Laika vs. Eddi - Religion and Socialism

[Laika]

Earlier on in this debate I argued that Marxism is a religion

I would like to hear why you think that it is not a religion

I got a bit of spare time, so here is it goes.

In general, Atheists will attack Marxism as a "religion", "faith", "dogma" or call it an "ideology" with the inference it is false and dogmatic. They do so principally to dissociate themselves from Marxism and, basically, treat it as "not real atheism". The "Marxism is a Religion" accusation is usually never thought out in any depth or with an effort to prove it. The "truth" of the accusation is simply self-evident to most of it's accusers and no debate or evidence is required.

Now, I don't think there is any doubt that Marxism as a movement has behaved like a religion. The obsessions over theory and Marxist writings as "scripture", the endless division in to factions, the Personality Cults, the mausoleums for the dead leaders, the kids waving little red books, destroying temples, statues, etc. All of this certainly is very similar to religion. Though I have never been religious, my own experience suggests that the inner psychology of Marxism is also very similar to a religion.

But these are generally defined by the nature of social groups, how people form and act on beliefs and sources of authority in determining what people believe and do. They are not unique to religion or to cults, but exist in very secular surroundings (if to a much lesser degree). Scientists can disagree amongst themselves. We attach an exaggerated importance to celebrities and public figures in a way very similar to personality cults. The way people follow Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris as celebrity atheists borders on the cult-like at times. Music festivals play on the same use of crowd psychology that a political rally or even a church service does. And Football hooligans, bonded by their favourite team, can be extremely destructive by rioting and destroying property when their team loses. Fox hunting is very secular, but is really a form of ritualised killing as "sport" and the violence and aggression of Boxing is another socially acceptable and managed form of ritualised and destructive behaviour. It's not unique to religion or to "ideologies" as some would put it, though it may be on the bigger scale because of the power dynamics and importance of the consequences involved.

I'm going to side step the question of "is Marxism a science" and "is Marxism true", but what defines religion is not a specific set of social behaviours, institution or psychology, but is rather the belief in god and the belief in the supernatural. This Marxism does not subscribe to and thus it cannot be considered a religion. This would hold true even if Communists have admittedly repeatedly behaved like religious fanatics and fundamentalists.

 

[Eddi]

Hello, @Laika

the inference it is false and dogmatic.

I think that the classical Marxism of Marx and Engles is indeed false and dogmatic

In The Communist Manifesto I think they were onto something about history and class struggle, and about the situation in which they were writing (England in 1848) - but that they were way wrong about how the future would turn out, about how capitalism would develop and the impact socialism would have on capitalist societies - and indeed about how socialism would work out

Marxism as a movement has behaved like a religion.

I think that when defining a religion we can look at things either regarding their function or regarding their content.

I think that Communism does function like a religion - for instance in contemporary China: a source of order and a means of control

I also think that its content is similar as it requires people to put aside their previous (and personal) beliefs and embrace Communism as their own belief system: to entirely submit to it and shun all other world views

Yes, to be a Communist is to reject what some call "the supernatural"

But I get the impression that this isn't because "the supernatural" is not true - I think this is because world-views which affirm "the supernatural" are competition, as far as Communist parties are concerned!

The Supernatural can be a tool of capitalist societies therefore activist Marxists attack belief in The Supernatural - I'd say that they do this due to its function rather than its content

They want to usurp it and replace it rather than demonstrate that it is mistaken, IMO

And of course, disliking religion does not make it true! - I think that historically this has been behind a lot of Atheism and it is of course proposterous

In short, they don't seek to destroy religion: instead they seek to replace existing religious institutions with institutions of their own.

For instance they don't say "to Hell with scripture! Think for yourselves!" - they say "to Hell with this scripture, now read my little red book and think like how it tells you to!"

