Anarchism and Theology

I think R.A. Wilson would have said it makes absolutely no structural difference to your status as a "true believer" whether you believe in God or in communism (or any other construct)

I agree with him, if belief really made you cling to an ideal (which is falsifiable by concrete examples - but then you say, oh they were not true believers! Yes, yes... if it were only that easy, no) it makes no difference what you believe in.

Religion is a disease.

I can direct you to some of the relevant past discussions on anarchism and religion:

http://libcom.org/forums/thought/anarchism-and-spiritual-religious-beliefs

http://libcom.org/forums/introductory/jesus-is-my-friend-to-the-max

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/does-anarchism-have-mean-anti-religion-25052010

You may also want to take a look here: http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA2#seca220 and http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA3#seca37.

Since I am not an anarchist, I am probably not the best person to answer this question (hence the links), but I can give you briefly my general impression. Let's take your first statement, for instance:

The logical fallacy in your argument lies in the fact that you take anarchism to be based on "belief." The very nature of "belief," however, is to propose things for which there is no evidence and to accept them as based in reality. It does not involve a process of questioning or critical thinking, since belief does not seek to discover whether a claim has any validity. A belief is simply valid because one believes it to be valid. Methodologically, this makes no sense. Anarchists would argue that certain structures are not authoritarian out of belief, but from an intervention into reality which involves observation and empirical evidence. Anarchists use a particular theoretical framework to make their conclusions, not belief. True independence of mind, quite the contrary, involves the refusal to accept any proposition which lacks a valid basis -- that is, the "authority" of belief itself.

I do not say this to discourage you or to patronize you at all, as there are, to my knowledge, some anarchists who do indeed identify with theism. This is merely a critical take on the idea of belief and its relation to anarchist theory, which I welcome you to critique as well.

Conversely, I'd argue that an existence of faith implies the fear of death, and that the acceptance of death as a state of nothingness is the liberation of one's self from theological concepts of morality. If my principles do not correspond to any religious doctrines, why exactly would I abandon them? Because I don't believe in some immaterial utopia to account for my finite existence, and actions that are consistent with these doctrines? Please.

As to an anarchist's religious convictions, it makes very little difference.

Meh, who cares? Unless anarchism, and for that matter religion, are tedious lifestyle cults, what does it matter what totalising world-views the participants in the movements have?

I agree with Red Ed and no.25, although I'll admit when I think of an Anarchist, atheism is something I just assume them to be.

Lol Christianity and monotheism are fairly authoritarian and unjust imo, it's hard to be an anarchist when you believe in a utopian monarchy after death.

Religion gives admission to one master too many.

Also, having been a bit dismissive of the topic, I should say it can actually be really important in certain social situations. In Eastern Europe in the 1840s, for example, the Orthodox Church was a massive landowner, involved with law enforcement, economic exploitation of the peasantry, spreading government propaganda and so on. This is the environment Bakunin developed his anti-clergy analysis in (which is absolutely valid for that place and time). But it's not like the society most of us live in today.

But the idea that working class revolutionary movements are incompatible with religious belief seems to me empirically wrong. Lots of working class movements have had a large number of members who were religious. Sometimes even appeals to religious sensibilities have been immediately useful such as in Tom Mann's appeal to troops to refuse orders to fire on strikers and protesters, of Solidarnosc's propoganda.

I don't see how you can be an anarchist who claims to be influenced by Marx and be religious. Marx saw his critique of capitalism as an extension of the critique of religion. What he calls the basis of all critique! Why does he do that? Because his critique of capitalism is not just a critique of the capitalist appropriation of surplus value but also a more fundamental critique of fetishism, of alienated praxis. Both capitalism and religion are the most inhuman ways of thinking and acting that have ever been inflicted on humanity. I am not saying that you have to be an 'atheist', a term more rooted in enlightenment notions of belief and disbelief which are themselves simply inherited from theology. But to be influenced by Marx in a meaningful way you have to understand why religion is inhumanity at its utmost. I agree with RedEd that often religious people have taken part in the class struggle but this is in the great majority of cases usually in spite of the reactionary role of religion (cf. role of Christian unions in Belgium, for example). Moreover, even when religion is used as a rebellious tool, it is always always about sacrifice and fear and submission at the end of the day. There may be lefty religions but any religion if it has power will behave as bad as the worst examples of it. Just think of how the at present cuddly anglican church would behave if it had the power to write laws. The abolition of capitalism means the abolition of all fetishism or it means nothing.

