/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2443698
Yeah many of these have problems. I'm an atheist if you care, but this part of Marxism always seemed dubious to me. Fight against the reactionary religious instituions, sure, but the idea of abolishing religion itself is quite the aim. About on par with abolishing the concept of luck.

>Religion is the opium of the people.

You could say that about many things, all kinds of entertainment and treats. I remember one American elite called TV/movies "tittytainment" (not because it's sexual, but because the rabble latch onto it and become pacified).

>Religion justifies an unequal social order.

Some do but not all. "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?"

>The problem of an afterlife gives people something to look forward to after death.

Or something to fear. Or it just keeps going forever in cycles of reincarnation.

>Religion makes a virtue out of suffering.

As do many great projects including revolution. Unless you think you can overthrow existing society without suffering.

>Religion offers the false hope of supernatural intervention to improve current conditions.

Some but not all. Sometimes the gods/spirits are hands off or don't care or they expect humans to attend to human affairs.

>Religion is not necessary under socialism or communism.

Socialism will get rid of everything that's "not necessary"? Sounds rather austere. And for all you know spiritual togetherness will be required for the revolution. Gotta find some way to convince people to potentially sacrifice themselves for dubious future prospects they may never enjoy. Religion is good at that.

>Religion has no purpose if there is no longer clas society since its purpose is to justify an unequal social order and to provide the exploited with a coping method with their misery.

Religion may help balm the misery of class society but many of life's miseries don't have anything to do with class (disease, accidents, death, romantic jealousy, the existential pain of being an intelligent animal). Religion predates class society, unless you want to call what hunter-gathers do "spiritual" even though they often have explicit religious figures, stories, and rules. That's not to mention all the "complex hunter-gatherers" that weren't the stereotypical egalitarian band.

>With communism and decent working conditions controlled by the workers religion will wither away.

After thousands of years of civilization and 200 years of industry, people are still religious, or they reject the institutions and call themselves "spiritual." Wasn't there some guy who went to "atheist" China and was frustrated to discover all the woo they believed? People aren't religious in the same way as medieval peasants, so it might change more in the future, but maybe not in the way you like. Maybe "futuristic" religions will take hold, like UFO worshipers.

Doesn't it seem a little presumptuous to think that something that's (probably) been around as long as our species will disappear when we produce industrial goods in a different way? That's a big claim ya know?

Not to mention how humans seem psychologically primed for religious thinking. I'm not well read on any studies on that, but it seems like people readily detect agency in all kinds of non-human affairs. People start finding faces and patterns and evidence of "fate" in all kinds of crazy things. Or feeling a "presence." Don't forget spiritual experiences from drugs, fasting, meditation, and extreme physical feats. Or near death experiences. Sleep paralysis. Hearing voices. Feeling like something is communicating with you. Seeing something weird in the corner of your eye in the dark. Good luck getting rid of all that.

>Religion mystifies material phenomena.

Many scientists are still religious and do fine work. But the socialist bureaucrats, err excuse me the "administrators of things" will have to be atheists to run civil society or else it all falls apart.

>>2443889
>Wasn't there some guy who went to "atheist" China and was frustrated to discover all the woo they believed? People aren't religious in the same way as medieval peasants, so it might change more in the future, but maybe not in the way you like. Maybe "futuristic" religions will take hold, like UFO worshipers.
Yeah, based on my study of the psychology of religion, it's heavily supported that religion will almost always exist in some form or another. In a pure communist society, it will probably evolve into a highly personal and abstract belief system, or some recreational activity (such as sports, literature, gaming, sex, etc) will play the same social role as religion.

I'd say marxists should focus on stripping political power from the religious reactionaries, and everything will fall into place

1. Football is the opium of the people.
2. Football justifies an unequal social order.
3. The problem of football coaching gives retired players something to look forward to after death.
4. Football makes a virtue out of suffering.
5. Football offers the false hope of supernatural intervention to improve current conditions.
6. Football is a form of social control.
7. The bourgeoisie and religious authorities also support other more overtly brutal methods of control.
8. The bourgeoisie fund the religious institutions.
9. The religious institutions are class-collaborationist and legitimize bourgeois power through ideas like "Saudi sportswashing."
10. Football is not necessary under socialism or communism.
11. Football has no purpose if there is no longer clas society, since its purpose is to justify an unequal social order and to provide the exploited with a coping method with their misery.
12. With communism and decent working conditions controlled by the workers, football will wither away.
13. Football creates false consciousness.
14. Football mystifies material phenomena.
15. Football teaches that human misery is a result of divine will.

