Religion and superstition deeply frustrate me, but even more frustrating are 1st World Democrat Atheist Liberals like this guy because they get so close to the truth but then their vulgar non-dialectical materialism, liberalism, petty bourgeois outlook, and 1st world chauvinism completely prevent them from reaching proper Communist conclusions.
>i hate superstition
<but muh dialectics!
ngmi
Atheism doesn't necessarily have to be rationalist, progressive, or anything like that.
>>2617374ok smart guy, remove the word "non-dialectical" from the OP and then respond to it. i swear you barely disguised chuds just latch onto 1 word as an excuse to dismiss an entire thing.
>>2617380Nothing has to
necessarily be anything. It's a critique from a specific perspective.
>>2617374 What sets "dialectical" materialism and "proletarian" science apart from "bourgeois" science is the recognition of how the economic base and class relations distorts the practice of science, since science is performed for a social purpose, and not abstractly for its own sake. Bourgeois science relies on funding from bourgeois governments and corporations, and the discoveries made under capitalism reinforce capitalism. If a scientist employed by Raytheon, for example, makes a particular discovery which can enable the creation of new medicines OR new weapons, which subsequent research do you think Raytheon be more likely to fund? The weapons, obviously. Dialectics centers contradiction and standpoint in analysis and is ruthlessly critical, even to itself, to avoid the pitfalls of the static, metaphysical, empirical outlook where science is treated as an already perfected method rather than a social practice within class society.
>>2617381>if you dont believe in my religion you are a blasphemer who deserves to be excommunicated!i thought we were all atheists here?
>>2617388>bourgeois science>proletarian science>christian sciencescience is science. stop with the nonsense.
>>2617396The only church that enlightens is a burning one.
>>2617396how did you derive either of these statements from my OP?
>telling people that their religion is wrong is a great way to radicalize lumpen’sradicalize? you mean agitate? you agitate the workers based on their class interests, not according to their religion. that's not what this thread is about at all. it's a critique of liberal 1st world atheism.
> We all know that Jesus hated the poor after all.Yeshua loved the poor, obviously, but he also was significantly to the right of the actual militant rebels who fought the Roman occupiers. He told people to turn the other cheek, pay their taxes, kneel to the empire, patiently suffer in life, and await salvation in the afterlife. That is a disarming theology. Ironically, Christlike pacifism, had it been uncritically embraced by Christians, may have prevented Christianity from becoming a global religion.
>>2617402>it's a critique of liberal 1st world atheism.what atheism do you prefer, exactly?
3rd world illiberal atheism?
>>2617394I can tell you didn't read either of the posts you responded to. you just latched onto 1 word you didn't like and didn't respond to the actual analysis that anon provided which is, in my estimation, correct.
PS: Dialectical Materialism is not a "religion" and science does have a class character based on the class structure of the society it is performed in. Read a biography of Alfred Nobel or Fritz Haber to see immediately what I mean.
>>2617414so if a scientist is not a communist he is lying?
very smart stuff.
>>2617359Thats a weird way to say your asshurt about atheism.
>>2617415>made up shit nobody said award>>2617394Let me ask you few questiosn. I hope you don't dodge them.
Is the way research is funded class neutral? Is the way discoveries made during research are applied class neutral? Is the question of how research is performed class neutral?
>>2617416Anon… I am an Atheist. Try reading the OP again a bit more slowly, and maybe some of the discussion as well.
>>2617418will you stop using the internet because it was created by the american military industrial complex, the same as cell phones? it is inherently evil technology by your estimation.
>>2617415>so if a scientist is not a communist he is lying?No. But the performance of the scientific method is, on average, limited by the class structure of society. Just as science took on a prototypical form under feudalism still burdened by superstition, and didn't fully come into its own until secular enlightenment and the advent of bourgeois society, there are still shackles on science. Scientists rely on funding from the bourgeoisie, and this leads to many perverse incentives in the actual
practice of science even if the
abstract methodology was perfected quite some time ago. This is the critique of science from a Communist perspective, that the actual practice of science won't live up to the scientific method as long as we live in class society, because the people who decide which research gets funded and which does not are the ruling class, who have a material interest in maintaining class society.