id say though in the capitalist situation where fetishism is going to be part of peoples views of the world that its going to be the case that those wishing to abolish capitalism will hold those views. Is it not the case that post capitalism, people will be in an epistemic situation that is not going to breed a fetishised view of the world? and if that be the case, then does it really matter that in the present situation that there will be people in the anti capitalist current that have such views?

Except that how can you free yourself from the ideas and practices that oppress you by using those very ideas and practices. Looking at 'Communist' Russia, its easy to see that the rejection of religion was merely formal and on a practical and theoretical level it reproduced it. The concept of orthodoxy, of self-sacrifice for a cause, the idea that paradise will somehow realise itself through a process beyond our immediate implementation now etc., the invocation of Lenin as a Christ/Tsar figure. I think much of the advantage that anarchism of the period had in avoiding such a travesty was precisely its rejection of religion based in a more 'individualist' current that had more of an awareness of these dangers (though its martyrdom fetish was obviously a religious continuation). There is a very practical reason that Marx said the critique of religion is the beginning of all critique.

I agree that if you are already growing up in a communist society then the very concept of religion would seem like a bad joke but how do you get there without the majority of the class realising that first, practically and theoretically? If you are an anarchist trying to realise communism actively then you are being reactionary if you have religious convictions because it will translate into your practice. It means you haven't understood the point of Marx at all.

That doesn't mean that religious workers won't reject religion practically in the midst of the struggle. I was just writing about Hiver '60 when christian union workers went on a wildcat strike to join in the with the general strike. But to get to that point the majority of the class already had to be anti-religion or at least anti-clerical, which the workers of Wallonia famously were, precisely because they knew through their practical struggles what a reactionary force religion was. The Christian workers in that practical moment understood that too. But had all the movement been Christian that would never have happened or been much less likely. Moreover, if I call correctly they were some of the first to go back to work. Surely we reject religion now for exactly its reactionary role? Not because its 'irrational' or 'lacks evidence' or not 'objective'. It's because of its long history of practicing inhumanity and even creating the very mindset of resignation that made capitalism possible.

^What he said

I'd agree with the majority of your posts in this thread, but I feel compelled to point out that I think it'd be safe to say that most anarchists aren't 'Marxists,' that noone in this thread influenced by Marx has claimed to be religious, and that we are not Inquisidors. I mean, what can you do? Communist (socialist) humans realize themselves in the correct circumstances, ideological warfare against religion would be absurd.

I'd be just as wary of anyone who said that anarchists can't be theists as i would of anyone who said anarchists must be theists. Just as I would be wary of those who equate theism with religion. People can be theistic without being religious.

Its all very semantic. I mean my concepts of god are varied and many. I can "imagine" all types of gods, the belief in some of whom might appear to contradict a commitment to anarchy, and others that might seem completely congruent with it. An old Jewish saying comes to mind here: "the kingdom of spirit is embodied within my flesh".

If you equate material reality with god and the consciousness we experience as literally being that of god (ie we with all of material existence collectively are god), then it would completely be feasible for us to be theists and anarchists without there being some schizoid split. The danger is that other concepts of god and a commitment to anarchy might promote the likelihood of exactly that: a schizoid split.

My own approch to god is much like my approach to secret societies and conspiracy theories. I only know about them because other people have told me about them, and the only effects that I see being attributed to them are either the result of people (some of whom claim to be their agents - unverifiably), or of yet to be explained measurable and predictable phenomena (like gravity).

Much like secret societies the problem with how to deal with their possible existance lies not in discovering whether or not they do, nor does it lie in my belief in them (apart from how I allow this belief to effect my actions); but in how I live my life in the moment. How I act and what impacts my "actions" have are far more relevant to the "practice" of anarchism than what i "believe".

