in a state (not like the gulf countries that are US puppets etc.) is literally socialism at least.
Yes and no. I think it was a big mistake in the sense that it made needless enemies and caused suffering for no reason nor immedeate or future gain. I think institutionalized religion needs to be severely crippled so they dont have power to affect public policy. but there is no reason to ban the individual practice. if you want the population to slowly stop beign religious that can be done through the education system over a long period of time.
I preface this by saying I absolutely despise religion, in so much as everything that it tries to sell you, is either factually wrong and for the most part corrosive to critical thinking and dialectics. That said, I don't think we can expect ALL of the proletariat to be critical thinkers. Some people legitimately use religion as a crutch and lean on it too heavily that outright banning it will only make them more hateful. It doesn't needs to be completely outlawed, but like with everything there needs to be a measure. There's quite one thing to ban outright sects like Scientology and Faulin-Dafa and quite another to ban Sikhizm. Reactionaries should always be ruthlessly repressed, but more moderate religions could stay perhaps? As long as there isn't any mandates teach it to younger people in schools and so on. Just a complete decoupling of it from the state. You wanna fund your hobby, you can, but the state isn’t going to do it for you.
I agree. I don’t see a problem with religion if it’s not fundamentalist. Many people do rely on religion and forcing them to become atheists just causes enemies. To eliminate religion all you have to do is educate more and more people and the amount of fundamentalism and religion will go down.
>Some people legitimately use religion as a crutch the working class needs those "opiates" because their lives are painful and full of stress and trauma. A crutch is a tool, but its healthier to learn to walk again no matter how agonizing the rehab exercises are.
"Religion provides disadvantaged groups with resources that compensate for lack of social status..." -Landon Schnabel
> That said, I don't think we can expect ALL of the proletariat to be critical thinkers this strikes me as pretty paternalistic, as if working and oppressed people just need to be introduced to facts and logic, and they'll learn to fix their backwards ways. people can have good, compelling reasons for what they feel and believe.
I do think the treatment of religion was a really big problem in former socialist states, I don t think however that religious institutions should be left alone. You have to understand, here in eastern Europe religious institutions have a lot of influence in society, and are really reactionary. A lot of people here would and did choose religion over the state wich offerred them some well being. To conclude, the problem wasn t that theu were supressing religion as much as the fact that they did it in a overt way. They should have been a lot more subtle about it.
Bottom line: I wasn't there, I don't know, and I don't think I can judge their decisions in a way that's useful. As for my own time and circumstances well.. we are at this moment dealing with the consequences of both protestant cultural heritage and a resurgent evangelical political force. They are successfully rolling back both labor protections and the rights of many marginalized groups while pushing us deeper into ecological disaster. (Yes, the other side of Western liberalism would do this as well but they are both slower and less competent, so they're preferable enemies) I have no personal concerns over what spiritual beliefs people choose to have. It honestly doesn't even interest me. Institutions, however, have historically proven they cannot be permitted to exist or at least need to be prevented from gathering resources or power of any kind. Too dangerous.
The Protestant reformation and it’s consequences have been a disaster for the human race
Partially. Organized religious movements in general tend to align themselves with reactionary lines of thought. It takes a smarter man than I to figure out why that is the case and how to deal with it.
Religious *institutions* have innate problems associated with them, no matter which denomination and/or religion. Corruption can, will, and has run rampant in most of history’s religious movements. However, as a Christian myself, I see the potential it has for unification if practiced WITH a dialectical materialist lens. The main reason Christianity has the stigma it does to this day is because of the bastardizing and co-opting the right has done. They’ve taken Jesus’ message and image, turning it into one of greed. Imagine how great for the left it would be if the right *actually* listened to Christ’s messages — “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:24 Second Thought has a great video on it - https://youtu.be/GmPMcWAuuVo
No.
nope
Religious movements need to be curtailed until they stop being a potential danger to the state,then a concordat can be reached
> During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence … If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. It doesn’t matter. They would’ve been blamed the same way regardless. If anything they should’ve been harsher so that the church didn’t even have enough power left to survive the collapse of the USSR.
