Does Anarchism Have To Mean Anti-Religion?

Being opposed to religion is not the same as trying to prevent people from practising religion.

Farran

Being an anarchist myself I have begun to notice than many anarchist groups take an anti-religious stance. Surely Anarchism would suggest that someone is free to do what they will? I am personaly an Atheist but know many religious people who think along the same anarchist lines as I?

Answers would be much appreciated!

This is a question that gets asked quite a lot on this site, especially with reference to the A&Ps of the Anarchist Federation, which are explicitly anti-theist.

The reason that our organisation adopted this position (as I understand it) has to do with the way we understand class and workers' struggle. We have a materialist view of the world: we see society as based on concrete, material things and relations. Therefore, the only way to change it is through concrete struggles - strikes, occupations, sabotage, and so on.

I think this notion is diametrically opposed to what I'd call an 'idealist' world-view - in which the things that underlie society and the rest of the world aren't material things but ideas like God, spirituality, Tao, karma or what have you. According to this notion, the best way to change the world is through prayer, or meditation, or crystal healing or whatever your personal superstition happens to be. Direct action, in this view, takes a back seat.

Of course, we don't want to police peoples thoughts or anything like that - rather, we seek to change peoples ideas by engaging with them, and through struggle.

Does that answer your question?

If the Church (any Church) would have no power whatsoever as a social institution, if it would be more like a knitting club than a bastion of reaction, I would not be against it. What people believe or not, whether they pray or not, is of no concern to me.

Vlad336

If the Church (any Church) would have no power whatsoever as a social institution, if it would be more like a knitting club than a bastion of reaction, I would not be against it. What people believe or not, whether they pray or not, is of no concern to me.

I think this is a bit of an oversimplification. I think what individual people believe is politically relevant; for example, I think it's important to attack racist ideas even if they aren't expressed by an organised racist movement.

BigLittleJ

I think this notion is diametrically opposed to what I'd call an 'idealist' world-view - in which the things that underlie society and the rest of the world aren't material things but ideas like God, spirituality, Tao, karma or what have you. According to this notion, the best way to change the world is through prayer, or meditation, or crystal healing or whatever your personal superstition happens to be. Direct action, in this view, takes a back seat.

but there are other religiosities. epicureans claim both a material understanding of the world (atoms, of which even souls are made), and the existence of gods (a modern close-but-not-really-exact equivalent would be deists). also, being religious does not necessarily entail claiming prayer etc. as the best course of action. the christian scientists may do that, but even a short reading of the NT shows a guy who tells people what they should do, not just what they should think.

(full disclosure, i'm a skeptic)

BigLittleJ

Vlad336

If the Church (any Church) would have no power whatsoever as a social institution, if it would be more like a knitting club than a bastion of reaction, I would not be against it. What people believe or not, whether they pray or not, is of no concern to me.

I think this is a bit of an oversimplification. I think what individual people believe is politically relevant; for example, I think it's important to attack racist ideas even if they aren't expressed by an organised racist movement.

Yes it is important to attack racist, sexist, ethnocentric and so on ideas, but on their own ground, not as a proxy issue in a battle with religion (as professional atheists usually do). Many religious people are perfectly normal and unprejudiced individuals who just happen to think that after they die they'll find their loved ones in a Unitarian Church and be led towards the Light by Jack's dead father. As ridiculous as that may be, I think it's ultimately irrelevant. Religion in itself can exist as a perfectly benign social institution, as long as it is purged of its more reactionary elements (which should not be seen simply as "beliefs" but as historical developments that have to do with a specific social and economic arrangement; this is certainly how religious homophobia and sexism should be understood imo)

But under no circumstances ought we to fall into the error of posing the religious question in an abstract, idealistic fashion, as an “intellectual” question unconnected with the class struggle, as is not infrequently done by the radical-democrats from among the bourgeoisie. It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

epicureans claim both a material understanding of the world (atoms, of which even souls are made), and the existence of gods (a modern close-but-not-really-exact equivalent would be deists).

But Epicureus lived thousands of years ago, and 'religion' in those days was quite a different beast to what it is today. (Also, obviously there aren't souls made of atoms so you'd have to be a bit odd to go about believing this today!).

But if you don't believe in Gods, souls, spirits, magic or other supernatural entities then you're not religious in the sense that we'd have a problem with it. (But then I'd also say you're not religious in the way most people understand the term.)

also, being religious does not necessarily entail claiming prayer etc. as the best course of action. the christian scientists may do that, but even a short reading of the NT shows a guy who tells people what they should do, not just what they should think.

Of course it doesn't necessarily entail it (clearly religious people do other things than sit around praying all day, after all!). But I think it leads you in that direction, and away from concrete action; and I think this flows logically from a religious view of reality, as I said. And it's clear that this is contrary to the materialist world-view I set out above.

Elly

It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods.

Right, which is why I said-

I

we seek to change peoples ideas by engaging with them, and through struggle

Obviously the workers of the world won't just wake up one fine morning, decide religion is bollox and go out and wreck the avenues where the wealthy live. But it is certainly worth engaging with these sorts of beliefs through propaganda, public meetings etc.

Vlad336

Yes it is important to attack racist, sexist, ethnocentric and so on ideas, but on their own ground, not as a proxy issue in a battle with religion (as professional atheists usually do). Many religious people are perfectly normal and unprejudiced individuals who just happen to think that after they die they'll find their loved ones in a Unitarian Church and be led towards the Light by Jack's dead father. As ridiculous as that may be, I think it's ultimately irrelevant. Religion in itself can exist as a perfectly benign social institution, as long as it is purged of its more reactionary elements (which should not be seen simply as "beliefs" but as historical developments that have to do with a specific social and economic arrangement; this is certainly how religious homophobia and sexism should be understood imo)

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I don't think that it's coincidental that religious people often express the worst sort of reactionary nonsense - whether it's about AIDS, gays, women, or what have you - I think it flows directly from their world view, which invariably sees reality as secondary to spirituality, at least to some degree.

TBH, whilst its true that religious people understand the world in non-materialist terms, that doesn't mean they only want to change (or conserve) the world via spiritual methods. If that was the case then you wouldn't have nut-job evangelists running for parliament (and winning), you wouldn't have all those social-justice groups, you wouldn't have the Red Cross or the Salvation Army or whatever. You'd just have a bunch of people praying to God to put money in their bank accounts. But most religious people incorporate some sort of responsibility into their life via the mystical free will. What I am saying is that a belief, say, that God created the universe doesn't inherently mean that all subsequent change is via God and that therefore they would refuse strikes or direct action.

Elly

But under no circumstances ought we to fall into the error of posing the religious question in an abstract, idealistic fashion, as an “intellectual” question unconnected with the class struggle, as is not infrequently done by the radical-democrats from among the bourgeoisie. It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

your really shit at attributing your quotes http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

[quote=BigLittleJ]Elly

It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods.

Right, which is why I said-

I

we seek to change peoples ideas by engaging with them, and through struggle

Sorry, that wasn't addressed to you. It was written by Lenin.

admin - off topic flaming removed. This is a no flaming forum

BigLittleJ

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I don't think that it's coincidental that religious people often express the worst sort of reactionary nonsense - whether it's about AIDS, gays, women, or what have you - I think it flows directly from their world view, which invariably sees reality as secondary to spirituality, at least to some degree.

Yes but their world view is not just a matter of them having the wrong beliefs. Homophobia for example is not a necessary condition for a religious denomination. As you pointed out religion in the times of Epicurus was a wholly different affair; homosexuality was not frowned upon back then as it is today in Christianity. Is this simply a mysterious change in beliefs, or a transformation, social, cultural and economic (in other words a transformation in the material conditions of the age)? The latter obviously.
What I'm getting at is religion should not, in the words of Lenin as quoted by Marsella, be understood as an "intellectual problem," divorced from the reality, and history, of class society. Racism or any other type of bigotry is not a priori a necessary consequence of religion, but in a society that is shaped by hundreds of years of colonialism, patriarchy, and so forth, these prejudices will obviously be quite prominent in any religious institution just as they are in all institutions, including secular ones. Religion is not special just because of the centrality of metaphysical beliefs. Its bigotry has the same causes as that of society in general, and isn't just the product of believing the wrong thing. Historical materialism in this sense is simply the pointing out of this reality, not a competing philosophy to be pitted against those of Christ, Buddha and Mohammed.

for reference - there was quite a long discussion on anarchism and religion 2 years ago, amongst the madness and BobSavage being spineless there was decent discussion
http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/religion-usa-26062008

Elly

radicalgraffiti

Elly

But under no circumstances ought we to fall into the error of posing the religious question in an abstract, idealistic fashion, as an “intellectual” question unconnected with the class struggle, as is not infrequently done by the radical-democrats from among the bourgeoisie. It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

your really shit at attributing your quotes http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

Hey, fuckhead, you're really shit at understanding simple mistakes. I mean, that's a very well-known passage, its not as if I'm trying to plagiarize Lenin, you fucking dipshit.

I didn't attack you, its a tendency I've noticed in your postings, you also posted those articles about about sexism in the anarchist moment without any indication of where they came from.

Farran

What about Taoism, isn't that almost a form of anarchism?

I don't think so, and if it was that wouldn't necessarily mean I'd support it.

Elly, I didn't mean to imply that religious people don't also take part in and advocate action in the material world (take part in strikes, occupations etc.) since they clearly do. My point was more that there *is* a conflict between materialism and idealism, and that for a political group to make this conflict explicit and take a side isn't unreasonable.

radicalgraffiti

Elly

radicalgraffiti

Elly

But under no circumstances ought we to fall into the error of posing the religious question in an abstract, idealistic fashion, as an “intellectual” question unconnected with the class struggle, as is not infrequently done by the radical-democrats from among the bourgeoisie. It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

your really shit at attributing your quotes http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

Hey, fuckhead, you're really shit at understanding simple mistakes. I mean, that's a very well-known passage, its not as if I'm trying to plagiarize Lenin, you fucking dipshit.

I didn't attack you, its a tendency I've noticed in your postings, you also posted those articles about about sexism in the anarchist moment without any indication of where they came from.

Fuck off. Every article I posted had the authors names, provided they were given. The only one I remember that didn't was one that was removed from the library, and in the process the name was removed by the admin. Get your facts straight before you run your mouth.

Farran

What about Taoism, isn't that almost a form of anarchism?

Yes and no...

I actually did my Masters dissertation partly discussing the interplay of Taoism and Dialectical thought.

Theres a very niave approach to it, which basically just reads lines from Tao Te Ching and says "That sounds like anarchyz" while often criticisising Christianity in the same swoop. Which is just stupid and inconsistant. However there are other ways of approaching Taoism and its relationship to anarchism.

