Socialism

Posted: 26 Oct 2005 02:04 pm Post subject:

I have to bring this up: I find the majority of workers religious, though not all are pratitioners and their beliefs vary. Others are atheist or agnostic. Now the capitalist does not bother to interfer with workers belief systems. If anything, they ignore it. The Marxist-Leninist, on the other hand, want to interfere and do away with all religions and will resort to police force and imprisionment through political means-- the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. serve as examples. I have never read of DeLeon wanting to abolish religion through force or that the SIU would serve that function. Why is it so imparative for Marxist-Leninist to destroy all religious institutions and beliefs and resort to violence to do it?

John

Posted: 26 Oct 2005 07:40 pm Post subject:

Perhaps they were slapped by nuns and this is retribution.

dave

Posted: 26 Oct 2005 09:28 pm Post subject:

We will certainly find in Marx and Engels no urge to stamp out religion through violent means. That fact, however, wouldn't stop people who have violent tendencies to proclaim loudly that they are acting in the name of Marxism.

A couple of characteristic quotations ....

"Man emancipates himself politically from religion by banishing it from the sphere of public law to that of private law."
----- Karl Marx, from the essay "On the Jewish Question", published in the February 1844 issue of the journal Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher

""We know that violent measures against religion are nonsense; but this is an opinion: as socialism grows, religion will disappear. Its disappearance must be done by social development, in which education must play a part."
----- Karl Marx, in "Interview With Karl Marx", Chicago Tribune, January 5, 1879

Posted: 26 Oct 2005 09:57 pm Post subject:

I consider most religious dogmas to be a general hindrance to social education. One area is in the drive for people to understand themselves, psychologically and historically. My personal theory of the origin of religion is that evolution made our ancestors intelligent enough to realize that they must someday die, and this clashed with their instinct for survival. As soon as various groups of people heard some storytellers make the claim that death is merely a doorway to another life, the psychological payoffs implicit in this claim caused them to talk themselves into believing that its true. There are a number of other theories of the origin of religion. Some historians and anthropologists believe that religion came into being when our ancestors were curious about things that they didn't understand, and feared the uncertain effects of natural forces on their lives, such as frost killing the fruit, forest fire chasing away the herds, etc. It would seem that religious explanations clash with the effort to study such historical processes with a scientific frame of mind. The religious answer would simply be that the origin of religion is the fact that the gods revealed themselves to people -- end of story.

Another way in which religion is a hindrance to social educaiton is the fact that religion is a goulash of every logical fallacy in the book. The fallacy that something must be true because an ancient book, and even a book ridden with self-contradictions, says so, or because revered teachers say so; the fallacy that the particular priest caste approved by conventional society has a monopoly on declaring the rules of living a virtuous life; the superstitious Peter Pan ritual according to which merely wishing for something hard enough can make it become true (i.e., prayer); and much more. I think it's a general good to encourage people to cast off their fallacious ways of thinking and to increasing learn the skills of thinking critically. We must discard problem solving methods which don't really work in order that we can adopt problem solving methods which genuinely work.

Posted: 27 Oct 2005 12:30 pm Post subject:

Most likely religion may be a hinderance to social developement but religion comes in many different forms as people do. Depite Marx claim that education would excelerate religions disapearance people tend to find salvation or some sort of enlightenment. I know a few people who were once very atheist but are now very religious despite their high education of logic and reason. Therefore, despite every effort to stamp it out it continues and sometimes grows.

Anyways, I was asking why the Marxist-Leninist feel the need to act against religion. They seem as dogmatic as some religious folks in their campain to wipe all religion out from the face of the Earth.

Posted: 28 Oct 2005 06:37 am Post subject:

S.G., who do you have in mind when you refer to the Marxist-Leninists?

Some of the leaders of 20th century Communist Party governments wanted to retaliate against religions which, they believed, rightly or wrongly, were their political opponents. Since the Russian Orthodox church supported the Czar, the Bolsheviks opposed the church. In China, Mao believed that the superstitions and ancestor worship were inconsistent with ousting the monarchy and land-owners. The Chinese government's cruelty in the conquest of Tibet was utterly pointless.

Some of this repression came about because the countries in question never had a "Bill of Rights" in the first place. It's not as though they lost their freedom after the coup. They had been living without personal freedom for many centuries. People in the U.S. are lucky that the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution happened to be devotees of the philosophers of the Scottish enlightenment. In their youths, Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison went to school in Scotland, where they became followers of John Locke. I believe that the developments in the 20th century would have been very different if Russia and China had seen revolutions only after thorough capitalist development, along with the ideological influences of people like Locke.