In the USSR universities did not teach critical thinking - they taught Marxist dogma! - which replaced Christian dogma! - they were not places of free-thinking, far from it - they were places of indoctirnation

And I think economic determinism does amount to faith as it takes the ability to shape reality out of the hands of humans

In the Soviet Union the idea that a capitalist society would inevitably turn into a socialist society is I think akin to any religious belief about "end times"

Personally, I don't believe anything is inevitable - things have to be fought for, through struggles

Let me know how you disagree with this

but what defines religion is not a specific set of social behaviours, institution or psychology, but is rather the belief in god and the belief in the supernatural.

I disagree

I think that concept of "religion" can be broken down into two sub-sets:

1. Unashamed Supernatural Religion (e.g. Christianity)
2. Self-Proclaimed "Naturalistic" Religion (Marxism)

They both have the same function

And they both address issues regarding "the supernatural", hence they cover the same ground: they address the same issues, but have different conclusions

(I will elaborate on this shortly)

I think a religion is any world-view that carries an opinion regarding the supernatural

Which is what Marxism is

It has an opinion about it, therefore it takes a religious stance!

This Marxism does not subscribe to and thus it cannot be considered a religion. This would hold true even if Communists have admittedly repeatedly behaved like religious fanatics and fundamentalists.

I would describe Marxism as a faith position

Which is how I would also describe Christianity

The whole thing is based on faith, it is not at all scientific

It is based on crass historicism rather than empiricism or scientific method

Margaret Thatcher was wrong when she said there is no such thing as society - but Marxists are wrong when they say that there is no such thing as the individual - it is a claim that is so obviously wrong yet is central to how their belief system functions

But it gives university students an easy perspective with which to frame their essays!

I believe that "faith" and "religion" are synonymous

That religions are defined by being based around faith, rather than the supernatural

In China and the USSR (and the whole Eastern bloc) Marxism (Communism) had the societal function of religion - whilst also being based around faith

Faith in both doctrine and leadership/authority

Like Christianity, to subscribe to Marxism one needs to make a leap of faith and accept the authority of various humans and texts

So - to conclude: I disagree with you

Because Marxism is based on faith and has historically fulfilled the same role as organised religion

And also because (in Communist societies) it has the same function: solidarity and control

To me the claim that all history is a history of class struggle is a non-scientific claim - it is therefore a faith claim

With non-Socialist Christianity, the priest, the landowner and the industrialists are put in charge and get to tell others what to think and do

With Marxism, Marxists are put in charge and get to tell others what to think and do

I would be interested to see how you will respond to what I have just written

All that aside: I would like to know how you define what is "true socialist" and what is not "true socialist" (false socialist???) - because your side of this debate seems to operate a distinction between the two whereas mine doesn't

 

[Eddi]

@Laika

Pardon me for raising my voice in my previous post

I didn't mean to shout at you

I can just get a little carried away with things

 

[Laika]

The whole thing is based on faith, it is not at all scientific. It is based on crass historicism rather than empiricism or scientific method.

This is an argument that goes back to at least Karl Popper where he tried to define Science based on whether it was "falsifiable". He claimed Marxism was unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

But in doing so, Popper basically had to turn the entire scientific method on its head, with science not being an increase in knowledge but a decrease in ignorance. According to Popper, we couldn't know what was true, only what was false. Popper's ideas for the demarcation of science because very popular because they were useful, but they are basically untrue an would be devastating to human knowledge because it reduces all science to faith.

The Scientific Method gives us objectively true knowledge of the existing world and we improve and refine our ideas by the process of hypothesis, experimentation and discovery. Both scientific theories and religious prophesies evolve in response to changing circumstances and needs. The difference is that scientific theories are subject to change from evidence and speculation. This doesn't mean science gives us a complete, final and absolute truth, but we have a continuous progression of partial truth as the refinement of scientific knowledge over time.

Marxism doesn't get it right all the time, but neither does any science. Neither of them have to. The progression and refinement based on evidence to ensure our ideas correspond with reality is what makes them true. Marxism does that and therefore is not a dogma or a faith.