From my dissertation

It is impossible to understand Taoism and its relation to praxis-based critical theory without an understanding of its philosophy of nature. The Taoist conception of nature is based on the dialectical principles of yin and yang; these two forces are both complimentary and opposite at the same time. This is the very make up of the universe, all matter and energy is understood through this relationship. Yin is the “feminine power”, which is often portrayed as cold and reflective, while Yang is the “masculine” of warmth and activity. This opposition makes up absolutely everything that exists in the realm of phenomenon. I believe that this simply concept echo’s the dialectic that Hegel saw as constituting the world, and it with that in mind that I would like to proceed.

Like most anarchists, Taoists understand the universe in a constant state of flux. Reality is not simply a fixed object, but a process. The dialectical understanding of change as a dynamic interplay of opposing forces also fits quite cleanly into the body of theory I am developing. While both Taoism and Confucianism have similar conceptions of nature, Confucianism developed as a theory of the state and ritual rather than action and reflection. Hegel (1975) wrote in his “Lectures on the History of Philosophy” that
“to the Chinese what is highest and the origin of things is nothing, emptiness, the altogether undetermined, the abstract universal, and this is also called Tao or reason. When the Greeks say that the absolute is one, or when men in modern times say that it is the highest existence, all determinations are abolished, and by the merely abstract Being nothing has been expressed excepting this same negation, only in an affirmative form. But if Philosophy has got no further than to such expression, it still stands on its most elementary stage. What is there to be found in all this learning?”

Wu-wei is the core concept of Taoist ethics. I believe that this concept can be linked to the “anarchist” tradition. It is often translated as non-action - wu can be understood as “without”; and wei can be understood as action, but more specifically non-natural action or governance. This is much the same as the definition of the Greek root of the word “anarchy”, which literally means “an” – without; “archy” – ruler or governor. While modern political anarchism may eschew all relationships with spirituality in favour of an atheist doctrine, I believe it is the case that when anarchism and spirituality combine, there is no inherent conflict; it can, in fact, such as with Taoism, provide an understanding of the world that is in dialogue with “cultures” where the political theory of anarchism does not exist.

Wei, in a political sense, can largely be thought of as to impose action or authority, so to follow wu-wei is to consider the most natural and least intervention, which will in turn create further spontaneous order. The Tao Te Ching clearly states the role of force or authority 'force is followed by loss of strength' (30), 'a violent man will die a violent death' (42). The imposition of force does nothing but weaken us and for Taoists, the ideal way to be is metaphorically like water. 'Under heaven, nothing is more soft and yielding than water, yet for attacking the solid and strong, nothing is better; it has no equal. The weak can overcome the strong; the supple can overcome the stiff.' (78) It is in this notion that I believe Taoism can be closely linked to the trend of humanist critical theory that I have been referring to. Taoism is not simply a philosophy of resignation and acceptance of an unfair world, but much more an ethical paradigm for how to achieve a harmonious society. It must be noted however that Taoism cannot be considered a revolutionary idea in the respect I am perusing. When it was conceived of there was no “working class” and, while there might have been a state, it certainly didn’t interfere as much in the daily lives of the people as it began to with the development of industrial capitalism. At heart, the ideal social organisation was an agrarian collectivism, in which the spontaneity and natural order of a non hierarchical society could flourish.

Another good reason to ignore dialectics.

BigLittleJ

But Epicureus lived thousands of years ago, and 'religion' in those days was quite a different beast to what it is today. (Also, obviously there aren't souls made of atoms so you'd have to be a bit odd to go about believing this today!).

how old the theory is doesn't matter, it's the content. as i say, there are moderns who kinda follow it. and if you're a materialist, why would it matter if religion was different then? it's all hobgoblins anyway!

BigLittleJ

i

also, being religious does not necessarily entail claiming prayer etc. as the best course of action.

Of course it doesn't necessarily entail it (clearly religious people do other things than sit around praying all day, after all!). But I think it leads you in that direction, and away from concrete action

i'd have to disagree, the point of religion is to find a guide for how to live one day to the next, it's just that prayer is seen as one kind of action along with all the others you could think of.

Farran

I see. So would you say that buddism would be able to function around an anarchist society? Alot of my anarchist beleifs fit fairly nicely alongside some buddist.

No I think you might have missed the point slightly...although saying that that bit I posted sounds more "pro taoist" out of context of the rest of the work...

What I was really trying to get at in the chapter was weather the development of a "praxis" as Marx understood it, was historically contingent on the rise of Industrial Capitalism - or was it something that reared its head in different situations. I allude to it at the end, that the idea that Taoism and Class analysis can co exist is a bit dodgy really... although there was no doubt a class system which Taoism came into conflict with (theres various taoist rebellions etc) it never was able (maybe because of its historical limitation) to get to the idea of self management. It forms the same critique of Authority that most Anarchists would have on a philosophical level (I suspect) but it is not "Anarchism" as we know it... there is very little discussion of anything resembling "communism" within the wider taoist field either which suggests its uneasy relationship I think

Buddhism: the religion which is okay for leftists to worship.

Exported under the guise of new-age spirtitualism and meditation, its one of the most disgusting religions.

Matt_efc

Although there was no doubt a class system which Taoism came into conflict with (theres various taoist rebellions etc) it never was able (maybe because of its historical limitation) to get to the idea of self management.

Naturally, because the historical conditions were different. In a society where the idea of equality has not taken root, as it has in bourgeois society thanks to the rise of the market system, albeit only abstractly and hypocritically, the notion of communism is impossible.
The daoists may have been ahead of their time in terms of emphasizing self-knowledge, active inquiry into the nature of reality and the shunning of meaningless dogma and ritual, but they were certainly not "egalitarians." And neither are the Buddhists for that matter (although today various ham-fisted attempts to wed Buddhism to "radical" politics do exist, but are irrelevant)

Elly

Buddhism: the religion which is okay for leftists to worship.

Exported under the guise of new-age spirtitualism and meditation, its one of the most disgusting religions.

Why one of the most disgusting? Out of interest.

Which is basically what I concluded, in the final paragraph I think. Its an interesting thought excercise, but nothing beyond. There is no Anarcho-communism neatly hiding in history...thats kind of the point of developing a praxis.

Well I think a religion which argues that suffering is unavoidable (and of course, violence is wrong, so no hope in changing anything, since anger is also wrong, and since one must avoid sensual pleasures) but the result of selfishness, hence workers must only stop being selfish, respect and obey authority, and achieve enlightenment... is fundamentally reactionary. Along with its views on homosexuality and women, and various lefties adoration of the Dalai Lama, I find it pretty fucking ridiculous that Western Leftists, not born into it, would think that it is something that they can pick up and mold with their political views. To be honest, I think its just like picking up some spiritualist trash from some foreign country and appropriating it because it sounds different, not because of some critical understanding of what it promotes, and because becoming a Catholic just wouldn't be chic, but hey, when its from whateverthefuckistan it becomes so much more cooler.

Elly

Well I think a religion which argues that suffering is unavoidable

I am not particularly keen on defending Buddhism, but I think this is misleading. The concept of suffering in Buddhism basically amounts to the inadequateness and unsatisfactoriness that we all feel for a number of reasons (shitty job, failed relationships, dysfunctional families). It basically amounts to this: "..we men, with the high claims of our civilization and under the pressure of our repressions, find reality generally quite unsatisfactory" (Freud). Obviously this is not a very politically (nevermind class-) conscious concept, but I don't see anything reactionary about it. If anything it's acknowledging that things aren't just fine if you behave and do what's expected, and are a good worker.

(and of course, violence is wrong, so no hope in changing anything)

Pacifism is in no way unique to Buddhism (and as with all religions it is more in word than in deed), so why does this make it uniquely "disgusting"?

since anger is also wrong, and since one must avoid sensual pleasures

Again, I don't think this is wholly accurate. Anger and sensuality are seen as taboo in most buddhist traditions, but they are not "thou shall nots." Tantric buddhism is for example a strand that wholly embraces sensuality and sexuality as a means to "enlightenment." Anger is not in itself seen as a sin, but what I think a "philosophical Buddhist" (because the religious practice is often not the same as the philosophy as I'm sure you will agree) would argue is that one must understand the causation patterns that bring about anger. In other words anger for a morally just purpose is a good thing; spazzing out and doing whatever the fuck is not. Obviously this stance can be used to defend reactionary practices like obedience to priests and so forth, but then again rich Christians are not particularly prone to giving everything away either for some reason.

but the result of selfishness, hence workers must only stop being selfish, respect and obey authority, and achieve enlightenment

Ceasing from being selfish is not what the point is. Instead of being an absolute egotist (something like Objectivism let's say) or a completely "selfless" saint (which is only an ideal, kind of like imitatio Christi for Christians), you are supposed to come to a new understanding of self by reflecting on the interconnectedness and the mutual dependence (the two most fundamental concepts in Buddhist theory) of human beings. Obviously there is no class analysis here, and in a capitalist society the mutualism that Buddhism advocates can easily be used to support reactionary politics, but then what religion claims to be built on class analysis (except for the religion of academic Marxism perhaps).
In short, I don't think Buddhism is better or worse than other organized religions.

Along with its views on homosexuality and women, and various lefties adoration of the Dalai Lama, I find it pretty fucking ridiculous that Western Leftists, not born into it, would think that it is something that they can pick up and mold with their political views. To be honest, I think its just like picking up some spiritualist trash from some foreign country and appropriating it because it sounds different, not because of some critical understanding of what it promotes, and because becoming a Catholic just wouldn't be chic, but hey, when its from whateverthefuckistan it becomes so much more cooler.

This part I agree with, but it's not unique to Buddhism, and orientalism is not limited to the left.

I am not particularly keen in defending Buddhism, but I think this is misleading. The concept of suffering in Buddhism basically amounts to the inadequateness and unsatisfactoriness that we all feel for a number of reasons (shitty job, failed relationships, dysfunctional families). It basically amounts to this: "..we men, with the high claims of our civilization and under the pressure of our repressions, find reality generally quite unsatisfactory" (Freud). Obviously this is not a very politically (nevermind class-) conscious concept, but I don't see anything reactionary about it. If anything it's acknowledging that things aren't just fine if you behave and do what's expected, and are a good worker.

If Wiki is a reliable source:

According to the Pali Tipitaka[30] and the Āgamas of other early Buddhist schools, the Four Noble Truths were the first teaching of Gautama Buddha after attaining Nirvana. They are sometimes considered to contain the essence of the Buddha's teachings:

1. Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering/uneasiness (dukkha) in one way or another.
2. Suffering is caused by craving. This is often expressed as a deluded clinging to a certain sense of existence, to selfhood, or to the things or phenomena that we consider the cause of happiness or unhappiness. Craving also has its negative aspect, i.e. one craves that a certain state of affairs not exist.
3. Suffering ends when craving ends. This is achieved by eliminating delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment (bodhi);
4. Reaching this liberated state is achieved by following the path laid out by the Buddha.