Okay, this sounds like the "idealist conception of history" which Marxists strive to avoid in favor of a "materialist conception of history." Maybe someone can provide a better explanation.

Posted: 28 Oct 2005 11:01 am Post subject:

"In their youths, Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison went to school in Scotland"

I did not know that.

The materialist conception of history to my limited knowledge - is not that only material conditions determine history - but that material conditions are the ultimate force.

(METAPHORE ALERT!!)

I don't know who gave the example that history was like a stream of water, that its course could be influenced by factors such as boulders or hills - but that the ultimate influence on the course of the stream is always gravity, just as history is ultimately influenced by material conditions.

And of course boulders and mountains can also be looked at as material conditions just as Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison being educated in Scotland and being influenced by Locke or the fact that apart from the Indians North America was settled by at least a dozen set of peoples all with different religious backgrounds so thankfully it was quite difficult for anyone group to be able to claim (and enforce that claim) that theirs was the one true religion. Also North America in many cases was settled by people of non-dominant religious beliefs (non-dominant from the country that they emigrated from) i.e Mennonites, Huguenots, Jews etc. so that there was at least a seed of a notion that a controlling religion was just not going to make it here.

imho
dave

davesearles

Posted: 30 Oct 2005 05:38 am Post subject:

The point I was trying to make is that most people are religious. The Communist government such as what Russia had was very intollerant of religion of any kind as is China. What I been finding out from Communist on forums is that they would make religion illegal, close all places of worship and send those, who refuse to give up their religious practic, to prison. They will violate peoples private lives to stamp out the existance of religion. Can you imagine your religious old aunt or grandmother being man handled by these Marxist-Leninist thugs? They are not much different than the Nazis.

Posted: 30 Oct 2005 09:23 am Post subject:

The people who would like to make religion illegal have no chance of ever acquiring any power ... any more power than what they already have in some countries. Therefore followers of religion aren't in any actual danger from the Stalinist organizations in most countries. The real danger they pose is that their scary image comes into many people's minds in response to a mention of socialism. When I say "socialism" or "marxism", there is usually some shallow thinker who appears in order to reply, "You guys have killed x-millions of people in death camps during the 20th century," or some variation on that. I go to some forum to remark on a particular issue, but I get distracted from my initial purpose and instead I lecture someone about in invalidity of guilt by name association.

Posted: 30 Oct 2005 09:26 am Post subject:

Posted: 30 Oct 2005 07:02 pm Post subject:

RevLeft and Soviet Empire for starters. Though they may say that they have no intentions of not wanting to abolish all religions the CPSU did make it a practice as you know so well. So I have seen within writings of certain Communist that any practice of religion would be delt with as a crimianal offense.

http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php

Just read through his writings on religion and you will see zealotry at its worst.

Posted: 30 Oct 2005 09:37 pm Post subject:

Did you know that dogma reversed is "am god"??

Posted: 31 Oct 2005 05:54 am Post subject:

I just finished writing a related article (book review).
http://www.crimsonbird.com/philosophy/god-without-religion.htm

Posted: 31 Oct 2005 06:27 am Post subject:

I argue vigorously that any human activity which doesn't infringe on the rights of other people should be legal. Obviously, religious practice doesn't infringe on the rights of other people, therefore there is no valid reason for other people to interfere with it by coercion.

I have often contemplated that the perfect name for the socialist movement would be the Individual Freedom Party. The entire case for socialism can be presented in the context of the urgency to maximize individual freedom.

It is the Stalinists' own ruin that they fail to realize the meaning of the dignity of the individual.

* * * * *

"I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." ---- Voltaire

Posted: 31 Oct 2005 08:13 pm Post subject:

I am quite happy to see what you wrote. People do have the right to get together and practice whateverr form of religion so long as it harms no one. I can't understand these Marxist-Leninist ambition to force people to stop their private practice. They have every right to have their point of views but to infringe on other peoples rights is absurd political nonsense.

Posted: 01 Nov 2005 04:33 am Post subject:

I think it's proper to dispute specific religious positions. The line from Romans 13, "The powers that be are ordained of God", has been held up by some as proof that God has approved the state, therefore rebellion against the state is also disobedience to God. This posiiton needs to be disputed. Then there's Exodus 21 saying that a master beating his slaves is doing nothing wrong because they are his property. Again, let's show the historical context, how the beliefs of an age get reified into the form of a "holy" book.