>>2617424hey everyone, he dodged the questions and made up shit nobody said! it's his favorite trick!
>>2617426so we just need to get construction workers in labs to get star trek technology, cos this is proletarian science and not stinky capitalist science. got it.
>>2617427i am responding to what youre saying. capitalist science isnt "real" science because rich people or something, and real science is when the working class do it - am i following correctly?
>>2617424>will you stop using the internet because it was created by the american military industrial complex, the same as cell phones? no
>it is inherently evil technology by your estimation.where are you getting this from?
>>2617432if its capitalist technology, then its made by capitalist science, which is evil.
>>2617431>i am responding to what youre saying.Actually I deleted it because I realized you weren't responding to me. however I agree with the original anon and no, that's not what they said at all.
>. capitalist science isnt "real" science because rich people or something, and real science is when the working class do it - am i following correctly?that's not what anyone has said except you, it really is frustrating talking to you. see how I'm quoting you and directly responding to what you're saying. go back up and do that for the posts you mischaracterized.
the point is that science
in practice is
limited by class society. That doesn't mean it's never right, or isn't real. Do you understand what a limitation is? a limitation doesn't make something "bad" or "irrelevant" or "wrong" however it could be improved by removing what is limiting it. Science is limited by the structure of society. Just like science was incredibly limited and prototypical under feudalism, it continues to be limited by the current mode of production, and will become stronger under socialism and Communism. Make sense?
>>2617440tell me the difference between "bourgeois science" and "proletarian science" so i can understand.
>>2617431>so we just need to get construction workers in labs to get star trek technology, cos this is proletarian science and not stinky capitalist science. got it. do you get joy from making up things nobody said? is it a way to satisfy your childish urge to troll people?
>>2617441Proletarian science = all science
Bourgeois science = not science
>>2617441>tell me the difference between "bourgeois science" and "proletarian science" so i can understand.bourgeois science = science as it is practiced under capitalism, limited by funding, limited by the profit motive, limited by the particular desires of the ruling class
proletarian science = science as it is practiced under socialism/Communism, not limited by funding, not limited by the profit motive, not limited by the particular desires of the ruling class.
Make sense?
>>2617437>evilspooky
>if its capitalist technology, then its made by capitalist science, which is evil.for other anons who haven't read the thread, this is the opinion he is making up for us, and not anyone's actual opinion.
>>2617443im just parodying the nonsense in this thread
its called satire.
>>2617444isaac newton was a hack, as we know. too much money.
>>2617447how is science either "bourgeois" or "proletarian" if its literally the same people doing it? didnt someone also say that empiricism was wrong earlier? i guess we wont rely on our senses in communism either, by the religious faith in dialectical materialism (tm).
>>2617449capitalist science is fake science though, right?
>>2617451>im just making up shit nobody saidtwo can play at that game
>>2617452go ahead. the moment i read "dialectical" i knew we were in another humanities thread instead a STEM one.
>>2617451>isaac newton was a hack, as we know. too much money.Well he did believe in alchemy and gematria, which shows the limitation of the mindset of the time he lived in. he was also an aristocrat who executed counterfeiters, and a stockjobber who fucked up and lost a lot of money in the south sea bubble of the early 1700s. so no, he was not a hack, but he was limited partially by the class society he lived in, and his own religious/aristocratic outlook. Key word limited, not invalidated, not wrong about everything. This is what is repeatedly being said to you in posts like these:
>>2617447>>2617440
>how is science either "bourgeois" or "proletarian" if its literally the same people doing it? because all existing societies are class dictatorships, and currently existing society is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. therefore science takes on a class character due to the class dictatorship of society. The bourgeoisie decide which research gets funded and which does not. The bourgeoisie pursue certain avenues of research and development based on short term profitability rather than society-wide benefit. The bourgeoisie keep academic journals behind paywalls, and privatize the results of their research as "intellectual property" so that each private firm has to independently make the discoveries themselves. That is the class character of science under capitalism. Bourgeois science.