So, it does present suffering as an illusion.

Anger and sensuality are seen as taboo in most buddhist traditions, but they are not "thou shall nots."

To quote Thich Nhat Hanh:

Do not accumulate wealth while millions are hungry. Do not take as the aim of your life fame, profit, wealth, or sensual pleasure. Live simply and share time, energy, and material resources with those who are in need.

Sexual expression should not take place without love and a long term commitment. In sexual relationships, be aware of future suffering that may be caused. To preserve the happiness of others, respect the rights and commitments of others. Be fully aware of the responsibility of bringing new lives into the world. Meditate on the world into which you are bringing new beings.

Do not utter words that can create discord and cause the community to break. Make every effort to reconcile and resolve all conflicts, however small.

Obviously like all religions there's a dichotomy between what they preach and what they actually do.

In short, I don't think Buddhism is better or worse than other organized religions.

Probably, but its more disgusting than other religions because its an organized religion, a state-religion and one that some leftists have a fetish for.

Of course Buddhism holds some political sway particularly in Burma and Thailand.

I don't disagree with what the wikipedia article has to say but the Sanskrit dukkha simply doesn't mean the same thing that suffering means in English. It is not the suffering of getting your ass kicked. It is the yearning for something, which if followed by failure to acquire that something, leads to feelings of alienation, rejection and so forth. The elimination of craving means understanding this inevitable causation process, and training yourself to avoid become completely hopeless and disillusioned.
Precisely because material causation and a material understanding of the world play such an important part in Buddhism, especially early Mahayana, you will not see self-induced deprivation or mortification of the flesh advocated in any sutra associated with that school (for what is essentially a strict materialist worldview from a Buddhist perspective see the writings of Nagarjuna, who I would argue is an important thinker that should not be ignored just because Buddhism as organized religion is reactionary and because in the West it means hippie bullshit).

That Thich Nhat Hanh guy is predictably puritanical, moralistic and simple-minded, but I wouldn't call it disgusting. After all it is saying that you should respect the wishes of your partner and not to expect a perfect relationship and be accepting of that.

because its an organized religion, a state-religion

Nothing outstanding there.

and one that some leftists have a fetish for.

IMO only insofar as you feel some sort of connection to them and feel this represents a "betrayal" on their part. I for one am not very concerned with what leftists think or do, no more so than I am with the current political program of the national Social Democratic party.

I don't think I equated suffering with merely physical harm. Its a failure to meet a craving, hence it is the craving which must be removed for suffering to be removed. But this is, IMO, wholly reactionary; there is no universal alienation or dissatisfaction that human beings feel separate from the society in which they are formed. The point isn't to change how we react to failing to meet our 'cravings' but to change the conditions which inhibit our success. In short, the Buddhist answer is to just change your frame-of-mind so that you won't become 'completely hopeless and disillusioned', whereas I think that is just closing your eyes to reality and that the revolutionary thing would be to change the things which would cause hopelessness and disillusion to begin with.

Nothing outstanding there.

Well...yes it is. You can count the number of organized religions on one hand. You yourself said that "If the Church (any Church) would have no power whatsoever as a social institution, if it would be more like a knitting club than a bastion of reaction, I would not be against it." Obviously a religion being a state-religion is something quite different to one that isn't. That doesn't make Buddhism different from other state-organized religions, but it does make it different from other religions.

Elly

That doesn't make Buddhism different from other state-organized religions

That's what I meant by "nothing outstanding"

But this is, IMO, wholly reactionary; there is no universal alienation or dissatisfaction that human beings feel. The point isn't to change how we react to failing to meet our 'cravings' but to change the conditions which inhibit our success. In short, the Buddhist answer is to just change your frame-of-mind so that you won't become 'completely hopeless and disillusioned', whereas I think that is just closing your eyes to reality and that the revolutionary thing would be to change the things which would cause hopelessness and disillusion to begin with.

Yes fair enough, but I don't think that the concept of suffering is in this context as reactionary as you make it out to be. First of all, yes there is a universal dissatisfaction with life; this is not to say that things would be just as bad if I didn't have to sell my labour for a living, but even under the shiniest communist sun, I would still experience lack, unhappiness and so forth. Reality will always fall short of what we desire from it. This is not to say that we should not right a wrong, or fight to eliminate a state of rampant abuse and inequality, and I don't think the Buddhist texts are saying that either.
From what I've read on the history of early Buddhist thought (I am by far not as well informed as to what Buddhism actually looks like on the ground today), changing your perspective without understanding what the root of the problem is is pretty much useless. You can say "from now on I will not desire sex and fancy foods anymore" but this will simply engender more 'suffering' as craving sets in. The key is to understand the effect that certain actions and emotions have on you and cut at the root; in the most down-to-earth sense, meditation is nothing but introspective analysis.
Now obviously I don't think sexual abstinence is a moral ideal, but I can see why it would be so in a traditional patriarchal culture like the one that Buddhism first appeared in. However you don't need to limit yourself to that example. We can take a different one; let's say you have a real shitty job that is making you unhappy. The Buddhist solution is not to hope that your soul will have it better in the next life (because there is no soul - anatman), or to pray to God (because gods are largely treated as superstition and myths), it is to grasp the problem at the root. A radical investigation into why work makes us miserable will, if taken all the way, lead to a view whereby it is not individual decision or character that is responsible for one's misery but the structural organization of work itself. Obviously not many Buddhists will come to this conclusion for a variety of social factors (one of them being priests/monks telling them to obey authority), but it easier to arrive at this way than if you have a theist worldview whereby your unhappiness is automatically "God's will" and so forth. So I would say that the so-called "four noble truths" of Buddhism are in fact very conducive (although obviously not essential) to your conclusion that we need to "change the conditions which inhibit our success."

Just in case you're suspecting me of leftist fetishism of Buddhism, I am not mentioning all this because I think Buddhism is something that would be useful to a revolutionary perspective. It is not. But I don't think you should throw out the baby with the bathwater either. Buddhist philosophy is not simply an apology for the status quo, no more than Christian philosophy is. There is plenty to be found in there that is both original, thought-provoking, and useful.

I believe it's because religious institutions seek to impose a "world order", they have their own view on what the world should be like and will attempt to manipulate and control it towards that end.

I have nothing against people practicing whatever religious beliefs they hold, but i am against religious institutions and organised religion. I don't see a viable argument against letting people think what they want (as long as nobody is coming to harm or being exploitated in any way shape or form), if you go down that road you might aswell wish for a 1984 style existence.

btw, this thread
Choccy

http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/religion-usa-26062008

is GOLD, JERRY. GOLD. I miss Bob.

Elly

Well I think a religion which argues that suffering is unavoidable

Wrong, the whole point of Buddhist spiritual development is transcendence from suffering.

violence is wrong

Wrong, plenty of Buddhists use violence to achieve political goals. Ask a Tamil.

so no hope in changing anything, since anger is also wrong

Wrong, you don't have to be overcome with emotion to make a political change, in fact it's an impediment.

Along with its views on homosexuality and women

Irrelevant. Marx was also a homophobe but that doesn't make his criticism of capitalist economics any less valid.

and various lefties adoration of the Dalai Lama

Irrelevant, those "lefties" are nothing but social-patriot stooges who are in no way a part of the radical left.

I find it pretty fucking ridiculous that Western Leftists, not born into it, would think that it is something that they can pick up and mold with their political views.

Irrelevant unless you are a cultural-nationalist fascist who thinks that people should only embrace intellectual traditions they were "born into"

Elly

If Wiki is a reliable source

It's not. Do some real research.

Elly

Another good reason to ignore dialectics.

Another good reason why you are an admin - no flaming and not a Marxist

or to pray to God (because gods are largely treated as superstition and myths)

Not to disagree with your overall argument but I thought devas (a.k.a. gods) in Buddhist ideology were perceived as real, conscious beings. Hence why they are listed as one of the states of samsara alongside humans, asuras, (demigods or titans) beasts, pretas, (ghosts) and narakas. (hell-beings)

Thus the reason Buddhists choose not to worship devas is because as spiritual humanists they perceive humanity as a higher state of consciousness.

Keep in mind this is hardly my area of expertise

BigLittleJ

obviously there aren't souls made of atoms

Can modern microcosmology really be employed to definitively establish such a statement?

Matt_efc

When [Taoism] was conceived of there was no “working class” and, while there might have been a state, it certainly didn’t interfere as much in the daily lives of the people as it began to with the development of industrial capitalism.

Agreed, however, in my book, that makes Taoist philosophy more pertinent now than it was back then....

Nyarlathotep said:

Wrong, plenty of Buddhists use violence to achieve political goals. Ask a Tamil.

Tamils are predominantly Hindu, from wikipedia:

Today, most Hindus are Tamil and they constitute a majority in Northern Sri Lanka.

That said the Sinhalese are Buddhist and have been perfectly willing to exercise ruthless violence against Tamils, so your point still stands.

bootsy

That said the Sinhalese are Buddhist and have been perfectly willing to exercise ruthless violence against Tamils

Err...that was my point, hence why you should ask a Tamil about Buddhist violence, since they've experienced it first-hand.

I almost find it hard to believe one can become interested in Marx and critiquing capitalism without having questioned their spirituality or whatever. In other words, the radical community probably doesn't have to worry about organized religion proponents, but rather people who have contrived some nice story for themselves for why certain things happen or what might happen after they die. But, even still, I'm doubtful someone could have a material view of social relations but still find themselves content with making up stories/borrowing from various ideas about what might happen, etc. How seriously could it be taken when you've acknowledged that religion is appropriated throughout history, etc.?

Nyarlathotep

bootsy

That said the Sinhalese are Buddhist and have been perfectly willing to exercise ruthless violence against Tamils

Err...that was my point, hence why you should ask a Tamil about Buddhist violence, since they've experienced it first-hand.

Oh right, I thought you meant Tamils were Buddhist and are willing to exercise violence during the civil war. Nevermind.

Japanese ninjas (Iga clan etc.) were also buddhist, as would plenty of protagonists during the warring states period have been.

Farran

Being an anarchist myself I have begun to notice than many anarchist groups take an anti-religious stance. Surely Anarchism would suggest that someone is free to do what they will? I am personaly an Atheist but know many religious people who think along the same anarchist lines as I?

Answers would be much appreciated!

No I don;t think anarchism should take an anti-religious stance. For example i'm in solfed, and we have no problem with religious individuals being in our organisation, however, we don't allow members of religious hierarchies, ie bishops, priests, imams etc
Personally I think this is part of a sensible middle ground, obviously if someone joins a local anarchist group/branch whose christian/muslim etc then thats no problem, if they're a fundie and beleive racist or ultra homophobic shite and go around preaching at people, the you'd probably want to kick them out, just as you would anyone else who just came in with some weird hobby horse to push.
For an example of where anarchism and religion co-existed, i would say its worth looking at the early IWW.