But, as you said SG, religion takes very many forms. I know a lot about Buddhism, a favorite study of mine. Many practitioners of Rinzai Zen and Soto Zen, two Japanese movements, don't even assert the existence of anything immaterial; for example, they say that references to rebirth are metaphorical, not to be taken literally. In other words, they are much like systems of psychology, methods for developing here-now awareness and so forth. Another startling variation is the Jain sect of India, the most devoted pacifist group in the world, which believes that even stepping on a bug would be murder. There are so many varieties of what gets lumped together by the word "religion", generalizations about "religion" tend to be unvalid.

Posted: 01 Nov 2005 07:28 pm Post subject:

Mike Wrote:

Posted: 01 Nov 2005 10:16 pm Post subject:

Here's a startling contrast -- two very different viewpoints about freedom of the press....

"A censored press only serves to demoralize. The greatest of vices, hypocrisy, is inseparable from it. The government hears only its own voice, while all the time, deceiving itself, affecting to hear the voice of the people, while demanding also that they support the pretense."

-- Marx

"The periodical and non-periodical press must be (and all publishing enterprises must be) entirely subordinated to the Central Committee of the Party. Publishing enterprises must not be permitted to abuse their authority by pursuing a policy that is not entirely the Party policy."

-- Lenin

It's contrasts like this which me say that the right terminology is not "the Marxist-Leninist", but, rather, "the Marxist versus the Leninist."

Posted: 01 Nov 2005 10:30 pm Post subject:

Posted: 02 Nov 2005 06:07 am Post subject:

Posted: 02 Nov 2005 12:39 pm Post subject:

Me thinks that terms such as DeLeonist Leninist Marxist Stalinist ought be used most sparingly.

Eg. use of the word Newtonian is helpful when describing the then current understanding of the laws of Motion or Marxist is most useful when talking about certain of Marx's several contributions to science - but is there a Marxian position on censorship vs. a Leninist position - we can argue that there is but why bother? Would we do or think something or not do or think something simply because Marx or Lenin or even Hitler wrote or spoke one way or the other on it?

I disagree with the "individual freedom ..." name. In and of itself it's way too loose of a concept.

"Sometimes they say that individual freedom is a 'only a bourgeois concept.' I say: No, it isn't. It's one of the important things that makes human beings different from ants and bees. "

But it only has relevance in the context of material conditions. In application it would mean different things under different conditions and in any case I think it can only be a relative concept.

Moreover, I would stay out of people's religions and religious writings as much as possible except for historical analysis. I would say that no religious writing or idea needs to be or should be disputed.

I don't know who wrote this - but there is a saying that a person cannot be dissuaded by logic from an idea that he or she adopted without reason." Of course this isn't an absolute but it's a pretty good rule of thumb. The more you try to unconvince someone of a religious idea the more it takes hold. That's why they call it religion.

IMHO

dave

Posted: 03 Nov 2005 01:00 am Post subject:

You did a damned good job with that book review Mike. Thank you.

dave

Posted: 03 Nov 2005 09:14 am Post subject:

Posted: 03 Nov 2005 09:45 am Post subject:

Posted: 03 Nov 2005 10:01 am Post subject:

Posted: 03 Nov 2005 10:06 am Post subject:

Copied from the 27 September, 2005 issue of the
[London, England] Times

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

Religious belief can cause damage to a society, contributing
towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and
suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only
unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to
social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is
necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a
healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries,
such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a
creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative
evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil,
believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that
religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps
to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual
promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a
society have been described as its "spiritual capital". But the
study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually
contribute to its ills.

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US
academic journal, reports: "Many Americans agree that their
churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on
the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly
sceptical world.

"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the
prosperous democracies.

"The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the
developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so."

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used
data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and
other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion,
suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world's only prosperous
democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least
devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that
rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times
higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also
suffered from " uniquely high" adolescent and adult syphilis
infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study
suggested.

Mr Paul said: "The study shows that England, despite the social
ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the
USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less
religious nation than America."

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was
compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the
Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful
in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted
diseases and abortion, he added.

Mr Paul delayed releasing the study until now because of Hurricane
Katrina. He said that the evidence accumulated by a number of
different studies suggested that religion might actually
contribute to social ills. "I suspect that Europeans are
increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the
Christian states," he added.

He said that most Western nations would become more religious only
if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence
of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution
would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a
marked decline in religious belief, Mr Paul said.