>capitalist science is fake science though, right?No it's not "fake," it's limited by class society, as you've been told 10 times. Are you trolling? Bourgeois science is superior to feudal proto-science, but still limited by class society.
>>2617453> the moment i read "dialectical" i knew we were in another humanities thread instead a STEM one.STEM doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's literally performed by humans, for real purposes, in a class society, which take on a class character. STEM without humanities is incomplete. Science has a history and a trajectory. For science
in practice to live up to science
in theory, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie must end.
This "conversation:
Anon A:
<So are you saying all science is fake and gay? trollface
Anon B:
>Right now, the people who have the most money and power also control most of society. Because of that, they end up controlling science too. They decide which research gets money and which doesn’t. A lot of research is pushed toward whatever will make quick profits instead of what would help everyone in the long run. Scientific papers are often locked behind expensive paywalls, and discoveries are treated as private property. That means companies keep their findings to themselves instead of sharing them, so other companies have to redo the same work. As a result, science under this system mostly serves the interests of wealthy businesses rather than society as a whole.
Anon A:
<wow so you really are saying science is fake and gay! trollface
>>2617453>the moment i read "dialectical" my critical thinking skills shut down and i refused to understand anything else people were sayingskill issue
>>2617359Does dialectical materialism posit free will?
If not, then by definition there's no point whining about what people do (but admittedly by definition the whiners must whine!).
If so, then that's a
possible superstition itself, but the other problem is, well, even granting free will, how would I argue - in a strictly physicalist, atomist, and reductionist manner - against the lifestyle choice of some atheist who decides to spend his time gooning sixteen hours a day instead of engaging in communist praxis?
>>2617477The question of free will is irrelevant. we still influence each other even if we don't have free will, the same way dominoes influence each other, only more complicated.
>>2617477You cant do that. De Sade has proven decisively that in absence of God you cannot form any sort of deontological morality that advocates for restraint and discipline. Because nature does not have restraint and discipline, so if you want to adopt a universal law grounded in nature it makes more sense to be a complete animal that fucks when you want to fuck and shit when you want to shit. The Marxists tried to compensate for this from a Dialectical way: i.e if you are gooning 16 hours a day then you are alienated and you will be mediated to a pvre relationship via the historical process. But again the weakness of this is that it presumes the wholesome and promethean relations between man (the New Soviet Man!) to be the real humanity, which faces the same problem Kant faces which is the fact that this is made up and not scientific at all. The gooner can look at nature, sees that no animal is engaging in communist praxis, and conclude that it is you that is unnatural and not him
>>2617481>The question of free will is irrelevant.I'm gonna be honest with you: I disagree with this, but I have no idea where the disagreement lies, because…
>we still influence each other even if we don't have free will, the same way dominoes influence each other, only more complicated.…I agree with this.
>>2617458The problem with this assumption is that saying that bourgeois science is fake because it is limited by class society is that this is philosophy. This is an article of faith that is self-referential. You do not know what science looks like under communism, so you cannot take that and use it to compare in a scientific manner how it differs from capitalist science. This is a statement that can neither be disproven nor proven and is more of an expression of skepticism against established sciences, an "Attractor" in Bogdanovian terms, not actual justifiable knowledge
delete this thread OP
What is the point
>>2617399I never said that. I never said that you have to tell religious people that they are but you shouldn’t tell them that they are wrong about the existence of god/s.
>>2617503>saying that bourgeois science is fakedidn't happen
>it is limited by class society yes
> this is philosophy. This is an article of faith that is self-referential.i gave real world examples of ways in which it is limited
>You do not know what science looks like under communism,ok this can also be generalized into an argument against communism i.e. "you don't know what communism looks like so how can you know it's better?!?!" which can also be generalized into an argument against improving society at all.
>philosophyyou're doing philosophy right now, "woke dugin"
>>2617505>delete this threadno
>what is the pointthe point is explicitly stated in the OP and several times throughout the thread.
>>2617401Okay that’s kinda funny
Lenin's militant atheism was based and christianity needs to go.
>>2617554wrong about what? say specifically what you think he was wrong about.