Or Tolstoy.

OK he was an individualist not a class-struggle anarchist, but even so.

There have been all sorts of religious who have influenced Anarchism, the most famous probably being the Anabaptists and the Levellers.

But I think that the AF, for instance, is right that class-struggle anarchism is meaningless if 'magic man can fix it'. But then, I'm a materialist.

:eek:

http://www.angelfire.com/music/djintellect/anarchism.html

Examples of religious anarchists aside:

I pretty much agree with the sentiment expressed above that we don't need to concern ourselves with people's spiritual feelings as long as they are moving our way socially. The fact that neighbours, friends, comrades or whatever have different gods or no god at all should be the last thing that gets in the way of working together towards and in a free society....... the problem is that the intolerance of very many religionists puts a pragmatic atheist such as myself in a rather uncomfortable position...... this becomes even trickier if your idea is that one day, in the not too distant future, one uniform replacement for global capitalism will carry all before it.

Elly

Buddhism: the religion which is okay for leftists to worship.

Exported under the guise of new-age spirtitualism and meditation, its one of the most disgusting religions.

Its traditional Eastern interpretation is just as bad really. Meditation on its own however is perfectly fine. See this random forum quote for some Buddhist thinking on wealth:

some Thai guy reacting to someone's anger about their own poverty

Health wealth and happiness, are all to do with Karma, destiny and all that kind of thing... If YOU have a problem with other people being more fortunate than yourself in any of these realms, you should look inward for the the cause of your resentment. Remember YOU could be one of those rich people you detest so much in the not too distant future, just by changing your perspectives and perceptions. Now would't that be nice? Don't bother arguing with me either, but spend your energy on finding yourself. I feel very sorry for you...

Having said that there are some interesting concepts in Buddhism, just as there are in Christianity.

Some people seem to think that the Protestant work aided capitalism's development, but I think that Hinduism and Buddhism are potentially far more favourable to accumulating wealth than any form of Christianity (besides it was the means of production not any ideological factors that led to the birth of capitalism).

888

Some people seem to think that the Protestant work aided capitalism's development, but I think that Hinduism and Buddhism are potentially far more favourable to accumulating wealth than any form of Christianity

Go on.

Well my evidence is very anecdotal and I'm hardly a religious expert. But the whole karma idea can be used to justify some people being much richer than others - they are merely being rewarded for past deeds, just as poor people/lower castes are being punished (in fact I had an argument with a student Hare Krishna many years ago about this). See the quote in my last post. Second, I remember flicking through a friend's book about Osho or some other Indian guru/cult leader. There was a story about the guru giving away one of his fleet of Rolls Royces on a whim to a stranger. The justification/defence of this act included a diatribe against Christianity for being "anti-wealth" or some such, and that's why a 'Westerner' would find this act shocking, and it went on about how the mystical East isn't against material wealth unlike the bad Christians.

I've never read The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism but I heard someone give an outline of its argument on some documentary, and I thought to myself "if capitalism had emerged in Asia instead they would have explained it using Hinduism/Buddhism's ideas as compared to anti-wealth Christianity/Islam"

But the whole karma idea can be used to justify some people being much richer than others - they are merely being rewarded for past deeds

That really isn't practically different from christianity and that. As a religion (depending on your denomination) it too can just justify contemporary inequality or at least an unequal distribution of wealth. Whilst the catholic church has 'social justice' as its official program, there are some christians (particularly amongst evangelical sects) that argue plainly that wordly riches are gods reward for a pious life. That wealth is in fact a sign of a 'good person', someone who has 'obviously' worked hard, and so been rewarded by god. That's not normative christianity but it exists and is tolerated.

Despite that is highly controversial from a christian theological context (as in, easily refutable with biblical reference), but that is religion really - a contradictory mess that changes it spots depending on the audience - it doesn't confirm to it's own rules or teaching, and is in practice essentially a tool at the disposal of one or another vested interest (of power). I would argue the same is true for all religions, as all are predicated on a reverence for vague and archaic prose, that can only be meekly interpreted by us smelly humans.
Basically, this assumption that humans are not smart enough to really 'get it' - in cosmic terms, god and all that out there is beyond us, above us. Therefore, if we take that message on board (along with the other stuff like respect for father/family/obedience to authority), we should be happy to let gods reps on earth interpret 'his' words for us.

The result of which is a myriad of 'christian' perspectives justifying everything from racial genocide to sweat-shop labour.

But isn't one of the main tenets of buddhism, to eschew material wealth and the valuing of it? And besides, the Dalai Lama came out as a marxist :lol:

There have been some interesting contributions on this thread, particularly from Matt and Vlad about Taoism and Buddhism. I think that it's always important to look at these traditions historically and to recognise that it's perfectly possible for a religious or philosophical tradition to have represented real advances in previous forms of society and past historical epochs and to have now reached a complete historical dead end.
Elly's reference to Lenin is perfectly valid - the essential thing when dealing with the prevalance of religious ideology in the working class today is not to focus on abstract ideas but on the real role of religious institutions and ideologies in the current class struggle. But it's a pity she seems to reject 'dialectics' because that might have led her to Hegel's notion that what was rational in one era becomes irrational in another....

PS
In Marx's view there are specific reasons why capitalism didn't emerge in India or China, and they lie in the particular nature of what he called the Asiatic mode of production in which commodity relations never succeeded in breaking down the village communities which were at the base of this social formation.
By the same token, it can be argued that the social limitations of the Asiatic mode of production placed certain limits on the development of a certain kind of scientific and historical thinking that was essential to the bourgeois world view. This does not mean that there were no important developments in the eastern philosophical traditions, on the contrary: on many levels, for example in their investigations into the psyche, or their understanding of the real scale and age of the cosmos, they reached some very advanced conclusions.

Whilst we are considering religion in its widest sense we should probably also have a good hard look at cults and cult-like organisations. I do think that anarchists should be critical thinkers at all times, should challenge dogma and received wisdom as a matter of course, and should re-examine the foundations of their own positions - especially in light of our failure up to now to turn the world upside down.

Some of the most cult-like behaviour I have ever come across was in evidence in the SWP for example; I have heard and read accounts of many leftist groups behaving like cults. For anarchists it is vital I think to avoid any of the pitfalls of this kind of religious thinking or behaviour.

Maybe you should read this

Maybe everyone should read it........ I don't suppose it will come as much of a surprise to anyone here, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Vlad336

btw, this thread
Choccy

http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/religion-usa-26062008

is GOLD, JERRY. GOLD. I miss Bob.

i can ask him to come back, if you like?

to worship the Invisible Pink Unicorn should be ok, or? ;)

888

Well my evidence is very anecdotal and I'm hardly a religious expert. But the whole karma idea can be used to justify some people being much richer than others - they are merely being rewarded for past deeds, just as poor people/lower castes are being punished (in fact I had an argument with a student Hare Krishna many years ago about this). See the quote in my last post. Second, I remember flicking through a friend's book about Osho or some other Indian guru/cult leader. There was a story about the guru giving away one of his fleet of Rolls Royces on a whim to a stranger. The justification/defence of this act included a diatribe against Christianity for being "anti-wealth" or some such, and that's why a 'Westerner' would find this act shocking, and it went on about how the mystical East isn't against material wealth unlike the bad Christians.

I've never read The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism but I heard someone give an outline of its argument on some documentary, and I thought to myself "if capitalism had emerged in Asia instead they would have explained it using Hinduism/Buddhism's ideas as compared to anti-wealth Christianity/Islam"

Those are interesting examples, except I think Protestantism is in a sense more "bourgeois" than Buddhism or Hinduism, because the former was actually born out of a quintessentially bourgeois struggle for national determination and the incorporation of the church into the national economy, whereas the latter, especially the collection of varied beliefs that is termed Hinduism, date back to almost the dawn of civilisation.
Karma is of course a popular folk belief that is deeply rooted in a lot of Asian traditions, and has its own existence, almost in opposition with the more philosophical conceptions of it in the Buddhist sutras (for example in the text I mentioned above, Nagarjuna's "Middle Way," karma becomes an entirely abstract and irrelevant concept). So you could say that karma and similar beliefs in reincarnation and so forth, have a life of their own, outside of the scriptures. Obviously "conversion" is rarely an act of enthusiastic belief, and even in Europe where Christian fanaticism has a long and rich history, pagan elements survive to this day. Even more so in Asia, where the fluidity of religion (which is not to say of course that there is no bigotry, religious violence etc.) is an observable reality (one can be a Confucianist, a Buddhist and a Daoist at the same time with no theological quandaries).
Ultimately I think it's that "cult of man in the abstract" (as Marx put it) that makes Protestantism especially (though not uniquely) successful at justifying capitalism. Ultimately however, just as Protestantism grew out of the excessively paternalistic and "superstitious" Catholicism, new forms can grow out of Buddhism and Hinduism to adapt to the new economic reality. I don't know how much this has been the case in recent times; it would be be interesting to see what religious beliefs Japanese/Chinese/Indian etc. businessmen subscribe to

Alf

In Marx's view there are specific reasons why capitalism didn't emerge in India or China, and they lie in the particular nature of what he called the Asiatic mode of production in which commodity relations never succeeded in breaking down the village communities which were at the base of this social formation.
By the same token, it can be argued that the social limitations of the Asiatic mode of production placed certain limits on the development of a certain kind of scientific and historical thinking that was essential to the bourgeois world view. This does not mean that there were no important developments in the eastern philosophical traditions, on the contrary: on many levels, for example in their investigations into the psyche, or their understanding of the real scale and age of the cosmos, they reached some very advanced conclusions.