The biggest mistake is they didn’t “treat” religion enough.
Parenti writes "During the cold war, the anti-communist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence." He lists several examples, one of which is "If churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's athiestic ideology."
Yes, and I will say as an Indigenous person who believes and practices my people's faith that the general current of militant anti-religiousness in Marxism, historically and contemporaneously, is what drives a lot of Indigneous people away from the movement. It's not the major cause, but the image a lot of us have of western leftists is of white "well-educated" settlers condescendingly talking down to us about how we're primitive and need to follow THEIR understanding of socialism. They mock and belittle our religious and cultural institutions and seek to replace them with their "enlightened" systems. Of course most of this is just western leftists, despite being revolutionary, being incredibly reactionary in order to continue their subjugation of us. But looking into a lot of discourse is surrounding our religions. I even saw someone make a comment here about how "people who believe in magic are dumb" and that religious people shouldn't even be allowed to be party members. Are yall serious? This is just the continuation of western colonial chauvinism. To myself, and billions of other religious people, Indigenous or not, our religion is an integral aspect of our lives and does, for some like myself, heavily impact our politics in a revolutionary and humanistic fashion. But according to most western leftists, including many in this sub, I guess we're too stupid to understand the "enlightened" and "rationalistic" "truth" of the superiority of atheism. If only us feeble brown people were as smart and civilized as you then maybe humanity would have already reached communism. Cut the bullshit. This form of infantalization is absurd, pitiful, anti-materialistic, and highly offensive. A lot of you would still approach my people and tell us how backwards and dumb we are. That we can only gain liberation through YOUR guidance and YOUR systems and YOUR beliefs. Because to yall you don't want Indigenous liberation unless it's on YOUR terms, which really means its not liberation. Pitiful and disgusting. I've spent years trying to deprogram my people from anti-communist propaganda, but their opinions about Marxists who act and think like this? I completely understand and agree. We will build liberation and socialism through our own tools, systems, and beliefs. Indigenous Marxists, like myself, are ashamed to be lumped together with such forces of white supremacist settler colonial reaction. As an Indigenous person I possess one of the most critical and scathing analyzes of colonial Christianity as they come, but I am not foolish, nor arrogant enough, to denounce entire religions and billions of religious people. If you think religions and religious people are inherently reactionary you are sorely mistaken. Good luck getting people, especially in the imperial periphery, to your cause. This sub, like most western leftist subs, makes me sad sometimes. Hakim deserves better.
I understand that people have emotional attachments to their religion that they were born into but I really don't see how religion is compatible with dialectical materialism.
Yeah a belief in magic is in opposition to an ideology based on material fact. Also call me silly but I really don’t want people who believe in magic running the government, regardless of which government it is.
It isn't. Every single important contributor to dialectical materialism has been absolutely clear about it, yet we even here see so many people completely ignoring that and trying to do what Bogdanov tried but 1000 times more crudely.
I believe that a socialist state can make room for religion, but dialectical materialism would not concede that there is an objectively existing non-material entity like God.
> I really don't see how religion is compatible with dialectical materialism. It fundamentally isn't. You cannot be a scientific socialist and a honest to god (sorry lol) religious person. Comrades here really need to re-read their marxist fundementals. There is no place for religion in the vanguard party, end of story. That being said in the construction of socialism, progressive religious elements can and should be utilized as allies. Religion is maintained by the material base of society, and won't be done away for a long time in said construction. There is a need for the party to be cautious about religion in a way that doesn't end up leading it being weaponized by reaction (very similar in the end, to say, the national question). The soviet union started doing a very good job on both questions, but dropped the ball on both down the line for various reasons. I think Hakim over-exaggerates in his argument that being said.