"The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum
that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens
ardently believe in a moral creator.

"The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience
societal disaster is therefore refuted."

Posted: 03 Nov 2005 10:13 am Post subject:

If the group doesn't object, I will soon move the related posts to a new forum topic about religion.

Posted: 03 Nov 2005 11:39 am Post subject:

Posted: 03 Nov 2005 12:11 pm Post subject:

Posted: 03 Nov 2005 05:19 pm Post subject:

Mike - Joseph Campbell (I believe) and a not to distant edition of Encyclopedia Britannica came up with a more delightful explanation of the beginning of religion - that religion was born when human beings stumbled upon hallucinogens such as burning certain plants also meditation and food deprivation.

Does this cynicism about religion mean that you did not stay outside the other night and wait for the Great Pumkin?

dave

Posted: 05 Nov 2005 04:21 am Post subject:

Whoa! All I wrote was that I believe that groups and/or individuals have a right to practice whatever religion that floats their boat(s). This continuation of this thread was my reaction to Communist Party beliefs that the right to speak or practice religion should be supressed through any means available including using the state. What also got my goat was that the Commies do not consider religious workers as "proletariet." I am not quite sure about this but it is possible they consider religious workers as "peasants." I think this is because that religious workers are considered not having any rational thought therefore these peasants are in need of a vanguard to lead them.

Posted: 05 Nov 2005 09:48 am Post subject:

Posted: 05 Nov 2005 10:10 am Post subject:

Posted: 05 Nov 2005 10:29 am Post subject:

Posted: 05 Nov 2005 01:13 pm Post subject:

Mike Wrote:

Posted: 06 Nov 2005 10:56 am Post subject:

Posted: 06 Nov 2005 11:12 am Post subject:

I R in agreement 139%.

Posted: 07 Nov 2005 11:09 am Post subject:

Posted: 21 Nov 2005 03:16 am Post subject:

Dave Wrote:

Posted: 21 Nov 2005 01:47 pm Post subject:

That was Mike who came up with those, they were very good.

There is no doubt that some Marxist-Leninists may have those views but are those views basic? A suggestion, and only a suggestion would be not to generalize any criticism of an individual to a larger body, unless the body has formally adopted the position that you are criticizing: So and so of so and so group wrote this .... might be a better form.

I think that a lot of religion bashing by politicos may stem from their frustartion over the populous not moving on the social question - "it must be religion that holds them back". I think that a lot of the "secular" bashing by the religios may be from a similar type of frustration - "the social problems must be caused by the seculars".

imho
dave

Posted: 22 Nov 2005 07:17 am Post subject:

I often fail to distinguish clearly between the various kinds of opinions I hold:

· Those I consider fundamental to the socialist movement. Example: Political and industrial organization.

· Those I individually support for socialism, on the basis of "I get one vote like everyone else". Example: Advantages of labor-time vouchers.

· Those which are strictly personal and not intended by me to be reflected by socialism. Example: Religion is stupid.

Posted: 22 Nov 2005 04:23 pm Post subject:

Dave Wrote:

Posted: 23 Nov 2005 03:18 am Post subject:

But when you write that, I do not know specifically what was written and by whom and how it might tie into ML

Posted: 25 Nov 2005 11:35 pm Post subject:

Dave Wrote:

Posted: 26 Nov 2005 12:40 am Post subject:

Wow - I read about half of the first page I couldn't take it anymore. (Analolgy Alert!!!) A bunch of babies gurgling on about something they have no idea of. A taste of what they were writing:

- Its alright to discriminate against religious poeple becuase religion is stupid and it's alright to discrimnate aginst stupid people just not in a reactionary way.

Unbelievable. S.G. do yourself a favor, do not ever go back to that web site - ever. Did you see anything at all there of Marxism-Leninism. I didn't - but even if its remotely related or based on something that marx Engles or Lenin ever wrote or said I wouldn't let it keep me up at night, or I just would never be able to sleep - or I'd start thinking about what other ideas these people may think of.

IMHO.

dave

Posted: 26 Nov 2005 03:56 pm Post subject:

It's like the racist saying it is okay to discriminate against people of color because they are inferior. Most of the posters on the forum are Marxist-Leninist.

Posted: 26 Nov 2005 05:36 pm Post subject:

That may be the label that they put on themselves. That don't mean (analogy alert!!) shit.

imho dave

Posted: 29 Nov 2005 02:47 pm Post subject:

Dave Wrote:

Posted: 30 Nov 2005 03:59 am Post subject:

I'm not too well educated about Lenin, so I'm limited in what I can say.