Except capitalism DID emerge in China, and Marx was not very aware of Asian history when he made these comments, understandable given the supremely eurocentric and imperialist age that he lived in. The problem with Chinese proto-capitalism was, as many historians have shown, a double-headed one: First there is the "ideological problem," as pointed out by Weber et al., meaning that Confucianism, as the official ideology of the Chinese state apparatus, is not very conducive to the kind of "bourgeois internationalism" you see emerging in Europe thanks to Protestantism. This I would argue is the less important and somewhat exaggerated explanation for why Chinese capital never really took off. The more important issue is that in China industrial technology, although at least as advanced as that of England in the 18th century, did not lead to a full-scaled industrialization process as non-industrial technology remained efficient enough to satisfy the needs of the balanced Chinese national economy. European empires however, esp. Britain, were expanding, and continued to, all throughout the eighteenth century and onwards. The raw materials of the New World played a crucial part in European industrialization, and pretty much sealed the deal on the Chinese equivalent. That does not mean however that Chinese industrialism was a feeble thing that died in its infancy:

According to Andre Gunder Frank, "Particularly significant is the comparison of Asia's 66 percent share of world population, confirmed above all by estimates for 1750, with its 80 percent share of production in the world at the same time. So, two thirds of the world's people in Asia produced four-fifths of total world output, while one-fifth of world population in Europe produced only a part of the remaining one-fifth share of world production, to which Europeans and Americans also contributed."[28] China was clearly Asia's most advanced economy at the time and was in the middle of its 18th century boom brought on by a long period of stability under the Qing Dynasty. [wikipedia article on Industrial Revolution in China]

Ultimately, what I'm trying to say is that the specific reasons why capitalism didn't really take off in China have to do with much, much more than just the failure of commodity exchange to break up the village communities (which is simply not true if we compare the highly urbanized and industrialized areas in China with those in England at a time of intense industrialization; obviously China is vastly greater than any European country and most of it remained rural throughout the centuries).
To what extent was religion and philosophy to blame for the failure of Chinese capital? Like I've said, I think they played a role (esp. because of the importance of the ultra-paternalist Confucianist paradigm, which was IMO comparatively more powerful and influential than Catholicism in Europe at the time of the industrial revolution) but not the decisive one. The decisive one was played by geography, access to resources and historical circumstance.

But leaving all of this aside, I'd be interested to know what people think of the possibility that religion could actually disappear given a different mode of production in which "the practical relations of everyday life between man and man, and man and nature, generally present themselves to him in a transparent and rational form." [Marx, Capital Vol. 1, Penguin ed, 173]. Is Marx right to think that an economy based on "production by freely associated men" would lead to a disappearance of religious "fetishism"? I for one doubt this. I think organized religion as we know it today would become an irrelevance in this society, but "fetishism" will continue to exist as long as human beings believe that everything that happens to them personally is very, very important.

Jenre

i can ask him to come back, if you like?

Sure. I genuinely thought Bob was a nice guy, regardless of his "missayings" concerning religion and homosexuality.

Vlad - my perception based on limited knowledge is that capitalism in China was very largely brought in by the smashing of the Chinese Wall by the western powers - and that the advances made in industrial production still took place under the old mode of production. Also, that if capitalism in the orient had any independent development (but from the beginning heavily supported by the state) it was in Japan; and that it is no accident that Japan was a feudal society, unlike China. But I am certainly open to discussion on this.

Is Marx right to think that an economy based on "production by freely associated men" would lead to a disappearance of religious "fetishism"? I for one doubt this. I think organized religion as we know it today would become an irrelevance in this society, but "fetishism" will continue to exist as long as human beings believe that everything that happens to them personally is very, very important.

I take fetishism to be another term for alienation. Will man ever entirely transcend alienation? We can only talk about movement in a certain direction. Religion, it could be said, comes in at any point that the movement is declared to have reached its absolute, final point.

When you say that we will still have fetishism as long as human beings have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, are you talking about the individual, or the species?

BigLittleJ

Farran

Being an anarchist myself I have begun to notice than many anarchist groups take an anti-religious stance. Surely Anarchism would suggest that someone is free to do what they will? I am personaly an Atheist but know many religious people who think along the same anarchist lines as I?

Answers would be much appreciated!

This is a question that gets asked quite a lot on this site, especially with reference to the A&Ps of the Anarchist Federation, which are explicitly anti-theist.

The reason that our organisation adopted this position (as I understand it) has to do with the way we understand class and workers' struggle. We have a materialist view of the world: we see society as based on concrete, material things and relations. Therefore, the only way to change it is through concrete struggles - strikes, occupations, sabotage, and so on.

I think this notion is diametrically opposed to what I'd call an 'idealist' world-view - in which the things that underlie society and the rest of the world aren't material things but ideas like God, spirituality, Tao, karma or what have you. According to this notion, the best way to change the world is through prayer, or meditation, or crystal healing or whatever your personal superstition happens to be. Direct action, in this view, takes a back seat.

Of course, we don't want to police peoples thoughts or anything like that - rather, we seek to change peoples ideas by engaging with them, and through struggle.

Does that answer your question?

The anti religion aspect of some anarchist trends bothers me. Like the OP I'm not of a religious disposition (although I have Quaker roots) but it does seem to me that such a strong anti religious position might be less than helpful.

I disagree that religion tends to drive people towards spiritual actions such as prayer rather than hands on practical solutions. I could point you to many practical actions taken by Quakers, for example (and from a biblical position, Jesus himself taught action through action.)

Having religious faith, misguided though we might consider it, does not necessarily stand in the way of being anarchist. Power structures and authoritarian ideas within formalised religion are certainly to be opposed though, just as they are in any realm.

To my mind, making anarchism specifically anti religion must act as a barrier for many people. Is it necessary for this barrier to be erected?

I can kind of understand the argument about wanting to promote a materialist worldview, but some with religious beliefs hold views that in practice amount to a materialist worldview, or at least their actions, and the actions they promote are in no way changed by their religious beliefs. I think there's even a case to be made that increasingly, in UK at least, this kind of religious belief is prevalent (i.e. one where the belief does not make any concrete difference to people's lives or actions).
This is ridiculous caricature:

According to this notion, the best way to change the world is through prayer, or meditation, or crystal healing or whatever your personal superstition happens to be. Direct action, in this view, takes a back seat.

Overall I'm undecided.

This thread has gotten away from me a bit; I'd like to address some of Vlad's points from the start but I don't have time right now, so I'll just answer the two most recent posts quickly-

I disagree that religion tends to drive people towards spiritual actions such as prayer rather than hands on practical solutions. I could point you to many practical actions taken by Quakers, for example (and from a biblical position, Jesus himself taught action through action.)

Of course religious people do do lots of things other than pray/meditate/etc. But that doesn't alter the fact that - according to their worldview - reality always matters less than spirituality. Taking Jesus, for example:

'Do not worry then, saying, "What will we eat?" or "What will we drink?" or "What will we wear for clothing?" For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. '

...so I think that at least from the Sermon on the Mount, his teachings are a pretty good example of what I'm talking about, telling people to ignore or put off material wants in favour of seeking God and getting into heaven. (Which makes sense, if you think you can live forever in the afterlife in total peace and happiness; but is completely opposed to class struggle. Why should you bother asking for more wages if you'll get "pie in the sky when you die", in the words of the old Wobbly song?)

What examples of Jesus "teaching action through action" did you have in mind?

To my mind, making anarchism specifically anti religion must act as a barrier for many people. Is it necessary for this barrier to be erected?

Well, I think it makes sense for an organisation to exclude people whose ideas aren't compatible with its politics. Of course, no one's going to stop you being a religious anarchist if they want to.

This is ridiculous caricature:

According to this notion, the best way to change the world is through prayer, or meditation, or crystal healing or whatever your personal superstition happens to be. Direct action, in this view, takes a back seat.

Overall I'm undecided.

Well of course any explanation that attempts to tackle the problem of religion as a whole in brief and without going into specifics is going to be a bit simplistic- but I think there are real world examples of what I'm talking about, so it's not totally ridiculous. Whether it's turning to faith healing, risking AIDS by not using a condom, or taking part in a holy war; people put religious ideas before their own concrete needs and this causes real problems.

BigLittleJ

I disagree that religion tends to drive people towards spiritual actions such as prayer rather than hands on practical solutions. I could point you to many practical actions taken by Quakers, for example (and from a biblical position, Jesus himself taught action through action.)

Of course religious people do do lots of things other than pray/meditate/etc. But that doesn't alter the fact that - according to their worldview - reality always matters less than spirituality. Taking Jesus, for example:

'Do not worry then, saying, "What will we eat?" or "What will we drink?" or "What will we wear for clothing?" For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. '

...so I think that at least from the Sermon on the Mount, his teachings are a pretty good example of what I'm talking about, telling people to ignore or put off material wants in favour of seeking God and getting into heaven.

I don't especially want to end up in a theological debate with you as I'll end up defending something I don't believe in, but I think for the quote above you need context. The message was not that these things were not entirely needy but was a matter of putting faith in God. Put it alongside the feeding of the 5,000, or the miraculous catch of fish etc, his care for the poor or the actions of the early church in ensuring that food was distributed to all.

What examples of Jesus "teaching action through action" did you have in mind?

When I wrote that I was thinking of his actions which defied religious authority, breaking the rules of the sabbath, spending time with the outcasts, stopping the woman being stoned etc.

BigLittleJ

To my mind, making anarchism specifically anti religion must act as a barrier for many people. Is it necessary for this barrier to be erected?

Well, I think it makes sense for an organisation to exclude people whose ideas aren't compatible with its politics. Of course, no one's going to stop you being a religious anarchist if they want to.

Yes, it makes sense to exclude people whose ideas are incompatible with it's politics. But if you admit that you can be a religious anarchist, then the views are not incompatible.

If a person shares a political view that an anarchistic communist society is most just and should be striven for, why should it be a barrier that they hold that view alongside some religious notions rather than being humanist or whatever?

Because the Anarchist Federation (if it's still AF we're talking about?) is an organisation that has a collective view on what religion is, and a collective view on what anarchism is, and holds that they aren't compatible. They don't claim that they hold the only possible version of those views, as far as I know, and therefore it is entirely possible to be a self-defined religious anarchist, without having views on either religion or anarchism that the AF (or any other Anarchist organisation)would agree with.

If I was in an organisation that advocated pizza but was opposed to stabbing people in the eye, and you thought that the best pizzas were made of stabbed eyeballs, I wouldn't want you in either, even if you did like pizza.

Alf

When you say that we will still have fetishism as long as human beings have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, are you talking about the individual, or the species?

Not exaggerated in a moralist sense of "too much ego"; I mean I do it, you do it, we all do it. And sometimes it is far easier and comforting to explain things in terms of fate, luck, the afterlife and so on. Obviously this sort of vague spiritualism does not require what is usually termed "organized religion," but the point Marx was making after all is that all fetishism would disappear in a a society where our relationship to the means of production, and therefore to nature, is completely transparent and rational.

slothjabber

If I was in an organisation that advocated pizza but was opposed to stabbing people in the eye, and you thought that the best pizzas were made of stabbed eyeballs, I wouldn't want you in either, even if you did like pizza.

wtf?

It's anot-very subtle metaphor. 'An organization' is the AF or any other group, Anarchist communism is pizza, and advocating stabbed eyeballs is believeing in god. I don't think they go, though others might.

It's probably not worth losing sleep over.

no I got what it meant but it's a pretty disturbing way to make a very common-sense point.

Sorry, been awake a long time, I'm a bit fried and probably not at my best. Sorry for disturbing you.

cobbler

I don't especially want to end up in a theological debate with you as I'll end up defending something I don't believe in, but I think for the quote above you need context. The message was not that these things were not entirely needy but was a matter of putting faith in God. Put it alongside the feeding of the 5,000, or the miraculous catch of fish etc,

But here's the thing: he didn't do any of that by actually sitting down and using material, concrete means to meet peoples needs - rather, he worked through miracles, magic, and so on. As you say, the message is that you should put faith in God; not the real world and the means it offers you for solving social problems.