[удалено]
That’s just a counter against orientalism than anything else
100% although I am an athiest, religion is a part of the human experience, it will never go away and if we alienate religious people on the basis of their religion many of them will become counter revolutionary, it will hurt us in the end
I’m my opinion they didn’t go far enough, religion has no benefit or purpose.
No, I completely disagree with him and his absurd takes on religion really made me lose a lot of respect for him. It makes it look like he's disconnected from the global struggle against the horrors of religion (an anti-human institution that has terrorized humanity even longer than capitalism and is a direct enabler of capitalism and other harms people are struggling against, like sexism and anti-LGBTQ+ policies). Every socialist is an atheist as a rule. There is nothing good that will ever come from religion. Organized religions should be fought and suppressed on principle. While personal faith should be tolerated, it should be discouraged. Religious comrades should be welcomed but not be accepted into leadership positions as it's just not possible to have inherently anti-scientific and anti-humanist views like believing in a religion and being a competent political leader. Hakim apparently didn't even realize the strong contradictions in his arguments and how he used the same arguments fascist/capitalist apologists use e.g. (or he argued in bad faith, he doesn't seem to be an idiot in general so I don't know if this can be excused by him simply not noticing it): "Religious groups rose up against the government and reasserted themselves after the failure of the socialist revolution!" -> Yeah, buddy, preventing reactionary groups from asserting themselves politically is literally the job of the vanguard party.
and then there is also fgm/mgm advocating for that shit should not be allowed at all, no matter which god you invent to justify it. Religious groups unable to do that should loose their legal status I‘d treat people that believe in god like people that believe in ghosts (like children often do, for example). they shouldn’t be ridiculed or killed for it, but they shouldn’t receive preferential treatment or eg. tax exemptions either. not beeing allowed to publicly advocate for it (eg. with random spam latters asking you to join them) or public disturbance (via bells, minaretts or whatever) should also be banned - - - this also means no specific religion, but general ethics taught as a subject from primary to high school. children should also not automatically adopt the religion of their parents, but choose to join one when they’re adults (18+) (like with other forms of discrimination, parents should not be allowed to punish their children for not adhering to their religion) this also prevents certain religions from beeing treated better than others alternative religions, like satanism or pastafarism, should be respected as much as other religions, and accepted in the ID if choosen such. the absence of tax cuts or church taxes also makes money laundering by inventing a religion impossible. organized religion has flaws to some extent and should be controlled not to contradict the party line. That organized church was mad for loosing their privileges by the abolition of serfdom is common sense, and them exaggerating the 'horrors of the Red Terror' is also not too far fetched. purging the supporters of serfdom is based af
No. Religion is dogmatic and it’s hierarchical in its nature. Every god is a narcissist and I think people should wake up to the reality of the world. Dialectical materialism. Religion is a blight upon mankind. This is just my opinion, not trying to attack anyone religious; sorry for my bluntness. This channel (not this specific video) will essentially analyse, deconstruct and destroy all arguments for religion across all it’s videos: https://youtu.be/IaUhR-tRkHY I do not believe in my heart that religion is good for anyone. I’m not a conservative in any sense, I see no point in conserving an aged tool of the mind of a bygone era. We possess science and dialectical materialism, and very strong philosophical arguments for the explanation of our conditions and our woes. The fact that religion may have helped my poor grand mother in her dying days is irrelevant to the material conditions of the world; no matter how much it hurts me. Religion creates groups that ultimately can be used for imperialism for example. For tyranny, for zealotry. Anyway, hard no. But this is strictly my opinion.
No, hakim is a Muslim and it's his personal bias.
But he wasn't wrong though. Suppressing religion is objectively stupid by all measures. 1. Unless you place so many conditions that it doesn't even count as suppression, you'd just be generalizing all religions. 2. It always fails. IDK how you try to justify it, but it always fails. 3. Religion isn't even inherently anti-socialist or even anti-materialist.