The danger in "belief" lies in the fact that many people allow themselves to "act" in ways that are detrimental to others and themselves in the face of overwhelming evidence against the wisdom of such actions. This is not to say that nihilism is the key to freedom (although it definitley has its merits), just that we must take responsibility for our beliefs and make sure that our beliefs are ones that we have chosen.

Anarchism is about self-determination. I can't imagine any god that might have produced and planted the seeds for this universe and our species having any desire to stifle that. Whether you believe in it or not.

however the whole line seems reactionary to me. It wouldn't surprise me if this were a view being put forward by someone who has encountered ridicule perhaps, or at least exasperation from other anarchists who don't share your faith.

As far as political organisation goes it is a time consuming and exhausting full time afair. Having to take breaks during this process to discuss the merits of the existance of god or not seem like a huge waste of time in light of the immense tasks we face in confronting some very real devils hahaha. Its a conversation for after a good fuck.

@no.25 I get your point but I meant 'you' in the general sense of 'one'. It was a hypothetical. Or at least in reference to other movements. As for Inquisitors, I hardly think posting an explanation of why you can't be Marxist and religious on a libcom forum after someone else initiated the question counts as the Spanish Inquisition! I'm just engaging in a discussion and coming down on one side of it.
Also, I'm not suggesting an 'ideological war' with religion. Religion is a practical problem. Today women in the US are being denied access to abortion and contraception because of religious nut cases. Religion goes around spreading pro-work propaganda. It stops evolution being taught in schools and young women are being brought up today to think they are to be the tools of men. These are real everyday issues.

@LaForce I said that I didn't think religion was a matter of belief versus disbelief but rather a practical problem of its inhumanity.
The very notion of theism is, as Marx points out in that quote above, one which places human powers in a world beyond. You say that we can call consciousness 'God', well why not skip the religious bit and just say that human beings are amazing incredible creative creatures and its wonderful to be alive, rather than crap all over humanity by saying that this is not an achievement of human beings but of some external alien metaphysical phenomenon. This is precisely the problem with fetishism, be it capitalist or religious. It holds human beings in the worst contempt.

Rather serendipitously there is a conference on this very subject at Loughborough Uni!

Call for paper proposals:

‘No Master But God’? Exploring the Compatibility of Anarchism and Religion

ASN 2.0 (‘Making Connections’) Conference
Loughborough University (UK)
3-5 September 2012

Anarchism and religion have long had an uneasy relationship. On the one
hand, many anarchists insist that religion is fundamentally incompatible
with anarchism, recalling that anarchism calls for ‘no gods, no masters’,
pointing to the many cases of close collaboration of religious and
political elites in oppressing and deluding the masses, arguing that
religious belief is superstitious, and so on. On the other, some
religious/spiritual radicals insist that their religious/spiritual
tradition cannot but lead to a rejection of the state, care for the
downtrodden and the quest for a more just society – despite of, indeed
sometimes precisely because of, the acceptance (by some) of a god as
‘master’.

A number of recent publications both in religious and anarchist studies
have focused on religious anarchism, but consideration of their
compatibility in the first place has been rarer. The aim of this stream of
panels is to explore critically and frankly the relationship and tensions
between these two notions, with a view to publish its proceedings in a
peer-reviewed edited collection. The size of the stream of panels will
depend on the number of applicants, but the intention is to foster mutual
engagement and collaboration. Proposals are encouraged from sceptical as
well as sympathetic perspectives, the aim being to foster critical
discussion of these themes.

Questions which may be addressed include (but are not necessarily
restricted to):

1. Is rejection of religion (and/or spirituality) a sine qua non of
anarchism?

2. What do we mean by ‘religion’, ‘spirituality’ and ‘anarchism’ when
considering their relation?

3. What is unacceptable to anarchism about religion/spirituality, and
to religion/spirituality about anarchism?

4. Are some religious/spiritual traditions inherently more compatible
with anarchism than others?

5. Why do religious institutions tend to move away from the often
radical intentions of their original prophets and founders? How does this
compare to non-religious institutions?