The examples about the early Christian Church (or the modern ones, for that matter) and charity etc. are more complicated - because at that stage you're dealing with religious organisations, not just beliefs. Of course, in some ways that discussion is more interesting and useful than dealing with religious ideas in the abstract; but on the other hand, you have to be quite abstract to address the idea of 'religion' as a whole.

When I wrote that I was thinking of his actions which defied religious authority, breaking the rules of the sabbath, spending time with the outcasts, stopping the woman being stoned etc.

OK, fair enough. But I think you do have to locate the more rebellious aspect of the Jesus myth within the broader scheme of the narrative - yes, Jesus flouts religious authority, but he does so by appealing to a still higher authority in the shape of a newly re-imagined god, and a new religious and social order that is seen as ordained by that god.

Yes, it makes sense to exclude people whose ideas are incompatible with it's politics. But if you admit that you can be a religious anarchist, then the views are not incompatible.

Well, basically because there's more to the AF than just being an anarchist, and one of those things is being a materialist. Our politics flow quite straightforwardly from a materialistic world view, as I tried to explain in my first post to this topic.

Similarly, you can be an anarchist and want to build up trade union power (i.e. like L&S, or the WSM) but that sort of approach is also not compatible with our practice, so we don't let that sort of anarchist join either.

Vlad336

Except capitalism DID emerge in China

I would be interested in reading more about this historical interpretation, if there is any literature on the subject, I would be very grateful if you could give me the academic reach-around of directing me to it.

I haven't really thought about late Chinese civilization as "proto-capitalism" but it makes sense. I definitely think capitalism is a trend towards which every patriarchal civilization aspires.

Nyarlathotep

I would be interested in reading more about this historical interpretation, if there is any literature on the subject, I would be very grateful if you could give me the academic reach-around of directing me to it.

I haven't really thought about late Chinese civilization as "proto-capitalism" but it makes sense. I definitely think capitalism is a trend towards which every patriarchal civilization aspires.

Can't say I have a bibliography on the subject at hand atm, but you might want to check out first the literature around the Weberian "cultural" interpretation (which I mentioned above) - can't think of a specific title right now. As to the "environmental/economic" thesis, check out Mark Elvin, who has an article called "Why China failed to create an endogenous industrial capitalism." Another title that springs to mind is China's Motor: A Thousand Years of Petty Capitalism by Hill Gates, written from a more explicitly Marxist perspective (which I've only skimmed through so I can't say if it's really worth it or not).

Well of course any explanation that attempts to tackle the problem of religion as a whole in brief and without going into specifics is going to be a bit simplistic- but I think there are real world examples of what I'm talking about, so it's not totally ridiculous. Whether it's turning to faith healing, risking AIDS by not using a condom, or taking part in a holy war; people put religious ideas before their own concrete needs and this causes real problems.

Yes I totally agree with that. It does happen, and is a major problem with many religious beliefs. All I'm saying is that your argument seems to me to only work if you think religious beliefs are intrinsically linked with people seeking spiritual solutions. I don't think they are. For example, the Catholic Worker movement, while very flawed (voluntary poverty, non-violence), they do work to actively change things, advocating people asserting their interests and needs.
Some stuff from their Aims and Means:

private and state capitalism bring about an unjust distribution of wealth, for the profit motive guides decisions. Those in power live off the sweat of others' brows, while those without power are robbed of a just return for their work... Class, race and sex often determine personal worth and position within society, leading to structures that foster oppression. Capitalism further divides society by pitting owners against workers in perpetual conflict over wealth and its control.

In capitalism's place they argue for:

worker ownership and management of small factories, homesteading projects, food, housing... a radically new society where people will rely on the fruits of their own toil and labor; associations of mutuality

God, I probably sound like I'm defending them or something. I'm not at all, and they have a lot of shit politics, and aren't suitable for AF or anything. All I'm trying to demonstrate is that it is perfectly possible for people who hold religious beliefs to try and change things in material terms, I even believe some religious people (unlike Catholic Worker) don't even factor religion into their day-to-day lives much at all anymore. This means that you cannot universalise the idea of religious beliefs intrinsically being linked with spiritual solutions.

As I said before, I am undecided, and obviously am materialist and atheist. I know I'm just representing one side and there are good arguments on the other side too.

But the argument isn't about whether in the end religious people can be helpful. No-one has claimed all religious people are always useless. There are christain socialists and mystical anarchists and lots of other groups and philosophies that blend a belief in the superrnatural with a critique of capitalism.

The argument is about materialism versus idealism, about the tendency to seek solutions outside of reality. One cannot be both an idealist and a materialist at the same time. One cannot believe both that God created Man, and that man created god. The relationship between the two is not 'dialectical'.

The AF is a materialist organisation (here I am defending the organisational integrity of the AF and I'm not even a member). Membership of the AF is incompatible with an idealist world-view. Idealist world-views tend (don't always) to see solutions to material problems lying in the realm of the ideal (sing different songs and God will make you rich and happy). Materialist world views tend to see solutions in the material conditions - make everyone rich and they will be happy and sing different songs, and god can go hang.

Yes I totally agree with that. It does happen, and is a major problem with many religious beliefs. All I'm saying is that your argument seems to me to only work if you think religious beliefs are intrinsically linked with people seeking spiritual solutions. I don't think they are. For example, the Catholic Worker movement, while very flawed (voluntary poverty, non-violence), they do work to actively change things, advocating people asserting their interests and needs.

I don't deny that religious movements can often have radical content. But I really do think there is a link between religion and a spiritual attitude to life's problems. As I've said elsewhere, I don't mean to imply that religious people never seek concrete solutions to their problems, clearly they do. But logically, I think this approach is often at odds with their beliefs.

I mean, don't you think there's a reason why religious groups like the one you mention often do have terrible politics? I really do think there's a connection there - peoples fundamental beliefs really do inform their politics. (of course, so do peoples material conditions - which is why you get groups like the catholic workers which seem like a compromise between the two).

The argument is about materialism versus idealism, about the tendency to seek solutions outside of reality. One cannot be both an idealist and a materialist at the same time. One cannot believe both that God created Man, and that man created god. The relationship between the two is not 'dialectical'.

The AF is a materialist organisation (here I am defending the organisational integrity of the AF and I'm not even a member). Membership of the AF is incompatible with an idealist world-view. Idealist world-views tend (don't always) to see solutions to material problems lying in the realm of the ideal (sing different songs and God will make you rich and happy). Materialist world views tend to see solutions in the material conditions - make everyone rich and they will be happy and sing different songs, and god can go hang.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that some religious people's beliefs do not, in practice, interfere with acting in an entirely materialist manner. You seem to recognise this distinction in your post, and I agree with you that the general tendency is for religious people to seek spiritual solutions. But that's just a tendency, and for anarchism to "have to mean" anti-religion it must be a universal. Equally the AF's policy (and I'm a member, and on balance probably do support this principle, but it's an interesting argument and I'm not sure) is a universal, and so it ought to be based on a universal and necessary link between religious beliefs and a non-materialist worldview.
Also, some have taken even more extreme positions. Don Cupitt, for example, was a priest, yet he argued that God did not exist in actuality, but instead only as part of a form of life (i.e. God is only a cultural and social construct - man made God not the other way round)

But I really do think there is a link between religion and a spiritual attitude to life's problems

Yes, you're right. I shouldn't have said there is no link, I should have said there is no necessary and universal link.

for anarchism to "have to mean" anti-religion it must be a universal. Equally the AF's policy (and I'm a member, and on balance probably do support this principle, but it's an interesting argument and I'm not sure) is a universal, and so it ought to be based on a universal and necessary link between religious beliefs and a non-materialist worldview.

I think there's some confusion here between a materialist worldview (which I would say runs contrary to any religion I've come across) and a materialist approach to problems (which is found amongst idealists and materialists alike). I think the AF's position on the former stems from its connection to the latter. Now, I'll admit that this connection isn't always 100%, but you could make that argument about any set of beliefs at all - which would lead you to say that the AF shouldn't have any set aims and principles at all! (since in reality people often act in ways which contradict their beliefs).

I think there's some confusion here between a materialist worldview (which I would say runs contrary to any religion I've come across) and a materialist approach to problems (which is found amongst idealists and materialists alike). I think the AF's position on the former stems from its connection to the latter. Now, I'll admit that this connection isn't always 100%, but you could make that argument about any set of beliefs at all - which would lead you to say that the AF shouldn't have any set aims and principles at all! (since in reality people often act in ways which contradict their beliefs).

Yes, I think you're probably right.
Don Cupitt's (and others') religion is best characterised as materialist though: "The world of life is not dependent upon, nor derived from, any other realm, not is there any other world after it, or beyond it.". But he is in an extreme minority (and certainly not AF material anyway..). Perhaps a formulation stressing the materialist worldview, rather than rejection of personal religious beliefs would be better. Maybe a discussion for another time.

BigLittleJ

cobbler

I don't especially want to end up in a theological debate with you as I'll end up defending something I don't believe in, but ....,

But here's the thing: he didn't do any of that by actually sitting down and using material, concrete means to meet peoples needs - rather, he worked through miracles, magic, and so on. As you say, the message is that you should put faith in God; not the real world and the means it offers you for solving social problems.

The examples about the early Christian Church (or the modern ones, for that matter) and charity etc. are more complicated - because at that stage you're dealing with religious organisations, not just beliefs. Of course, in some ways that discussion is more interesting and useful than dealing with religious ideas in the abstract; but on the other hand, you have to be quite abstract to address the idea of 'religion' as a whole.

I agree, Jesus wasn't reported to have met people's physical needs directly. He was reported to be concerned that people take physical care of each other and to treat each other well: the rich were told they needed to distribute their wealth, treat people as you wish to be treated etc. It becomes apparent that any confession of faith which is not expressed in the way you live and interact with others is no faith at all.

Still, we're getting hung up on Christianity, and at this point I'll return to my opening statement.

When I wrote that I was thinking of his actions which defied religious authority, breaking the rules of the sabbath, spending time with the outcasts, stopping the woman being stoned etc.

OK, fair enough. But I think you do have to locate the more rebellious aspect of the Jesus myth within the broader scheme of the narrative - yes, Jesus flouts religious authority, but he does so by appealing to a still higher authority in the shape of a newly re-imagined god, and a new religious and social order that is seen as ordained by that god.