Can these theses on football be refuted?

>>2444582
truth supernova

>>2443698
The classic Marxist theory of religion doesn’t hold up in modern social science and religious studies. The whole theory has fallen apart. It’s central weakness is that there’s no consensus on how to define religion, so from there you can ask a bunch of critical questions about why certain things get labeled religion and other things don’t and what kind of politics and material conditions go into that e.g. if indigenous people believe something it gets labeled religion, if colonial settlers believe something it’s science or philosophy. If natives resist imperialism, they are religious extremists, if we do it we are national heroes.

Marx’s famous “opium of the people” quip assumes a cognitivist model of religion (it’s about beliefs, which is very Protestant) and that people are religious because of suffering (contradicted by social research). If the claim that religion is fatalistic, preaches passivity, and that suffering is divine will, then you can’t explain why movements like al-Qaeda or liberation theology exist. Why would the Taliban fight for 20 years and loose like 30% of their whole membership fighting a US occupation if religion preaches collaboration and do nothing attitude? Religion also hasn’t withered away in more developed regions and societies that are highly egalitarian and lack class distinctions (like modern Hunter gatherers) aren’t irreligious but do have religious beliefs.

The disturbing part of Marxist approach to religion is the way it looks a lot like medieval Catholic approaches. No salvation except through the church gets replaced by no salvation except through atheism, and anything that’s a religion has to be squashed and everyone forced into Marxist atheism. Now there are gonna be retards here who’ll reject all of this and say that’s precisely what should be done, people should be forced to accept what they see as true which is fundamentalism.

>>2444882
>fringe groups that are hated by their own theological currents
>Marx was wrong because:
>Liberal social science
Grasping at straws. Ngmi.

>>2444882
it'd be nice if you proved any of this, and yes religion is withering away, you can just look at charts, in my home country of australia, no one goes to church, religion is only kept artificially alive through immigrants from religious nations, you see churches get converted into all sorts of shit on a regular basis, and soon the non-religious will simply outnumber the religious, why you might ask? because there's no point in religion in the 21st century in anywhere with an advanced economy, the numbers are climbing even in the heartlands of the most religious places like latin america too, and that doesn't mean he wasn't wrong on this sort of thing, but he certainly was closer to the truth than whatever bullshit you're pushing, secularization theory is real

>>2444919
Every passing day on this shitty planet makes more people believe that no supernatural beings exist. It's just stupid shitty humans with their stupid shitty brains.

Stirnerite angle is simpler: religion is an othered ideal fossilized and held above and against oneself, with the only path forward being the destruction of the ideal in the attempt to move forward despite it.

>>2444934
no it does not, unless you are talking about that new religious movement bullshit, it is not innate to humanity, it is not some "human trait" that makes religion popular, marx is at least right in the sense that it is class society allowing this, he is right that society will get less religious as it gets more developed, and you are wrong for thinking this is some heckin epic misanthropic bullshit, you are anti-human, and you are anti-social

>>2444939
>Implying anti-human is a bad thing
Humans fucking suck.

1. Marx meant this as sympathy not criticism. He did opium himself.
2. Only organized religion with a hierarchal structure.
3. So? Some people look forward to nothingness after death too.
4. Politics also can make virtue out of suffering.
5. Who is to say what is and is not false hope? You're outing yourself as a gnostic atheist neckbeard here.
6. Organized religion is
7. Probably
8. Yes but so do proles
9. This isn't religion as a whole just a few specific Abrahamic sects
10. Is anything in life necessary?
11. Again this only applies to organized religion.
12. Organized religion maybe or maybe not but people will always believe what they want.
13. Only organized religion but so does blindly following political ideology
14. Material phenomenon itself is mystical
15. No. Even in Arbahamic religions they often say suffering is the result of people falling from God. Only some of them claim it is divine will.