>>2617402I was being sarcastic to mock the op
>>2617558go back and reply to
>>2617402 >>2617561I think he was wrong to kick Christians out of the party
>>2617567Schizos who believe in fairy tales do not belong in the scientific socialism vanguard.
>>2617564I am the OP and you wouldn't like it if I put the same effort in
>>2617567>I think he was wrong to kick Christians out of the partyhe didn't kick them out because they weren't allowed in, in the first place. he also kicked other atheists out if they weren't marxists. the video in question was about whether atheist communists who take part in religious ceremonies should even be allowed in the party. lenin also listened to the masses of non party workers, who were mostly religious, and even allowed non party workers to purge the party sometimes. the party has to be a vanguard, you don't just let reactionaries and idealists in.
>>2617570Well then I think it was wrong to kick atheists who took part in religious ceremonies out of the party, I still think Lenin was a great man obviously but I think it was just a rare Lenin L. Maybe Communism isn’t compatible with religious FANATICS but With most religious people it’s not contradictory.
>>2617568>Schizos who believe in fairy tales do not belong in the scientific socialism vanguard.This type of purity politics is the exact reason why there is no robust leftist movement in the United States. If you exclude people because of their religion then you will have less numbers.
Especially how there is barely any proof of God's existence other than some book glorifying him. God is truly dead and piety has killed him.
>>2617579>This type of purity politics is the exact reason why there is no robust leftist movement in the United States.No, the reason there is no "robust" leftist movement in the US is COINTELPRO and liberals being allowed to call themselves leftists. Pandering to backwards tendencies won't make the movement stronger it will erode it from the inside.
>>2617554>but the problem is the institution not the faithNGMI
The "faith" in question got secularized and its now commonly known as "liberalism".
>>2617579Please, for the love of god, read up on historical materialism before droning on about this "winning over hearts and minds" horseshit.
>>2617606What the fuck does purposefully rejecting people from joining your ideology just because they choose to think that sky-daddy summoned 2 people thousands of years ago have to do with historical materialism?!?! It’s almost like you people don’t want to grow class consciousness!
>>2617643>What the fuck does purposefully rejecting people from joining your ideology >joining your ideologyOK but communist parties reject reactionaries from joining. It was already explained to you rather clearly that the bolsheviks didn't let religious people join, but did allow non-party workers to purge the party of opportunists. If religious proles were allowed to purge the party of opportunist enemies of the workers, and the party officials were allowed to purge the party of religious fools, then I call that even.
>>2617575>Well then I think it was wrong to kick atheists who took part in religious ceremonies out of the party,that's fine, but don't try to deceive people into think you're doing marxism leninism. you have made some compromises with liberalism, like religious pluralism. You have a different ideology. Like Lenin says in
What is to be Done "go where you please, but let go of our hands!"
>>2617650Just because someone is religious doesn’t mean that they are reactionary, if someone advocates for theocracy then they are but someone who does nothing more than wear a cross necklace and goes to church on Christmas and Easter which is really common then there is no point in kicking them out
>>2617554>Listen, Lenin was no prophetluckily for you we don't believe in prophets. We agree with Lenin on this because he is right, not because we see him as a "prophet" it is ironically you who are begging for not just tolerance of the religious, but to allow them into a vanguard organization for which ideological conformity is necessary. There is a big difference between being a non-party worker who supports the communist party despite not agreeing with them on everything, and being a party member. The whole point of the vanguard party is to lead the revolution due to their superior ideological clarity and practical discipline. Part of this means not just letting any sympathetic crank in. Lenin rebuked his own longtime acquaintance Maxim Gorky for allying himself with the "God Builders" for instance. Lenin himself had a religious mother but he didn't pull punches in his writing when she was still alive.
>the problem is the institution not the faithWhat is the utility of "faith" in non-materialist assertions with or without an institution backing them up? Faith without institutions is just personal opinion, and people get rejected from joining all the time because of their dogshit opinions which are not in conformity with the party program. Lack of faith was not the only prerequisite, btw. There were
many prerequisites, and there should be.
>I personally have the Castro-take on on religion.That's fine. Nobody's stopping you. The best strategy will win. If I am wrong I will be proven so.