This is where we diverge I think. To me, anarchism is something worked out in human relations. It makes no difference to me if someone considers there to be some kind of spiritual aspect behind it all. If that affects they way they relate to me or others in terms of trying to impose, then at that point it becomes an issue. If some pantheist thinks that spirit pervades everything, I really don't care. If a Quaker thinks that 'there is that of God in everyone" and on that basis declares all people equal and strives for a fair and equitable society, then the religious aspects of their beliefs are of no concern to me.

Yes, it makes sense to exclude people whose ideas are incompatible with it's politics. But if you admit that you can be a religious anarchist, then the views are not incompatible.

Well, basically because there's more to the AF than just being an anarchist, and one of those things is being a materialist. Our politics flow quite straightforwardly from a materialistic world view, as I tried to explain in my first post to this topic.

This is an interesting comment (and I do recall your opening post). Reading the A&P of AFED does not reveal this: it doesn't describe itself as such until you get to the anti religion line right at the end. Nothing else appears to make it a necessary line.

It still appears to be an unnecessary barrier. You want people who are willing to engage the struggle in material terms. Fine. You would oppose any authoritarian overtones which so often accompany organised religion, fine. But these go without saying.

Far be it from me to challenge the views of an organisation which have been thought out so, but it is quite relevant to me. I have been on the cusp of joining AFED but this one item does stick out. Not because I'm religious: I most certainly am not, but because it is counter productive to align myself with a statement which unnecessarily excludes.

There are people who I talk to in some depth about anarchist ideas who hold religious views. Two are only a very short step from calling themselves anarchist. To join AFED means to tell them, that although I can't see any way in which their religious views mitigate against anarchist thought or action, they can't be part of the same thing I am unless they reject their religious views.

Similarly, you can be an anarchist and want to build up trade union power (i.e. like L&S, or the WSM) but that sort of approach is also not compatible with our practice, so we don't let that sort of anarchist join either.

LOL. I'm doomed then. I've always been a member of a trade union, and in the absence of any cohesion where I work am actively building it, even though I don't think the ultimate answer lies there.

Perhaps a formulation stressing the materialist worldview, rather than rejection of personal religious beliefs would be better.

I think this would be rather much more to the point, in line with much of what has already been said by others...

Elly

Buddhism: the religion which is okay for leftists to worship.

Exported under the guise of new-age spirtitualism and meditation, its one of the most disgusting religions.

That its bourgois Western version.

In Asia historically and at the present moment it's played an oppositional role against the state depending on circumstances, at other times it's been a bulwark of the state.

For example, in Japan the largest Buddhist sect is Jodo Shinshu. The sect started as an anti-elitist movement against the then-ruling religious establishment. It's founders were persecuted by the government and its practice was taken up by the peasantry. During the Sengoku Era when internecine fighting broke out among the feudal ruling class Shin followers declared their independence from their former overlords and set up a federated republic that lasted for 90 years until it was crushed by Oda Nobunaga.

In the Meiji Era Jodo Shinshu was persecuted again; during the 15 Year's War (1931-1945) it supported the state. In the post WWII era it opposed the state on expansion of the Self-Defense Forces, the various AMPO treaties with the USA, visits by politicians to the Yasukuni shrine and overseas deployment of the SDF to Iraq.

Sweeping generalizations about Buddhism (or any other religion) have to be tested against how the beliefs are embodied at any given historical moment. The belief system of anyone religion encompasses a variety of uneven and seemingly incongruous institutional practices, and I think it does a disservice to single out strand of practice or one particular historical moment to the exclusion of others and declare that one strand or that one moment the defining one, a false metonymy in my view.

Finally, there's this:

Buddhist Anarchism

Buddhism holds that the universe and all creatures in it are intrinsically in a state of complete wisdom, love and compassion; acting in natural response and mutual interdependence. The personal realization of this from-the-beginning state cannot be had for and by one-“self” — because it is not fully realized unless one has given the self up; and away.

In the Buddhist view, that which obstructs the effortless manifestation of this is Ignorance, which projects into fear and needless craving. Historically, Buddhist philosophers have failed to analyze out the degree to which ignorance and suffering are caused or encouraged by social factors, considering fear-and-desire to be given facts of the human condition. Consequently the major concern of Buddhist philosophy is epistemology and “psychology” with no attention paid to historical or sociological problems. Although Mahayana Buddhism has a grand vision of universal salvation, the actual achievement of Buddhism has been the development of practical systems of meditation toward the end of liberating a few dedicated individuals from psychological hangups and cultural conditionings. Institutional Buddhism has been conspicuously ready to accept or ignore the inequalities and tyrannies of whatever political system it found itself under. This can be death to Buddhism, because it is death to any meaningful function of compassion. Wisdom without compassion feels no pain.

No one today can afford to be innocent, or indulge himself in ignorance of the nature of contemporary governments, politics and social orders. The national polities of the modern world maintain their existence by deliberately fostered craving and fear: monstrous protection rackets. The “free world” has become economically dependent on a fantastic system of stimulation of greed which cannot be fulfilled, sexual desire which cannot be satiated and hatred which has no outlet except against oneself, the persons one is supposed to love, or the revolutionary aspirations of pitiful, poverty-stricken marginal societies like Cuba or Vietnam. The conditions of the Cold War have turned all modern societies — Communist included — into vicious distorters of man’s true potential. They create populations of “preta” — hungry ghosts, with giant appetites and throats no bigger than needles. The soil, the forests and all animal life are being consumed by these cancerous collectivities; the air and water of the planet is being fouled by them.

There is nothing in human nature or the requirements of human social organization which intrinsically requires that a culture be contradictory, repressive and productive of violent and frustrated personalities. Recent findings in anthropology and psychology make this more and more evident. One can prove it for himself by taking a good look at his own nature through meditation. Once a person has this much faith and insight, he must be led to a deep concern with the need for radical social change through a variety of hopefully non-violent means.

The joyous and voluntary poverty of Buddhism becomes a positive force. The traditional harmlessness and refusal to take life in any form has nation-shaking implications. The practice of meditation, for which one needs only “the ground beneath one’s feet,” wipes out mountains of junk being pumped into the mind by the mass media and supermarket universities. The belief in a serene and generous fulfillment of natural loving desires destroys ideologies which blind, maim and repress — and points the way to a kind of community which would amaze “moralists” and transform armies of men who are fighters because they cannot be lovers.

Avatamsaka (Kegon) Buddhist philosophy sees the world as a vast interrelated network in which all objects and creatures are necessary and illuminated. From one standpoint, governments, wars, or all that we consider “evil” are uncompromisingly contained in this totalistic realm. The hawk, the swoop and the hare are one. From the “human” standpoint we cannot live in those terms unless all beings see with the same enlightened eye. The Bodhisattva lives by the sufferer’s standard, and he must be effective in aiding those who suffer.

The mercy of the West has been social revolution; the mercy of the East has been individual insight into the basic self/void. We need both. They are both contained in the traditional three aspects of the Dharma path: wisdom (prajna), meditation (dhyana), and morality (sila). Wisdom is intuitive knowledge of the mind of love and clarity that lies beneath one’s ego-driven anxieties and aggressions. Meditation is going into the mind to see this for yourself — over and over again, until it becomes the mind you live in. Morality is bringing it back out in the way you live, through personal example and responsible action, ultimately toward the true community (sangha) of “all beings.”

This last aspect means, for me, supporting any cultural and economic revolution that moves clearly toward a free, international, classless world. It means using such means as civil disobedience, outspoken criticism, protest, pacifism, voluntary poverty and even gentle violence if it comes to a matter of restraining some impetuous redneck. It means affirming the widest possible spectrum of non-harmful individual behavior — defending the right of individuals to smoke hemp, eat peyote, be polygynous, polyandrous or homosexual. Worlds of behavior and custom long banned by the Judaeo-Capitalist-Christian-Marxist West. It means respecting intelligence and learning, but not as greed or means to personal power. Working on one’s own responsibility, but willing to work with a group. “Forming the new society within the shell of the old” — the IWW slogan of fifty years ago.

The traditional cultures are in any case doomed, and rather than cling to their good aspects hopelessly it should be remembered that whatever is or ever was in any other culture can be reconstructed from the unconscious, through meditation. In fact, it is my own view that the coming revolution will close the circle and link us in many ways with the most creative aspects of our archaic past. If we are lucky we may eventually arrive at a totally integrated world culture with matrilineal descent, free-form marriage, natural-credit communist economy, less industry, far less population and lots more national parks.

GARY SNYDER
1961

It still appears to be an unnecessary barrier. You want people who are willing to engage the struggle in material terms. Fine. You would oppose any authoritarian overtones which so often accompany organised religion, fine. But these go without saying.

Unfortunately they don't seem to - which was part of the reason why we added no. 10 to the As & Ps in the first place.

But I think you're missing my point here: joining the AF doesn't just mean being a materialist, it means promoting a materialist understanding of the world over any sort of spiritual or religious one. If you don't think it's worthwhile to do that, then fine, but we do, and I've tried to explain why - because, as you've said yourself, peoples fundamental beliefs really do effect the way they act and think. To go back to a point I made earlier, it's not just coincidental that religion, organised or otherwise, is often associated with reactionary political views - or that a great many revolutionaries have been anti-religious.

I have been on the cusp of joining AFED but this one item does stick out. Not because I'm religious: I most certainly am not, but because it is counter productive to align myself with a statement which unnecessarily excludes.

It puts off a lot of people, which tbh is part of the reason it was added to begin with (iirc - I wasn't a member at the time). We found ourselves dealing with a lot of applications from people who clearly didn't belong in the AF, and this seemed the most obvious way of deterring these.

There are people who I talk to in some depth about anarchist ideas who hold religious views. Two are only a very short step from calling themselves anarchist. To join AFED means to tell them, that although I can't see any way in which their religious views mitigate against anarchist thought or action, they can't be part of the same thing I am unless they reject their religious views.

As I said, if you can't see any point in opposing religious ideas, the AF definitely isn't for you - it's part of how we see our politics. You definitely shouldn't join if you don't feel comfortable with our core principles.

LOL. I'm doomed then. I've always been a member of a trade union, and in the absence of any cohesion where I work am actively building it, even though I don't think the ultimate answer lies there.

I'm sure the same holds true for many AF members. But there's a difference from being a member of a trade union for practical reasons and believing in building up trade unions in general. If you're doing the former, then that wouldn't be a problem as far as we're concerned. If the latter, then yeah, we're not for you - see point 7 of our aims and principles.

Right, finally got around to looking over this thread:

Vlad336

their world view is not just a matter of them having the wrong beliefs.

Err, hang on, isn't a world view a belief?

Homophobia for example is not a necessary condition for a religious denomination. As you pointed out religion in the times of Epicurus was a wholly different affair; homosexuality was not frowned upon back then as it is today in Christianity. Is this simply a mysterious change in beliefs, or a transformation, social, cultural and economic (in other words a transformation in the material conditions of the age)? The latter obviously.