I think that the classical Marxism of Marx and Engels is indeed false and dogmatic

In The Communist Manifesto I think they were onto something about history and class struggle, and about the situation in which they were writing (England in 1848) - but that they were way wrong about how the future would turn out, about how capitalism would develop and the impact socialism would have on capitalist societies - and indeed about how socialism would work out.

As a science, Marx began with an analysis of capitalism in the nineteenth century. But, responding to new information and evidence, Marx's theories were subject to numerous revisions over the course of the next century. Marx and Engels were not prophets enjoyed with an absolute knowledge of the future, but they made an approximation of it and their followers refined it as they used it.

Through the First, Second and Third Internationals, Marxism became an international movement with a communist party formed in nearly every country in the world. Communists endured persecution and torture and formed parts of resistance movements in countries under Nazi occupation. The Soviet Union overcame immense odds to defeat Nazi Germany, whist Yugoslavia did it with the help of Communist Partisans under Tito. So they often came out with other side by helping establish democratic states, achieving national independence or building communist states of their own.

Now, the problem with whether this success demonstrates where Marxism is "true". Christianity and Islam both had phases on exponential growth where even the most aggressive forms of persecution were not effective in eliminating them. Christianity defeated the Pagan beliefs of Roman Religion, with the Emperor Constantine converting to Christianity and legalising it along the way. Communism basically had a similar experience for quite a while. The Korean War ended as a stalemate (and officially never ended). The French and the Americans were defeated in Vietnam.

Yugoslavia and the USSR fell out in the late 40's, China and the USSR in the 1960's, Albania with China then fell out, North Korea went off and did it's own thing, etc. The movement fragmented and in the 1980's, it finally fell apart in Eastern Europe and the USSR. Even so, Nelson Mandela- now confirmed as a member of the central committee of South Africa's Communist Party- emerged from captivity, became President of South Africa and ended Apathied. Not bad for someone who spent 27 years in prison.

And this history isn't over. China is on the verge of becoming a world power and communist parties continue around the world. India, Peru and the Philippines are all battling communist insurgencies as we speak. Nepal has undergone a civil war where the Maoists successfully ended the Monarchy and established a Republic (and are currently in government). Communist Parties have been elected in to government in Cyprus, Guyana and Moldova since the 90's. Russia's Communist Party came a highly competitive second in the 1996 Russian Presidential Election with just over 40%. And though not especially Marxist, the west is going through a period of resurgent left-wing populism not seen since the 1960's and 70's.

We got alot wrong. We screwed up and the Berlin wall fell. There is no denying that this collapse was a historic defeat that set us back at least decades, but it is far from a definitive "failure" many of it's critics would ascribe to it. Don't count us out just yet. We beat the Nazis once and we can do it again if we have to.

All that aside: I would like to know how you define what is "true socialist" and what is not "true socialist" (false socialist???) - because your side of this debate seems to operate a distinction between the two whereas mine doesn't

Yeah. There is a default assumption that Marxism-Leninism is the "correct" and "true" form of "scientific" socialism, that takes precedence over the others. But I'm still working on that one. I have some former Trotskyist tendencies to overcome.

 

[Eddi]

Hi @Laika

Can I ask:

Do you think Socialism will ever win?

I don't

Indeed I think it has been decisively defeated

And that the best we can do is to moderate Capitalism and tidy up the mess and damage it causes

But I think Christian Socialism has more of a future than Marxist Socialism

Because any Christian (of which there are billions) can potentially become a Christian Socialist - indeed by already being a Christian they would be part way there!

Christianity is a huge part of the Earth's population

I believe that Socialist Christianity is the best interpretation of Christianity and the best and most authentic way to be a Christian

So as a Socialist I will aim to build Socialism amongst Christians and put Marx to one side

I think that the appeal of Christianity is greater than the appeal of Marx

Therefore I think that Christian Socialism has more of a future than Marxism

Here is a claim we could debate: Christianity has not been discredited as much as Communism

What say you?