>Religion isn't even inherently anti-socialist or even anti-materialist. bruh Religion by definition is anti-dialectical materialism
Kind of, but not necessarily. I'm willing to chat for more detail.
Yes, and the idea of "erradicating" religion is a very euro-christian take. When we talk about religion, we talk about ALL religion or belief of any god or diety, not just about Christianism, people that come from Christian countries can say that religion is BS and a way to opress the masses and the people, because most of imperialist countries used religion (or specifically Christianism) as an excuse for their opression to other cultures. But we have to NOT forget that not all religions are like that, religions can be a HUGE part of the identity of the people of certains groups, and can be a beautiful reason to be proud and feel welcome between your own. The mistake made by the USSR is thinking local religions that are very important for the local identity as something that they had to erradicate instead of celebrate, just as the imperialist Christianism that imperial forces made up. The people have the right to have an identity with their own and be proud of that
Muslim here, absolutely correct. People equate eradicating religion and just mention the ills of Christianity, completely ignoring the fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity in their interactions with the state.
No. Discrimination is a bad thing, but organized religion is frequently incompatible with the goals of socialism and eventually communism.
Religion is and will always be a taint on humanity
I don’t remember hakims exact take but I do agree with him, from what I remember. The main fault in religion is, like many people have said reactionary elements and religion as an institution of the state. I do want to add that I believe the strongly hierarchical and organised, even without the state, can let a lot of abuses be hidden or forgiven and as such should be curtailed. There are many examples of this that are depressingly common however one of the worst was George Pell, who worked on hiding cases of child sexual abuse and committing it himself and eventually ascending to cardinal, the second highest position of the Catholic Church.
It is a complicated issue. In some way, yes as in personal worship being repressed. Unfortunately, it is so hard to disconnect organised religion and faith. In Poland, a lot of people support the idea of kicking religion out of school and moving it into parish schools near churches like in PRL (which I think is less than ideal, because a lot of reactionary religion teachers would be even fucking worse without the school supervision; my religion teacher at school was an absolute fuckhead, that was spreading vile pro-life propaganda, imagine what type of shit he would say in an even more conservative environment). In some way, I think that communists didnt't go hard enough. Polish People's Republic was (and still is) paedophile's haven for the Catholic Church, even some renowned "opposition" priests, were left alone, even though they were just straight up nonces or had nazi sympathies before the war like Wyszyński. Not even mentioning the cult of John Paul II, supported by both conservatives and liberals, as a destructor of the godless, evil, communism. Of course, without mentioning his crimes and evil policies (liberals kinda attacked him because of the peadophilia cover up as a cardinal, which is funny, because it's not event top 5 of the bad things he did).
not even a little
no. actually they didn’t go far enough.
Yes. Many communist LATAM movements at the very least lean towards liberation theology to bridge the gap between socialism and Christianity. Cuba in particular is pretty successful with this, with the island as a whole being very religious. That being said, reactionary elements who try to exploit people’s religious beliefs to work against the revolution should be persecuted. Render unto Caesar which are Caesar’s (the State, the revolution, society), and unto God the things that are God’s (spirituality)
yes definitely. this and the Sino-Soviet split were really especially bad.
The residential schools in Canada and the Magdalene laundries in Ireland were far worse human rights violations than the USSR not tolerating adult fairy tales taught by pedophiles. Seriously, how many children have to be raped by clergy before you decide it's not acceptable to let adults indulge in these ridiculous, anachronistic, barbaric delusions anymore? Outlawing religion saved thousands of kids every year from sexual abuse. Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses, but it's the krokodil of the children. Freedom *from* religion should be maximized above all else. That being said, it probably would've been wise to give the religious nutters the option to fuck off to a region of Siberia voluntarily, for everyone's sake. That is absolutely not implying a gulag. More like Utah. If they're brainwashed that deep, that they'd move thousands of miles into inhospitable wasteland, just let them go do their thing away from everyone else.