>>2444882
> It’s central weakness is that there’s no consensus on how to define religion
pomo does this kind of semantic breakdown to everything and how convenient that people can always point to it to say marxism is too rigid and certain in its definitions.

"like what even is a prole anymore. there's no academic consensus so ummm …."

>>2444966
yes? even if you say "humans are flawed" this dogshit reasoning leads to dogshit conclusions, if you truly hate humans, you may as well become an ecofascist, and get off this website, because that is an ideology that is openly anti-human, openly anti-social and is everything you'll ever like

People here need to defend Islam no matter what do they will make an exception for Islam.

Yeah? So? And?

>>2443698
no it's all based and trvthnuke, i kneel

>>2443698
>Can these theses on religion be refuted?
does it matter?
what are you trying to argue?

>12. With communism and decent working conditions controlled by the workers religion will wither away.
yes the solution is to change the material conditions of society and religion will die out on its own

which is quite different than militantly persecuting workers who happen to be religious for all the reasons marx explains

which is yet again different from suppressing organized religion in league with capitalists counter-revolutionaries and foreign agents

>>2444919
>secularization theory
That theory collapsed in the late 90s and early 2000s. Even its most famous modern proponent, Peter Berger, was forced to admit it was wrong. You have advanced economies in Asia, but belief in Chinese cities god hasn’t declined, there’s been a revival in Pure Land Buddhism, and throughout the 80s and 90s there was a rapid birth of new religions in South Korea and Japan. The rapid rise of Evangelicalism in the USA during the 70s and 80s happened in an advanced economy. In fact, it was caused by the same social forces that powered the 60s counterculture. If you look at the US, mainline denominations have been in decline for decades, but you have new spiritual movements, neopaganism, increasingly niche Christian sects, and more individualistic forms of Protestant Christianity where personal spirituality trumps church attendance.

Secularists love to claim that the spread of their own beliefs (and yes they are beliefs) are somehow determined by history, but there’s no solid evidence for this at all. The “society will get less religious as it develops” meme has been debunked to death. Part of the reason it dissolved is because it was built on assumptions backed up with little to no evidence. Religion didn’t even die out in Soviet countries. Communities that live under material conditions that Marxist theory suggests would not produce religion, still have religions. The only reason certain countries are more secular than others (like France or Turkey) has to do with state policy. Those countries forced secularism down their population’s throats, often violently, so there’s a higher percentage of people who are secular.

Going through and debunking each theses is difficult because virtually none of these theses are taken seriously in social sciences or the study of religions. None. Trying to disapprove them would be like a guy spamming Newtonian mechanics and demanding we disprove all of it. Where do you even start? It’s not like I can dump an entire bibliography here. There’s actually a sustained ton of anti-secularist scholarship within religious studies that comes from people on the left, such as Gil Anidjar or Saba Mahmood. All stuff people seem to ignore.

>>2444969
Since Aristotle, philosophers have demanded that people define their terms. If they can’t define their terms then you have a problem. There’s nothing Pomo about that. Proletariat is well defined in Marx’s writings, but nobody can define religion so naturally that raises questions as to why we even use the word to begin with. That questioning of semantic use isn’t even pomo. Even Marx does that.

The reaction of "Marxism actually doesn't teach that every religious person should be killed" led directly to this "well actually, you can be a religious communist!" No, you can't. You deny the natural laws and metaphysical justifications for suffering and link them directly to real, social relations.

>>2445222
>No, you can't
Yes you can, what a stupid ass thing to say.

>>2445182
>Communities that live under material conditions that Marxist theory suggests would not produce religion
such as?

>>2445222
i mean, you can, but it depends on the material conditions. you probably shouldn't be religious and a communist if by that you mean a member of a communist party and a religious organization at the same time. but if you have like a rogue catholic priest or imam breaking from the main org and living in some undeveloped country targeted by imperialism and they are a founder of that party then its a little different

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_American_liberation_theology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism

>>2445977
which is of course different than if you have the orthodox church allying with the whites against the soviets or the catholic church working with nazis and the cia against spanish and italian workers