>>2617654>kicking them outYou don't let them in in the first place if they aren't materialist. Communist Parties aren't social clubs for people who have sympathy with the workers. They're militant organizations for bringing about revolution and require heavy vetting and ideological discipline. Let any non-reactionary religious person join a union, mutual aid group, or worker-owned cooperative, but to let them join a communist party is just to paper over serious ideological differences which will manifest down the line in revisionism. Especially since religious people are still a majority, opening the floodgates to them will erode the materialist core of the communist party. It's a strategic concern, not a sentimental one.
>>2617651> you have made some compromises with liberalism, like religious pluralismNo I don’t,
I’m also an atheist and I know very well that there will always be religious fanatics but of your out to destroy all religions then your no different. Most (and I will specify MOST not all) religious repression campaigns enacted by communist governments have failed and only grew resentment so it’s not worth it to repress religion, especially when your a very small movement with no voice in mainstream politics.
>>2617660I don't think non-materialists should be allowed in the vanguard party, even if they sympathize with it, let them stick to the non vanguardist trade unions, mutual aid groups, church charities and cooperatives like the other anon said.
>out to destroy all religions nobody said that THOUGH, you're extrapolating HEAVILY
>>2617666>I don't think non-materialists should be allowed in the vanguard party, even if they sympathize with itWell them good luck because your voice will get smaller and smaller the more people you turn away until you are left stuck in echo chambers just so you can stay ideologically pure. You can not 100% follow the same vanguardism as the Russian revolution because the material conditions are way different in most of the world. And even the Russian revolution didn’t do this type of purity politics, the red army literally recruited Tsarist Imperial Army veterans to fight because they would have much smaller numbers if they didn’t.
>>2617673>Well them good luck because your voice will get smaller and smaller the more people you turn away until you are left stuck in echo chambers non commnist proles can support the party, cannot be members if they don't have ideological clarity. Christians don't allow Atheists to joint he priesthood either. Now imagine if a supposed priest went around saying "why won't you allow atheists into the priesthood! you're making us into an echo chamber!" he'd be laughed at.
>You can not 100% follow the same vanguardism as the Russian revolution because the material conditions are way different in most of the world.
The Russian revolution occured in a backwards feudal country mired in superstition. Comparing it to the conditions in much of the world today does you no favors.
>>2617681If anything the nonreligiosity of the vanguard should be even more essential in a modern fully developed capitalist country, since there isn't even a relatively progressive religious peasantry who supports the communists in the name of land reform
>>2617359>Does dialectical materialism posit free will?<Hegel was the first to state correctly the relation between freedom and necessity. To him, freedom is the insight into necessity (die Einsicht in die Notwendigheit). "Necessity is blind only in so far as it is not understood [begriffen]." Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves — two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but not in reality. Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the subject. Therefore the freer a man’s judgment is in relation to a definite question, the greater is the necessity with which the content of this judgment will be determined; while the uncertainty, founded on ignorance, which seems to make an arbitrary choice among many different and conflicting possible decisions, shows precisely by this that it is not free, that it is controlled by the very object it should itself control. Freedom therefore consists in the control over ourselves and over external nature, a control founded on knowledge of natural necessity; it is therefore necessarily a product of historical development. The first men who separated themselves from the animal kingdom were in all essentials as unfree as the animals themselves, but each step forward in the field of culture was a step towards freedom. On the threshold of human history stands the discovery that mechanical motion can be transformed into heat: the production of fire by friction; at the close of the development so far gone through stands the discovery that heat can be transformed into mechanical motion: the steam-engine. — And, in spite of the gigantic liberating revolution in the social world which the steam-engine is carrying through, and which is not yet half completed, it is beyond all doubt that the generation of fire by friction has had an even greater effect on the liberation of mankind. For the generation of fire by friction gave man for the first time control over one of the forces of nature, and thereby separated him for ever from the animal kingdom. The steam-engine will never bring about such a mighty leap forward in human development, however important it may seem in our eyes as representing all those immense productive forces dependent on it — forces which alone make possible a state of society in which there are no longer class distinctions or anxiety over the means of subsistence for the individual, and in which for the first time there can be talk of real human freedom, of an existence in harmony with the laws of nature that have become known. But how young the whole of human history still is, and how ridiculous it would be to attempt to ascribe any absolute validity to our present views, is evident from the simple fact that all past history can be characterised as the history of the epoch from the practical discovery of the transformation of mechanical motion into heat up to that of the transformation of heat into mechanical motion. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch09.htmYes. Dialectical materialist posit free-will as when the human mind comprehends the objective laws of nature and society (necessity) and can thereby consciously apply that knowledge to shape outcomes in accordance with their interest.