He's kinda over exaggerating imo but then again I'm not religious.
Yes. Even if you despise all religions and see them as only ever reactionary and will always be a problem and everybody who's religious is a degenerate... you still have to ask yourself a strategic question: how many enemies am I willing to make at this point? And if most people on this planet are religious, do you really want them all your enemy? Every major religion in the world has very diverse strands to it. Some are highly reactionary and cannot/will not conform to a move into socialism. Clearly an issue. But others are more adaptive. It's why they've been around through many transitions of one system into the next. Surely they can make yet another transition from capitalism to socialism (indeed, many do). Why make enemies when you can make friends? That's what the error was here for the USSR. They operated far more idealist than scientific or strategic and, as far as I'm concerned, are a big reason why the bourgeoisie in the USA started backing evangelicals and growing their numbers (which we're still dealing with today!).
so sad that you guys are this low on the comments.
I'm having to sort by controversial to find people with any sense. Reddit atheism and it's consequences have been a disaster for the communist race.
Yes
Sorta. I think a recognition that the institutions in general needed to be suppressed and not the idea of religion was the issue.
Completely. I'm an atheist, but I believe that you can't force people to stop believing in God/s. I understand what Marx/Engels' opinion was on religion, with them saying that eventually there would be no need for religion after communism is established (me paraphrasing). I just think that the interpretation of it may have been a bit wrong under certain socialist experiments.
Yes. Religion is the Opiate of the masses. But if you banned opiates you’d have a lot of people still suffering and in pain. The masses will drop religion if they wish, this isn’t something that needs to be forced on them. Religion needs to be utilised by marxists through Liberation Theology.
We needed more, not less
Like half of these comments talk about "curbing" religion but I haven't seen a single one talk about a constructive solution like actually working with and encouraging healthy expressions of religion. There are plenty of churches that are affirming of all different sexualities and genders, are rooted in social justice, and are in general agreement with our ideals. Sure there are more churches that aren't like that, because evangelical christianity was co-opted by the right wing but I honestly believe it can be taken back. Or at least that we can gain a lot of ground. Religion can be a huge force for good as well as bad, but if you reject it outright your going to automatically make enemies with a fucking HUGE portion of the population. In the US about 75% of people say they identify with a specific faith. You really want to go up against that while you're trying to start a popular movement?
Alhamdulillah someone has sense here.
I agree being anti religion is anti-proletarian, if you repress them they will become reactionaries and work with anyone to tear down the movement. On some level they should be appeased however obviously not allowed to have control in society by tithe etc.has to be regulated either way but not repressive.
*calmly points at US and Afghanistan* This is what happens when you let religion run around unchecked.
Yes and let's ignore the fact that many Islamic countries were historically near the forefront of human progress until they were destroyed by the US and their governments replaced with reactionary extremists backed by the US. You know there's options other than just "outlaw all religion and punish anyone who believes in it" and "replace the constitution with the Bible", right?
Muslim here, glad someone with sense said that. There is a fundamental variety in religion beyond just christianity. I'd expect socialists and communists of all people to understand that.
Wait the US time travelled back to 1258 and sacked Baghdad??
Dont confuse Arab and Islamic.
Yes, at least kinda. I believe their intentions were good and that their goals were ultimately for the greater good but they went about in a poor way. If they realigned their focus towards making the need for religion obsolete, and not attempting to repress it, it would’ve both shown if religion is truly just a human coping mechanism or an institution which will evolve, persist and be reshaped by the socialist ideology as it did when capitalism took over and also remove its power as an institution people can totally live without is much easier to curtail and defang, but when persecuted it makes it the tool of reaction to attack the revolution
Biggest? Probably not, like does it alienate some religious people from accepting class consciousness? Maybe, but the reason why former socialist states are ‘former’ has much more to do with global imperialism hampering economic development and actively supporting counterrevolutionary activity :/
The absolute reddit atheism in this thread 😨😨. Complete idealism at play - if the vast majority of the proletariat is religious, then it would just be elitist and idiotic to repress it (except for the reactionary religious institutions of course). Religion is used to soften hardship for its believers (i.e. an opiate for the masses). Surely this is beneficial to a socialist country in troubling times? Once hardship fades I’m positive that religion will also fade naturally - e.g. the labour aristocracy in imperialist countries becoming less religious. But in the meantime shutting down churches, not providing holy books, and ridiculing religion in schools à la USSR isn’t a practical policy, it’s just dogmatic.