6. What explains differences in the reception of religious/spiritual
anarchism across different contexts?

7. To what extent can religious/spiritual anarchists’ deification of
religious/spiritual notions (such as ‘God’) be compared to non-religious
anarchists’ deification of secular notions (such as freedom or equality)?

8. What role do (and can) religious/spiritual anarchists play in the
wider anarchist movement, and in their wider religious/spiritual
tradition?

9. What can religion/spirituality and anarchism learn from one
another’s history and ideas?

10. Is religious/spiritual anarchism really anarchist? Is it really
religious/spiritual?

Please send abstracts of up to 300 words (along with name and eventual
institutional affiliation) to Dr Alexandre Christoyannopoulos on
a.christoyannopoulos@gmail.com by 31 March 2012 at the very latest. Any
questions should also be sent to that address.

--
Dr Alexandre Christoyannopoulos
Lecturer in Politics and International Relations
Loughborough University (UK)
http://sites.google.com/site/christoyannopoulos
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/eu/people/academics/Christoyannopoulos-Alex.html

Right, this is what makes organized religion problematic, but in the present moment, I just don't see what a viable solution would be. Do you have any suggestions, other than participation in bourgeois politics in opposition to fundamentalists who lobby for such measures, or propaganda? I'm an abstentionist, I'm not going to get drawn into the whole 'lesser of two evils' approach; if the working class finds it in their interest to vote for a deceptively less disingenuous politician, they'll either do so, or my vote wouldn't matter anyway. How do you feel about ballot initiatives? We rarely have them where I'm located.

Militant atheism (Dawkins) has led to very little progress in the 'conversion' of those who incorporate religion into their beliefs, and as Marx wrote, religion is often consolatory for the oppressed; the base/superstructure concept has merit, if not being immaculate. It isn't my intention to be petty, but I'd like to genuinely know what possible methods you'd suggest to 'combat religion.' When I was younger and much more naive, I used to engage in debates with people who subscribed to religious or theistic notions, and I eventually came to the realization that it was mostly redundant to attempt convincing them otherwise.

As you stated, communism is the eventual negation of the alienation and fetishism in all spheres of our existence, and some theological precepts of 'morality' would indeed be reactionary were they to prevail, and by extension, religion itself. As to the existence of a deity, there are many logical arguments against it which are pretty staunch; I'm probably somewhere over in the 'existentialist' or 'absurdity' camp, with an emphasis on Marx's communism as naturalism, and naturalism as humanism.

How did you extrapolate all that from what I said?
I'm not a liberal and I don't vote. My critique of religion is coming form an entirely different place than the humanism of Dawkins and his ilk. I think your ideas about religion seem to have more in common with them than mine. 'religion is often consolatory for the oppressed'?! So are hollywood movies and buying crap. It is illusory consolation. That is the point!

It might be worth pointing out that before 1845 Karls attitude to christianity was completely different.

He had a Feuerbachian concept of christianity or more accurately the essence of christianity to distinguish it from the form into which it had been distorted once it had been incorporated into say the post 2nd century Roman empire.

Something started by Saint Paul, which might be expected as he was after all a member of the imperial ruling class.

And then later I suppose with further modifications in feudalism and capitalism.

Feuerbach considered the 'essence of christianity' to be essentially communistic and co-operative with its emphasis on compassion, altruism and empathy etc.

It was also clearly against organised religion and the hypocrisy that went with it; and the criticism of that in the ‘gospel’ documents is as pertinent and appropriate today as it was then.

Eg the priesthood dressing up in expensive garb to illustrate their religious superiority etc.

The stuff about meekness and humility etc, that can get on your nerves, can be more accurately interpreted from the text I think as a negation and antithesis of its opposite ie pride, hierarchy and power.

Feuerbach was a materialist and his thesis on the essence of christianity was doubly interesting because it was also ‘psychoanalytical’, before Freud.

He suggested than humans were naturally communistic or naturally co-operative, compassionate, altruistic and empathic etc or had social instincts (a later Darwinian concept) if you like.

And that the essence christianity or early christianity was a re-expression, or emotional outlet in fantasy, resulting from the frustration and dislocation of those ‘drives’ or ‘human essence’.

