Is it possible to be a Christian and be a communist I know Huey Newton was a Christian and a communist, but do you think it’s possible to still be one? I know there’s a lot of Muslim communist like haz
>>2640816Tell me why you think you cannot be both
yes
Absolutely not.
You can't believe in equality on earth while preaching tyranny in heaven.
nothing is stopping people from having incoherent beliefs like islamic communism and christian communism. ever since the tradcath memes became popular online you will find the likes of 'im a catholic communist' 'i'm an orthodox reactionary' 'i'm a clerical fascist'
>>2640816Yes. Is it self-contradictory both historically and logically? Yes.
>>2640848Yeah, still makes no sense though. Materialism and Christian idealism don't mesh well.
>>2640816Consensus reality is dead and nothing really means anything anymore, so sure.
Yeah, Im not christian but there have been many Christian communists in the past.
>>2640816I don't care. Religion has money and power and communists need both.
>>2640816>Muslim communist like hazhaz is a jew
You know what, let's go further.
0) "Being a communist" is vague; the word has many fitting definitions.
- If I sincerely believe we should create a communist society but do nothing but post online about it, am I a communist? Ideologically, sure! Practically, not really.
- If instead, I were an anti-communist fanatic unwittingly damaging their movement out of stupidity and enabling the rise of communists, am I a communist? Ideologically, no. Practically, yes, more than the previous example. If we take that definition, Tsar Nicholas would be called one!
1) Having incorrect ideas or even being a shit person does not contradict "being a communist". I'm not saying that such people are therefore acceptable or tolerable in our movements. But Carlos Marcus calling someone a jewish nigger doesn't change whether or not they're a communist. One can sincerely believe in and work towards communism while being a dishonest racist misogynistic homophobic cheating sexual abuser landlord; those things introduce practical problems that would likely necessitate kicking them out of the movement, but they don't change whether or not someone is a communist.
>>2640847>TyrannyYou're thinking of God like a corrupt de.generate monarch but what if I told you Heaven is just the Central Planner (God) operating everything smoothly? God cannot be bribed or corrupted or selfish.
yes - but you cannot be a *marxist* and a christian
marxism is strictly atheistic
>>2643901how do you rationalise your cognitive dissonance?
>>2643899Marxism is strictly agnostic you pseud. It only concerns itself with things that have measurable effect on the material, not spectulating about stuff that doesn't existing or not.
>>2643928to marx, religion is simply the opiate of the masses; the heart of a heartless world, and more importantly, an historical abstraction which is part of the superstructure. it is a "reflex of the real world" as he writes. marx was not an atheist, he was post-theism. there is no question, since we already have the answer.
>>2644036Religion, yes. Theology and religion aren't strictly inclusive of each other.
>>2640827communist doctrine of creating a perfectly immoral golem locked in a permanent class wars is mutually exclusive with social solidarity enforced by a moral system taught by the church
>>2644044theology is just a form of philosophy which presupposes its own conclusions, so remains permanently uncritical. this is why in history, whenever philosophy is applied to the notion of a deity, faith dwindles, since faith is the opposite of reason. as for some early philosophy on the gods, i would suggest plato's "euthyphro", which is a perfect text on the topic of the moral law in reference to divine authority - for example, is God good because he abides by the law, or is God good because he is God? if God is good because of the law, then only the law is good. If God is good because of his being, then there can be no law.
>>2644044>>2644063as a christian analog from plato, can God sin? if no, then it is because (i) there is no sin, or (ii) God wouldnt sin. But if God wouldnt sin, this implies that he is bound by his own law to be sinless (e.g. he would not because he cannot), which makes God an object of the law, rather than otherwise (e.g. goodness precedes God in being, since God is not the good, but is a subject of goodness). aquinas attempts to resolve this by stating that God has the potential to sin, but is always good in actuality. this then means that God can sin, but if God can sin, then God is not God, since God is defined by his sinlessness. So then, if God can sin, and still be God, then there is no sin. This is equally contradictory, since "sin" here negatively defines God (e.g. he is that which is without sin, so sin must exist for God to exist, yet if God and sin exist, there can also be no God, since goodness precedes its being, which as impersonal virtue, cannot be deified, but only practiced). Thus, if there is God, there cannot be God - unless we presume an amoral god, but as epicurus says, "why call [it] God?" so then, there cannot be a God.
all of this can be summed up in the question, "can Gid create a stone he could not lift?" if yes, then he is not all powerful, and if no, he is not all powerful. quick maffs innit.
Still don't see why I should not continue to use marxism to analyse relations of power in society while also choosing whatever spiritual belief of choice
>>2640816>I know there’s a lot of Muslim communist like hazYep, it's bait.
>>2640816>Is it possible to be a Christian and be a communistsure why not ?
>I know Huey Newton was a Christian and a communistno he wasn't lol there were plenty of christian communists out there but newton wasn't one of them
>I know there’s a lot of Muslim communist like hazgeg
>>2646302>arguing for larping radlibs on terms like "coolness"yep youre a 12 year old lol
literally a bunch of "urban intellectuals" (lol) who want to fight "inequality" (lol) and preach "catholic marxism" (fucking lmao)
>>2640816Kinda weird to be a "religious communist" considering the abolition of class society will do away with the very bullshit you believe in.