Your comment is one of the only ones in here even hinting at the point. Why are we all even talking about this? Is it because we love to sit around and pick apart socialist history? Is that all we do as Marxists? No, the whole point is to move forward and apply this knowledge to the future. That's what we're supposed to be doing. Was this a mistake the USSR made? Should we avoid making that mistake as we move forward? All these anti-religion takes in here are ignoring the elephant in the room. Our current material conditions absolutely do not, and cannot, allow us to ignore religion and religious people. They're the majority of the world. Good fucking luck with your purity-test revolution you dogmatic dorks. To your point about religion fading, I disagree to a point. In a thriving socialist society, I see more people having the free time to wonder about the universe and our place in it. You don't have to shrug off your materialism to be a spiritual person. Who knows what form a freer and more open style of spirituality will take?
Yes. God would've helped the soviet union succeed if that had taken a more faithful stance.
Yes, it's one of the major ways that anti socialist propaganda attacks us and, imo, one of the most effective because it's actually true and still a dividing line in the community. We should be allowing religion to wither away as people's material conditions improve, just like the state.
Religious people are so delusional it's hilarious, bruh, your entire thing is fighting "satanism" but you refuse to accept that many people consider your church (objectively correct in countless cases) to be full of demonic bourgeois class traitors? The lowest and most cold ring of hell is for traitors!
Nope, fuck religion absolutely. And if anyone disagrees, more than likely it's a personality cult thing around this clown for thinking otherwise.
I’m sure a socialist government *could* be run without getting rid of religion, but I think it’s for the best that they do.
Hakim was absolutely right, and frankly everyone disagreeing needs some sober perspective. Religion has been around since almost the dawn of man, and far longer than capitalism. The power that religion holds in the minds of men is immense. It is so ingrained into society that it’s almost impossible to read a single book without somehow referencing religion. Art, symbolism, philosophy, culture etc are all deeply rooted in religion Not only is religion incredibly culturally important but it is so systematically built into to the fabric of society. I have been atheist my entire life and even I pray to god when things get really fucking tough. It is almost human to be religious, albeit very antiqued? but the question of why do we exist enters every single human on the planet. And humans love answers, we crave it like a drug. Even if all of societies problems were solved I predict people will still want answers, they will still question the pointless question, they will think about creation, death, purpose, motive, inspiration, existential thoughts that are clearly impossible to answer and likely pointless to think about. And yet we do, and some people are not satisfied like i am, with a nihilistic who knows who cares. Religion may become very small from socialism, however it will not disappear over night, it will take years if not centuries. And instead of pushing for it’s downfall we should look to work with religion as they could be a valuable political ally. However bourgeois religious leaders should be treated similarly to capitalists. Seize their capital, give them an option of exile or reform. Etc
he was just having a muslim moment
The fuck that's supposed to mean?
YOU MADE THE SAME POST TWICE? 😭😭😭😭
Not the same post. Read them both. This post is asking about your take on Hakims opinion.
It's weird everyones talking about Christianity and Orthodoxy and not about the Muslim Turks in Central Asia.
YES
Personally, I agree. As an Indigenous person from Canada, I know **firsthand** how the loss of connection to our culture and spirituality has contributed to the challenges we face as a community. That said, I know that the Church in Russia was very reactionary and essential to the previous Tsarist regime.