>If so, then that's a possible superstition itself, but the other problem is, well, even granting free will, how would I argue - in a strictly physicalist, atomist, and reductionist manner - against the lifestyle choice of some atheist who decides to spend his time gooning sixteen hours a day instead of engaging in communist praxis?The gooner lacks free-will, unlike the Communist. "Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the subject."
>>2617481wrong. Read Engels
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch09.htm >>2617688Yeah that is pretty true, like Christianity is in the decline regardless. Churches stopped being places of community and started becoming a tax free business models at best and at worst basically a legal way for reactionary criminals to launder money and human trafficking through. Not just Christian churches, L.Ron Hubbard had people sign billion year contracts to be slaves on his boat for a space cult. So I think even for religions sake there needs to be a crack down and restructuring of his churches can function in the U.S. it’s insane how easy it is to just form a cult in this country and hide criminal activity under the guise of religion. And this isn’t to say most religious people are criminals, no a lot them are duped and victims of criminals.
>>2617769I'm convinced that Hubbard was merely enjoying a profitable private joke. There's no way he sincerely believed any of that.
>>2617781Of course he didn’t believe in any of that, he admitted he started the cult to make money and get pussy. He was a scumbag through and through, same with every other American cult leader besides like maybe the heavens gate guy? He actually went through with his crazy plan, he didn’t drink the kool aid cause he was trapped like Jim Jones was.
Atheism is spooked nonsense and incompatible with materialism. You can't reconcile certainty in an untestable with materialist thought.
The only materialist stance on deities is:
they won't be relevant if they don't come back with the milk and cigarettes and be an active participant or otherwise be relevant to the logistics chain, ecology, astronomy, etc… If they never do those two things, they will never be relevant
No babbling about existence unless you have a legit test and a practical use case for that knowledge.
Material Relevance > Existance
>>2617557The argument for communism isnt because its gonna be better retard but because its an historic inevitability. We analyzed the long term development of economic forces and then project it to a future situation, this is what Marx means by Materialism as opposed to Hegelian unfolding of ideas
>>2618024There is no historic inevitability, fatalism is stupid. Anything can happen, but we also have our powers of consciousness to shape events.
>>2617936>You can't reconcile certainty in an untestable with materialist thought.>certainty in an untestablethere's an invisible pink dragon named greg who only i can see. he isn't made of matter or energy and isn't detectable with any instruments that exist in this universe, but trust me, he's real. greg sits on top of YOUR head at all times, teabagging you with his huge nutsack. you can't feel it because he's not made of anything you can feel, but trust me, it's happening. my claim is untestable and i don't have to prove it right, you only have to prove it wrong. What's that? You're certain he doesn't exist? uhhhhhhhh sweaty…. You can't reconcile certainty in an untestable with materialist thought.
When marxoids say human, do they mean le individual or le species in totality?
>>2618052There's this thing called the historical process who only communists can see. It isn't made of matter or energy and isn't detectable with any instruments that exist in this universe, but trust us, it's real. The spectre of communism sits on top of YOUR head at all times, teabagging you with his huge nutsack. you can't feel it happening because it's not made of anything you can feel, but trust me, it's happening. my claim is untestable and i don't have to prove it right, you only have to prove it wrong. What's that? You're certain he doesn't exist? uhhhhhhhh sweaty…. Do you know that bearded german man said that A can become Not A if you leave it long enough
>>2618090Mods permaban this deleuze guattarian rhizomatic duginoid NOW!
>>2618095In my defense that anon walk right into that
>>2617936Mods, permaban this stirnerite religger, NOW!
Unique IPs: 24