Scientific communism dispels the very mystifications, of man's relations with nature and with himself, that religion constitutes the expression of. Insofar as one has assimilated communism, one has moved past religion, has made it superfluous for oneself.
If the communist party, the most advanced portion of the proletariat, does not have a clear understanding and consciousness of scientific communism, then what good is it? And if it does, how can it require the mystifications of religion?
>>2640816Without dialectical materialism it's possible
>>2646364>dialectical materialismnonsense buzzword thats treated not much differently from religion by MLs
>>2646445While true to it's misuse, it's two legit concepts:
- Dialectics: immanent critique, as opposed to transendental critique
- Materialism: That which matters is matter, if something doesn't matter then it doesn't matter if it exists or not.
>>2645880Compared to the government and other armed groups in the country, the ELN are a bastion of sanity and reason
>>2640816Short answer, no.
Dialectical materialism asserts that all that exists is matter and the material, and that if there somehow is a world beyond this one, it most certainly has had zero influence on it throughout the duration of known history. This precludes, to my knowledge, all mainstream religions, because they're built upon the notion of dualism; of seperate material and spiritual worlds.
You can, however, be someone who actively helps to achieve communism, even while erroring in your theory. But make no mistake, it is in fact an error.
>I know there’s a lot of Muslim communist like hazThe more I study theory, and the more theory I study, the more I dislike about Haz.
I've come to find that most intellectuals go through a phase of ideological windowshopping and eclecticism. They read a large quantity of works by a large quantity of authors at a fairly superficial level, and then combine the bits and pieces that they think sound the nicest into an incoherent mess. Speaking from experience, when I was in my teens, I jammed together aspects of Mao, Nietzsche, and Rothbard, none of which I properly understood or even had the tools to properly understand, into this weird quasi-anarchism that I had no path to actually achieving or maintaining. It's a way of thinking that gradually dissolves as you learn more about history and have a reference point for what ideology looks like in practice. My beliefs were gradually chipped away at until the only things left over were the things that aligned with dialectical materialism.
Haz is perpetually stuck at the midpoint between ideology soup and proper Marxism. He is kind of sort of an ML, but on a very superficial level; there's virtually zero understanding of the actual scientific component of Marxism, and as a result, he ends up committing extremely blatant revisionism constantly.
>>2640816>Huey Newton was a ChristianI have never heard of him making a single comment on religion so I doubt that. Althusser was a very devout Roman Catholic.
>>2640816No, Islam is the only socialist-approved religion.
>>2646761So your long answer is "yes, but I disagree with them."
>>2647779Kind of, not really.
In the context of Marxism, revisionism isn't just when you come to a different conclusion than previous Marxists. If that were the case, pretty much every form of Marxism that currently exists would be considered revisionist, because the Marxian ideologies dominant today are virtually unrecognizable from what was being done 50 years ago. No, revisionism is specifically when you reject the core axioms that unify the various different forms of Marxian thought, creating something that can no longer properly be referred to as Marxism.
One of those core axioms is dialectical materialism. If you read enough Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, etc, it becomes clear that dialectical materialism doesn't just mean the existence of a material world, but the absence of an ideal, or spiritual, one. If you want to
really stretch it, you could say that it permits a kind of limited Deism, but the architects of Marxism generally upheld atheism and metaphysical nihilism. Indeed, despite what Hazites will tell you, the Soviet Union treated religion with begrudging tolerance at best. As such, "religious communism" is, by all counts, revisionist, which is to say, not Marxist, and as such, not communist.
We cannot abide revisionism, because it throws out the basic intellectual tools that we use for scientific analysis. It's paramount to being an engineer and eschewing standard algebra for a system that states that 1 x 1 = 2. True, you might be able to luck your way into results that work on occasion, but ultimately you're building off a foundation of nonsense.
>>2640816Endokomuna was thing in the Polish People's Republic
>>2646325>USSR doesn't exist anymoreirrelevant relic
Not all religions are compatible with communism, but Christianism is certainly so.
Christ spent his time flipping tables in temples and telling the 1% they had a better chance of fitting a camel through a needle's eye than getting into heaven. The early church in Acts practiced literal communalism, selling everything they owned to make sure no one went hungry. Modern neoliberalism is just a shiny new version of the Mammon Christ warned about.
The critique of religion in Marx's bibliography is still absolutely correct, his target was the Church as a superstructure, the corrupt institutional arm used by the ruling class to pacify the workers. Ironically, Christ’s ministry was defined by materialist praxis, he didn't just offer platitudes he addressed the physical suffering, hunger, class exploitation and marginalized people.
What can be hard to reconcile is the non-violent nature of Jesus preachings with the revolution effort. But this is also true for any non-christians that think socialism can be achieved without a violent uprising, so I'll not extend myself here. The point is that the end goal of having a stateless society where needs are satisfied and work is no longer usurped is a common ground for both.
>>2641823>You're thinking of God like a corrupt de.generate monarchThat's exactly how he is being described in the Bible which you apparently haven't read as a Christian. Doesn't help your case that the organized religions around Christianity turned into exactly that, corrupt degenerate monarchies.
>>2661855The bible does not describe God as corrupt or degen it describes Him as the exact opposite please try again.
Unique IPs: 38