I read his pamphlet "State and Revolution" and found it to be nothing but a paraphrase of Engels' book "Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State."

When we ask Leninists what Lenin added to Marxism, they will say that he added a dimension of understanding about capitalism's later neo-colonialist and imperialist stages, but then when we ask the Leninists to give us a brief summary of these supposedly new conclusions, they never seem to say anything specific or new.

When the Soviet Union fell apart, they publicly released some historical documents that were previously "classified." I read through some of them. I received the image of Lenin as a vindictive dictator. In one instance Lenin gave the order to send a symbolic message to any dissidents in the form of rounding up one hundred kulaks (farmland owners), selected at random, in other words, individuals who were probably innocent of any specific crimes, lining them all up, and shooting them. I was absolutely horrified, seeing an amdinistrator behaving like a Hun or Roman emperor and calling it socialist revolution.

Posted: 30 Nov 2005 04:45 pm Post subject:

There is a book at the local library about Lenin (an autobiography) written by a Russian general who has/had access to the Soviet archives. I think I will go get it to read since it protrays Lenin as not so very nice by killing people and acting like a tryant.

Posted: 30 Nov 2005 08:24 pm Post subject:

Another interesting thing to read, which might be located at some anarcho archive such as spunk.org , or found through google, someone wrote an essay entitled something like "Stalin Didn't Fall From The Moon." It explains that Stalin didn't actually start the tyranny of Stalinism, but, rather, Stalin continued something that Lenin started and then made it more severe.

Posted: 01 Dec 2005 09:46 am Post subject:

Posted: 01 Dec 2005 06:36 pm Post subject:

RSYM wrote:

Posted: 01 Dec 2005 10:31 pm Post subject:

Posted: 02 Dec 2005 12:40 am Post subject:

S.G. quotes dave and then comments:

Quote:
That may be the label that they put on themselves. That don't mean (analogy alert!!) shit.

S.G. writes:

Well, they do label themselves as Communist from different parts of the world. However, I can see why they are not very popular here in the U.S. These people claim to stand with the workers of the world and then do a 180 degree turn and say that only atheists can be true Marxist. With that statement they have excluded 70 percent of the workers and, according to these Communist, have no voice because they have spiritual leanings.

I know I have been trying to push the issue here. I believe that the anti-religious proponets of Marxism have left a rather nasty taste in the majority of workers mouths knowing that they are targets of repression/discrimination in so-called communist countries.

dave comments-

The point that I did not do such a good job in making is that when you criticize something that some person wrote - I would suggest that it is not that productive to not stay with the objected to (or agreed to) quote - otherwise you are all over the place and you open the door for even further expansion of the topic from others. Ultimately there is no focus and any specific criticism that you may have had is lost.

It's only a suggestion - because otherwise it's a total free for all. You essentially criticized all Marxist-Leninists when all Marxist-Leninists do not necessarily think that way - and then you identified some of the people making the objected to statements as Marxists - you don't know that any of them are Marxists so don't you make them into such - if they are Marxists they'll demonstrate it. (analogy alert) When at all possible, in criticism paint with a narrow brush

truly imho,

dave

Posted: 02 Dec 2005 01:30 am Post subject:

"RSYM" defines religion and superstition as being the same.

Analogy alert!! Abraham Lincoln a very religious (or was it superstitious) person asked and answered this question:

"If we say that my horse has five legs - how many legs does my horse have?

Answer: My horse has four legs - saying that a horse has five legs does not make the horse have that many legs.

dave continues - saying that all religion is superstition sure doesn't seem to make it so.

"RSYM" states in part:

"Socialism would create the conditions to emancipate the individual and allow them to realise their full potential."

"RSYM" quotes Mike:

"I argue vigorously that any human activity which doesn't infringe on the rights of other people should be legal. Obviously, religious practice doesn't infringe on the rights of other people, therefore there is no valid reason for other people to interfere with it by coercion."

And "RSYM" responds to Mike:

This is theoretically sound, but I wonder if it is in the real world. Why should resources be diverted to continue superstition that could be better served to meet human need?

To which dave so cogently responds:

First "RSYM" states that Socialism will create the material conditions to emancipate the individual and allow them to realize their full potential - but then he seems to think that under Socialism materials will be so scarce that we'll have to have some version of the thought police going from door to door making sure that no precious materials such as candle wax has been improperly diverted for the maintenance of religion.