Later also known as Darwinian ‘social instincts’.

For Karl in 1844;

(even then probably without a clear concept of the ‘natural’ state primitive communism which we may have Darwin-wise behaviourally evolved and adapted into)

We would have gone from our original and natural communist state to necessary material one(s) requiring ‘private property’ relations; and after the full development of that be able to return again or restore communism.

Where the human essence of our species (or social instinct) would be in harmony with our new material condition.

Thus;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/epm/3rd.htm

I suppose it depends on whether or not you think Arabian Babblers are avian early christians and how they would cope with babbler capitalism;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Babbler

Stirner in his brilliant Ego and his Own, which turned Karl and Fred, made the point that (rational) egotism and materialism were synonymous; and emotive (human essence) altruism and rational materialism a contradiction in terms.

The idea that emotive (human essence) altruism or social instincts, and Kantian basic morality,could be explained materially, as an evolutionary advantage, had to wait until Darwin’s, post Feuerbach, second. book

Although I don’t like to associate with, like or trust rational self serving gits, even communist ones.

The afterlife thing I think is a somewhat separate issue which is unfortunately too much mixed in and inevitably confused with it.

This certainly isn’t the SPGB position by the way.

PS;

The Calvinist stuff about providence and grace in fact turns the original gospel material on its head and back to the original Judaic form that JC was criticising in the first place.

It's not as if I'm actually extracting those suggestions from 'you,' they're merely hypothetical suggestions that would be 'practical' within the current context, which is why I asked you in esteem as to what exactly can we do now to resolve the contradictions that manifest from religion.

Lol, of course it's illusory, and if participating in bourgeois democracy and propaganda is not an option (which it isn't), then the only concrete solution would be the abolition of the social relations which are the source of this oppression. Considering that these are 'real everyday issues,' and social revolution is on the periphery, I was inquiring as to what you could possibly conceive of to counter these issues practically.

My humanism is Marxist-Humanism.

I have not read all of the responses but my response would be whilst it may not of provided a material practical threat with some social movements, and seemed to play no role in the movements, it still theoretically is a contradiction and I really do think its not right for anarchists to support religion. But notice how I said its not right for anarchists to support religion, religion and theism are different things.I notice you are using the word theism a lot and perhaps a bit interchangeably with religion. Theism, to my knowledge, just means believing in some sort of god. Religion involves that and a lot more, so that it ends up being an opressive agent of social control with its own heirachies etc to put it very lightly.

Seconded. I have plenty of religious friends, you kinda have to unless your a recluse. But yes, the bible is a religion, a political doctrine intended to keep people in line through fear of eternal damnation (it's the devils will that you rebel!)

Besides that, isn't there a thread on here about the similarity of Pagan religions and the current monotheist religions? I have accepts that Christianity has copied a lot of things from Egypt's old religion as well as various Germanic pagan religions (days of the week come from Norse mythology).

The acceptance of religion such as those above isn't really acceptance but self-perpetuated self-illusionment.

I don't judge people, but I find it a remarkable feat of double-think to adhere to say Islam or Judaism while maintaining a "No Gods, No Masters" political stance.

Deleted.

see Leo Tolstoy

also at one point there are a sizable anarchist Jewish tradition

Herbert Read talks about the potential of an awkward alliance between anarchism and religion in his the "philosophy of anarchism" essay....imo it is a total mess

religion is generally used by institutions to enforce their power..now the question is that is this abuse something fundamental to religion or not...there have been many religious narratives that were free from institutional abuse(like Leo Tolstoy's peeps)

if we want to be a militant anti-theistic ideology/movement we can end up isolating allot of the population...just a thought...but few anarchist are seriously religious

Aufheben, possibly borrowing from someone else, put it succintly, "religion isn't belief in god, it's what you have to do for god".

Someone reported your post? What's up? Were you like unable to remain civil or something?

Self-censorship in this case.

Ahh, that's too bad, I was looking forward to your reply.

Some Pagan religions were inherently non-institutional. The Nordic religions for example, I think they actually accepted Christians. They were recorded to have been remarkably tolerant, at least in Iceland.