 

[Laika]

Do you think Socialism will ever win?

I was born around the same time as the Berlin Wall fell and was already a communist sympathiser when the stock market collapsed in 2008. I have lived long enough to see an unprecedented campaign where a Socialist runs in the Democratic Primary to become President of the United States and did it twice. 13 million voted for Sanders in 2016 and 9 million in 2020.

Excluding periods of open persecution by the state, I became a Communist in probably one of the worst times in modern history to do so. I was alone with these beliefs and couldn't count on my friends or family to humour me or even respect me. I got torrents of abuse online for daring to be different and asking questions and finding answers no-one else wanted to know. I clung on to the hope that I might matter, that I might do something with my life beyond being a meatsack getting a job to pay the bills. Crushed by mental illness and my own demons, I fought them in my own private civil war hidden from public view, for my beliefs even when everyone thought it was impossible and treated reality was a conspiracy against my right to believe and my right to exist.

Now, I look at young people and they are filled with enthusiasm, determination and a righteous and justified anger at the future that has been taken from them. I find them a great deal more extreme than me and I know that's partly because I have more experience, have had idealism and lost it and have to fight for it back again, and I am also yesterday's news. The old world is on fire and the flood has come and started to wash away the corruption of the old and it may yet make way for something new. I'm not convinced it's going to work out and I know the path will be very long, but Socialism is stronger and more numerous now than at any time I've been alive. It's been heart breaking and traumatising, but I'm not alone anymore. Maybe finally, I will get to put my pain to good use and make the work easier for others so they don't repeat my mistakes.

I am a very small part of this picture and every one of us gets to play our part in making history, both in big ways and in small ones. I'm not sure if Marxism is the right answer, but it's what I've got and is the tools at my disposal to try. I don't have all the answers, I may not live long enough to see my side win and I don't get to decide the future of mankind alone, but you can reassured I am going to put up a fight. That's all any of us can do and if enough of us do it together all at once, we win.

 

[Eddi]

@Laika

I have a long-standing fantasy: Create a state that exists alongside the old bourgeoisie state

Set up a legislature and hold elections to it - or better still run it through direct democracy, using the internet

For want of a better name it could be called something like People's Republic 01

With its own constitution and bill of rights

It could make laws and hold hearings and make reports

Maybe it could even issue its own currency? And passports?

Maybe it will grow and grow and eclipse the United Kingdom

What do you think of my plan/fantasy?

 

[Laika]

@Laika

I have a long-standing fantasy: Create a state that exists alongside the old bourgeoisie state

Set up a legislature and hold elections to it - or better still run it through direct democracy, using the internet

For want of a better name it could be called something like People's Republic 01

With its own constitution and bill of rights

It could make laws and hold hearings and make reports

Maybe it could even issue its own currency? And passports?

Maybe it will grow and grow and eclipse the United Kingdom

What do you think of my plan/fantasy?

Funny you should say that…

I’ve been active on “Model House of Commons” or “MHOC” on reddit. I’ve also been on “Model US Gov”.

They both use to hold real elections where you could vote but have opted for simulated elections where campaign material is effectively marked by the moderators. It is meant to be fairer. you write laws, debate them and, if you get elected, you can vote on them. You create posters and press pieces and the release polls about every two weeks. They do budgets occasionally as well.

its certainly been an interesting experience, but it is a huge amount of work and it comes with the standard levels of online toxicity and harassment. Hence, why I’m having a break from it for now as I need to look after my mental health.

 

[Eddi]

@Laika

I think this great debate of ours has more or less frazzled out and I think it's time to move on to something else:

There is another forum on RF where people can discuss one-on-one debates

I have made a poll post there, we could perhaps debate some more there about who won the argument, but others would be allowed to join in - as well as vote

Here is the link: Poll: Eddi vs. Laika?