Oh my my - should I hide my bible and crucifix?

Take "RSYM"'s thought a step further - why should ANY material at all be diverted to the maintenance of false thoughts? Henceforth anyone harboring a false thought shall be deprived of all materials of communication.

With some folks, not all, they always see some gimmick whereby power to determine right and wrong for everyone will devolve upon themself -- and of course this person shall be chosen for the purity of his thoughts - not harboring any hint of religion whatsoever - what shall we proclaim such person? Messiah? Fuehrer?

in my most humble and reverent opinion.

dave

Posted: 02 Dec 2005 03:40 am Post subject:

Posted: 02 Dec 2005 04:58 am Post subject:

A doubting Thomas or was it Michael wrote:

"In an advisory capacity, scientific thinkers should point out that prayer is nothing but the logical fallacy of wishful thinking, the immature Peter Pan game of pretending that wishing for something might make it so."

At the end of the day you will find that it is exactly what you make of it.

imho

dave

Posted: 02 Dec 2005 05:18 am Post subject:

Mike wrote: "The unproductive activity of the religious person is that person's own time and energy to waste, not ours. We should complain mainly when they waste our resources, but there's little that anyone else can do when they waste their own time."

Dave very respectfully asks:

What in the blue blazes are you talking about boy?

They should be able to acquire lottery tickets with the product of their labor but not tarrot cards? Or if a bunch of people want to designate a portion of the proceeds of their labor to the building or better yet the renovation of a church building - what would you have to say against it. I've been in church buildings and they didn't fall down on me - nice places.

dave

Posted: 02 Dec 2005 06:34 am Post subject:

Posted: 02 Dec 2005 07:21 am Post subject:

Since socialists have never come up with a good proposal for how land (not a product) should be distributed, they can't effectively discuss how churches could, would, or should be erected in a socialist system. The building process itself is easy to resolve, since wood and brick are reproducible products as much as food and clothing; whether an individual socialist believes is "free access" or "labor vouchers", whatever distribution they envision for food and clothing they could also apply readily to wood and brick. The land to put the church onto is another matter. We don't even have a comprehensible theory about how to acquire the land on which to place our supposedly privately owned homes, or how big a back yard one is entitled to, or how to permit inerhitance of the home by children of dead parents without a slippery slope in the direction of developing a new propertied class. Given this ambiguous situation, I'm all in favor of the freedom to have churches, provided it fits into whatever overall scheme society adopts regarding other land allocated to personal use. The same could be said about the Freemasons clubhouse; it's private and yet it's not a house. No special treatment for religions, but no discriminations against them either. How might this issue be resolved?

Posted: 02 Dec 2005 12:30 pm Post subject:

Many, not all church buildings are used as some sort of civic center for at least some civic functions so justification for the land use could be found there. Many, not all churches are works of art, even from the outside. There is a civic function there. But even beyond that - ultimately some formula could be worked out where each person could be allotted a certain square footage amount of land for their personal use in housing, garden, etc - and a portion of that alotment could be designated by the recipient for a building for religious use - or to build a NASCAR type speedway if that's what turned people on - or a combination of both. Racing pope mobiles.

But to answer "RYSM" from above a bit-

A little touchy are we? Did you see a comparison between yourself and my fuehrer remark? I wrote:

With some folks, not all, they always see some gimmick whereby power to determine right and wrong for everyone will devolve upon themself -- and of course this person shall be chosen for the purity of his thoughts - not harboring any hint of religion whatsoever - what shall we proclaim such person? Messiah? Fuehrer?

That you may have thought that I was referring to you here - that is completely your own construct - you don't want to determine what is right and wrong for people do you?

I wrote:

"Oh my my - should I hide my bible and crucifix?"

To which RSYM responded:

"Nice try - I already said private homes would be another matter."

What RSYM actually previously wrote was:

"Well for one, I don't think it would be correct or acceptable in a communist society to stop people from doing as they please (ie 'worship') in their private homes."

RSYM also wrote:

"Why should resources be diverted to continue superstition that could be better served to meet human need?"

I respond:

In RSYM's model it is acceptable to people to practice religion in their own home - but apparently not where any "resource" would be consumed, and apparently not in public either. So if I have a "house church" people can come, but not if they consume any resource in getting there. People can't collectively acquire a building and designate it for religous and other use if they please? In RSYM's model wouldn't people have some freedom in expending resources that they acquired a right to by action of their productive labor or would absolutely every such expenditure be subject to the specific approval of the powers that be?

RSYM wrote:

"in a society ruled by the workers as a class, you'd have to acquire the approval of a soviet/union committee, etc to appropriate the amount of resources to run a chapel."

He also wrote:

"I invite Dave and others to look around the world and notice all the hunger and suffering. Why should organized superstition and godbabble - amongst the most destructive forces at work in the world - be given priority over solving issues of human need??

I respond -

obviously it should not be - it is funny that you suggest that I stated that there should be some priority given to religion - search high and low and you will not find it.

If we agree that under socialism material scarcity will be eliminated and that there will be "the conditions to emancipate the individual and allow them to realize their full potential."

It seems logical then that under socialism the question of "resource" allotment for collective worship - if enough people so choose would pretty much be a non-issue. But I know that RSYM does not apparently feel that way. He is of course is entitled to his own religiously held convictions, and I respect his right to those beliefs even to the extent that he might utilize some resource in the promulagtion of those beliefs that might be better used elsewhere : - )

imho

dave

Posted: 02 Dec 2005 02:41 pm Post subject:

Dave Wrote:

Posted: 02 Dec 2005 05:00 pm Post subject:

S.G. don't worry about your debating skills, you are ding fine - just be very cognizant to only write specifically what you know- yes and let's not bring all Marxist- Leninists down on our heads if only one person identifying himself as such makes an unsupported statement. I would even go so far as to suggest that you consider retracting the achillies' heal remark (you know how I hate analogies in the first place :) - militant atheism is not a problem of Marxism - Marx said what he thought about religion withering away ((I have to admit that I never rerad the quote) - it does not appear that his prediction was accurate - that doesn't wound Marxism that it did not occur and (in my opinion) never will occur. Marx never did pretend to omnecience - never did pretend to be a wizard - my own practical concern with Mr. Karl is his basic analysis of the exploitative process AT THE POINT OF PRODUCTION. That analysis is as sound as ever, or at least it seems to me -

I will reveal my religion - it is not at all original, and I guess it's a form of hedging on the existence of a god or a force or a whatever - I heard this in a pop song. I forget which one - but that it is not so important that you believe in god as it is that god believes in you. (Maybe it was from the musical Hair - "I believe in god and I believe that god believes in Claude that's me.."

A problem I think I see with "RSYM"'s statements on religion vis a vis superstition is that we always can identify (or we think that we can) someone else's superstition but our own unsuported thoughts are orders more difficult for us to see.

Happy advent everyone.

dave

Posted: 02 Dec 2005 06:47 pm Post subject:

Dave Wrote:

Posted: 04 Dec 2005 11:20 pm Post subject:

Posted: 05 Dec 2005 01:27 am Post subject:

Still worked up that you thought that I was referring to you in my messiah/fuehrer remark?

"With some folks, not all, they always see some gimmick whereby power to determine right and wrong for everyone will devolve upon themself -- and of course this person shall be chosen for the purity of his thoughts - not harboring any hint of religion whatsoever - what shall we proclaim such person? Messiah? Fuehrer?"

And then after you complained I wrote:

That you may have thought that I was referring to you here - that is completely your own construct - you don't want to determine what is right and wrong for people do you?

And then you wrote:

"So you have a habit of writing things that are not at all relevant to the topic just to be a clever. gotcha."

I respond - actually I set up a commonly used snare and you snagged yourself in it. The remark could have had no possible application to you unless you saw yourself in some gimmick to have the power to determine right and wrong for other people.

Regarding your other comments

Your original comments were that no recourses should be utilized to facilitate religious functions apparently because of their supposed scarcity - and that if any resources were to be used for a religious function that the powers that be had to be specifically consulted and approval obtained.

Is this a fair representation of what you previously wrote?

I wrote:

He ("RSYM") is of course is entitled to his own religiously held convictions, and I respect his right to those beliefs ...

And you responded:

"You will have to demonstrate that I exhibit religious thinking, and I would like to see you do so. Demonstrating disgust and a desire for religion to justify its bloody existence is pretty feckin far from religious."

I comment:

Your views are religiously held - you demonstrate that in every sentence that you write.

Religiously: "with extreme conscientiousness"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=religiously

You'll catch on.

And thanks for the squire title.

Squire Searles - I like it.

RSYM wrote: "Just saying it doesn't make it so, squire."

Squire responds: And denying it doesn't make it disappear.

Posted: 15 Dec 2005 04:13 am Post subject:

Posted: 16 Dec 2005 03:32 am Post subject:

Dave originally wrote on 12/2/05

Take "RSYM"'s thought a step further - why should ANY material at all be diverted to the maintenance of false thoughts? Henceforth anyone harboring a false thought shall be deprived of all materials of communication.

With some folks, not all, they always see some gimmick whereby power to determine right and wrong for everyone will devolve upon themself -- and of course this person shall be chosen for the purity of his thoughts - not harboring any hint of religion whatsoever - what shall we proclaim such person? Messiah? Fuehrer?

in my most humble and reverent opinion.

"RSYM" replied on 12/02/05:

"Comparing me to the Fuherer - good one."

To which dave replied on 12/02/05:

"A little touchy are we? Did you see a comparison between yourself and my fuehrer remark? That you may have thought that I was referring to you here - that is completely your own construct - you don't want to determine what is right and wrong for people do you?"

To which RSYM responded on 12/4/05

Touchy? You must be joking. Only a true passive aggressive could bring up a comparison to Hitler and call others 'touchy'

and

So you have a habit of writing things that are not at all relevant to the topic just to be a clever. gotcha.

dave responded on 12/05/05

actually I set up a commonly used snare and you snagged yourself in it. The remark could have had no possible application to you unless you saw yourself in some gimmick to have the power to determine right and wrong for other people.

and RSYM replied on 12/15/05

There was no 'snare'. You didn't refer to me but it was obvious. If you're going to ensnare people, you have to have some subtlety about it. This should be elementary but let me explain; it's not a 'trap' if it doesn't get me!

It's a very pathetic strawman to avoid actually discussing the content of what I write. You create a fake 'fuhrer' and attack it. Who would disagree that being a dictator is bad?

to which dave finally responds:

whether it was a snare that even though it was not very subtle you got caught in because you saw the hitler or mesiah remark as refrring to you or you reacted as it did - or whther it was a pathetic straw man that you can't shake loose from doesn't really mater does it? I stand by my original comment even though you think that it refers to you:

With some folks, not all, they always see some gimmick whereby power to determine right and wrong for everyone will devolve upon themself -- and of course this person shall be chosen for the purity of his thoughts - not harboring any hint of religion whatsoever - what shall we proclaim such person? Messiah? Fuehrer?

dave

Posted: 16 Dec 2005 04:23 am Post subject:

I wrote on some date refrring to "RSYM"

Your original comments were that no resourses should be utilized to facilitate religious functions apparently because of their supposed scarcity - and that if any resources were to be used for a religious function that the powers that be had to be specifically consulted and approval obtained.

To which RSYM replies:

Yes, that's what dictatorship of the proletariat would be ... there will not be construction projects without the approval of workers organisations.

What exactly do you find fault with about this?

To which dave replies:

First you said no resourses - but then you back pedled to now refer to only buildings. So apaprenly you no longer mean that no resourse may be used for religion but only that church buildings as all buildings must be approved for construction.That is a significant step back in the right direction.

dave wrote of RSYM

Your views are religiously held - you demonstrate that in every sentence that you write.

to which RSYM replied:

You can consider my views religious all ya like - doesn't change the fact that I arrive at my conclusions through historical materialism and empirical reasoning.

dave quotes engels on Historical Materialism:

this conflict between productive forces and modes of production is not a conflict engendered in the mind of man, like that between original sin and divine justice. It exists, in fact, objectively, outside us, independently of the will and actions even of the men that have brought it on. Modern Socialism is nothing but the reflex, in thought, of this conflict in fact; its ideal reflection in the minds, first, of the class directly suffering under it, the working class.

dave quotes dictionary.com on "empirical": Guided by practical experience and not theory.

dave responds to RSYM:

after reading your posts the last thing that comes to mind is that your arguments are from practical experience concerning the conflict between productive forces and modes of production. I will keep an eye out to see if anything in any of your future posts alters this.

In another section RSYM wrote: "Just saying it doesn't make it so, squire."

Squire Searles responded: And denying it doesn't make it disappear.

And RSYM retorts:

No, dave, you beginner; you made the claim. The burden of proof is on you!

And dave finally replies:

I made a statement that RSYM had religiously held views.

RSYM then said that Just saying so doesn't make it so.

And I said that denying it it doesn't make it disapear.

Now RSYM wants me to prove my statement that he has views that are religiously held - I think that I already did when I quoted the dictionary on the word religously but I take it back if he insists :)

dave

A joyous holiday season to superstitionists and non-superstitionists alike.

note: I edited some of my comments on 12/17/05