I don't think there's any contradiction between this statement and what I've said above (and below) about opposing religious and spiritual beliefs. Of course ideas are always produced by the material and social conditions of the day. We'd be very poor materialists if we failed to spot that! But even so, ideas themselves do carry weight and are worth engaging with, or opposing, both individually and as part of an overall belief system that is equally a product of the times.

What I'm getting at is religion should not, in the words of Lenin as quoted by Marsella, be understood as an "intellectual problem," divorced from the reality, and history, of class society. Racism or any other type of bigotry is not a priori a necessary consequence of religion, but in a society that is shaped by hundreds of years of colonialism, patriarchy, and so forth, these prejudices will obviously be quite prominent in any religious institution just as they are in all institutions, including secular ones. Religion is not special just because of the centrality of metaphysical beliefs. Its bigotry has the same causes as that of society in general, and isn't just the product of believing the wrong thing.

I agree totally.

Historical materialism in this sense is simply the pointing out of this reality, not a competing philosophy to be pitted against those of Christ, Buddha and Mohammed.

I agree that we aren't competing with religious ideas on their own terms - as philosophers and celebrity atheists are wont to do. But I nevertheless think that there's contradiction between religious or spiritual beliefs of any stripe and materialism. Indeed, this contradiction, to me, seems patently obvious.

Of course, I'm speaking here of religion in its contemporary sense. It's difficult to talk about religion a thousand or two thousand years ago in the same breath, for obvious reasons. (Apart from anything else, in many ancient societies the idea of religion as distinct from philosophy, poetry, science etc. was hazy to nonexistent.)

BigLittleJ

As I said, if you can't see any point in opposing religious ideas, the AF definitely isn't for you - it's part of how we see our politics. You definitely shouldn't join if you don't feel comfortable with our core principles.

As it happens, your reply is well timed. I've been mulling this over since posting and have back peddaled in my mind a bit.

If you knew how many conversations I have opposing religious views, you'd be amazed I even raised the question in the first place. That's what comes of thinking out loud :-/

Actually, that really is what comes of thinking out loud in a place like this: You get challenged, you correct errors and move on.

Cheers.

(I'm going to follow up the union response, but it doesn't really fit on this thread.)

BigLittleJ

joining the AF doesn't just mean being a materialist, it means promoting a materialist understanding of the world over any sort of spiritual or religious one.

In other words: You must agree with the party line's specific (and gruesomely bigoted and distorted) interpretation of historical materialism or else you are thinking for yourself and therefore not a loyal proletariat.

This sort of "anarchism" is as phony as a $3 bill.

Nyarlathotep

BigLittleJ

joining the AF doesn't just mean being a materialist, it means promoting a materialist understanding of the world over any sort of spiritual or religious one.

In other words: You must agree with the party line's specific (and gruesomely bigoted and distorted) interpretation of historical materialism or else you are thinking for yourself and therefore not a loyal proletariat.

This sort of "anarchism" is as phony as a $3 bill.

Eh, to join the AF you have to be in agreement with our aims and principles. If that's a "party line" then fine, don't care what you call it really. I also don't see how agreeing with others is mutually exclusive with thinking for yourself.

And I'm not sure why it's a gruesome distortion of historical materialism to be, erm, a materialist.

BigLittleJ

Eh, to join the AF you have to be in agreement with our aims and principles. If that's a "party line" then fine, don't care what you call it really. I also don't see how agreeing with others is mutually exclusive with thinking for yourself.

The sole purpose is to limit the diversity of libertarian perspectives (and thus decreasing the rigor of the party's intellectual quality) and isolate your party from the broader class....what else does it accomplish?

The sole purpose is to limit the diversity of libertarian perspectives (and thus decreasing the rigor of the party's intellectual quality) and isolate your party from the broader class

By the same logic, perhaps AF should let in free market libertarians, Leninists and social democrats to increase the diversity of perspectives within the organisation? Granted, you do qualify it with libertarian. But the AF is an class struggle anarchist communist organisation - not a loosely defined libertarian one - and so one of its perspectives is materialism.

....what else does it accomplish?

It allows the AF "party line" as you call it to be presented. That is a materialist one. Which is actually probably less isolating than the fact the "party line" of AF is for class struggle and against capitalism and the state.

since there is no real litmust test for "believing in materialism" why bother making this a rule at all? I can just say that I'm a materialist, but really I pray to baby Jesus all the time and think anarchism is what the LORD talked about in the Sermon on the Mount.
Also, what if I'm really committed to the AF, doing lots of leafletting, attending all discussions and making constructive and useful suggestions, marching ( ;) ), etc. but then one day another member spots me walking out of a church? Would I be kicked out?

BLJ

We'd be very poor materialists if we failed to spot that! But even so, ideas themselves do carry weight and are worth engaging with, or opposing, both individually and as part of an overall belief system that is equally a product of the times.

An anarchist org., in my view, should put the emphasis on practice, commitment (to advancing the struggle), honesty, and responsibility. These are the things that matter. Sure if a member falls grossly short of that, and goes about making racist, homophobic, sectarian or so forth remarks (or worse), take action by all means. But you cannot preempt that kind of behavior by barring religious people from joining, because that kind of behavior is not the product of religious belief, it is the product of material processes that are at play in every part of society not just religious institutions.

But I nevertheless think that there's contradiction between religious or spiritual beliefs of any stripe and materialism. Indeed, this contradiction, to me, seems patently obvious.

Contradiction is not quite how I'd put it. Materialism means a correct understanding of how religion comes to exist, not its ideological polar opposite. As a materialist I would say "Christianity as a social institution can be explained not as an act of divine will but as the product of specific historical trends and events." I wouldn't say "I hate Christians and they are all reactionary idiots by definition!" That would be akin to saying "this group of people are evil," which would be an obvious instance of religious-type thinking.
We should strive to educate people not ignore their ignorance. So if a Christian comes to you and wants to join, ask him why he wants to be an anarchist first, not whether he's 100% materialist. Just my 2 c. obviously, I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should run their organizations.

To the woman [God] said, I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. -Genesis 3:16

God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. This was because, so say the Christian Right, some homosexuals lived there (See 19:4-5). 19:24-25
Sodom's sin

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: “Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein. 2:217

I think judging from these quotes, religion and anarchism do not go hand in hand. It is illogical for anarchist to praise religion because of these quotes and many more.

for an organization it seems to make more sense to be a-religious rather than anti
a person's 'faith' carriers all sorts of cultural baggage and shouldn't be reduced to a dogmatic interpretation of religious text
western cultural hegemony often places marginalized groups into totally essentializing categories that demand either assimilation or exclusion
someone who grows up in the US as a 'jew' a 'muslim' or a 'hindu' is going to have had a completely different experience than someone (even an anarchist) who was 'raised christian'.
Outright dismissal of these cultural experiences serves only to silence those whom more often than not are owed at the very least an extension of 'affinity' and more than likely an expression of solidarity.

Cultural practice (things that would in this context quite clearly fall under the blanket term 'spirituality') often 'becomes' a form of protest in itself when expressed by indigenous populations. To suggest that people who's very existence necessitates 'protest' are just simply relying on anachronistic mysticism or adhering to new age spirituality serves only to reify the ignored colonial-legacy of most of the western world

Anarchism or a state of anarchy within human relations or full blown communism entails no religion; at least no separation between life and religion.

I haven't followed the whole thread about Buddhism yet, so apologies if I'm repeating. However, I think that, at least under some interpretations, Buddhism is not talking about the sort of "suffering" that political change seeks to alleviate.

A quote from the interesting book "Buddhism as Philosophy" by Mark Siderits, which evaluates Buddhism (broadly) from the perspective of analytic philosophy.

...we need to understand just what is meant here by 'suffering'. ... Buddhists do not mean ordinary pain, such as we feel when we are injured or sick. Instead they mean existential suffering - the frustration, alienation and despair that result from the realization of our own mortality.

...we each want our lives to go well. We want to be happy. And when we want happiness, what we want requires a sense that our lives have meaning, value and purpose. Of course different individuals are made happy by different sorts of things. But when something makes someone happy, that's because they take it to say good things about who they are and where they are going. The difficulty is that once we are forced to acknowledge our own mortality, it becomes difficult to sustain the sense that events can have significance for my life. How can anything contribute to the meaning of my life when in the long run I shall be dead, with the world going merrily on its way without me? Now we all know at some level that some day we will die, yet we still live our lives on the assumption that death can be indefinitely postponed. It is when events show this assumption to be false that existential suffering arises.
(p.19)

You may or may not doubt Buddhism's ability to address this sort of "existential suffering" - it seems like a fairly intractable problem on the face of it. But under this interpretation, the Buddhist approach to "suffering" is not obviously in competition with anarchist attempts to alleviate the suffering caused by the state / capitalism, because these are completely different forms of suffering.

Which is not to deny that Buddhism as an institutionalised religion has sometimes caused all sorts of problems.

at least no separation between life and religion.

Yuck. Sounds a bit like religious fundamentalism when you put it like that!

Last night on the radio, I heard a recording of Bertrand Russell recalling an occasion when he was being detained at her Majesties’ pleasure, and being asked by the warden what was his religion. He answered, “Agnostic”, and was then asked how to spell it. Then the fellow commented, “Well I suppose we all believe in the same God”. Russell said that for several days this caused him great amusement.

Good for him. I long for the day when religion can be regarded as a no more than a historical joke.

Auld-bod

I long for the day when religion can be regarded as a no more than a historical joke.

No disrespect to you Auld Bod, you're genuinely one of my favourite Libcom posters, but I find talk like this quite worrying and rather blindly utopian to be honest.

I think we need to properly think about what we mean when we say 'revolution': will it be some sort of judgment day where good (ie communists) will triumph over evil (eg religion)? Or should we conceive of it as more of a gradual process of socialisation into a freer world? It's an unfairly loaded question, but i suppose you see where I'm going with it. Of course, I totally agree that organised religious institutions will be an obstacle to freedom, but they won't suddenly be erased with a flick of the pen (hoho, Charlie Hebdo), and it seems churlish to dismiss and alienate the experiences of the majority of the global populace who associate with one religion or another. I also think many people use religion as an arena in which to express social and solidaristic urges, whereas many atheists tend to be individualist, snide, racist, sneering cunts on Twitter. ;)

Of course, the irony is that in the above post you could be accused of substituting 'revolution' for theology, using the same paradigms as religion, and I think a great many leftists demonstrate a total lack of imagination in supplanting their religious conditioning onto their sacred texts/sect of choice.

On an aside, I also take umbrage with the ultra-rationalist atheist world view. It seems far more rational to ponder metaphysical questions such as the existence of God and adopt some sort of vague, poetic mysticism than decide - with a total lack of evidence - that there is no God. I mean, yeah, I have taken a few hallucinogenics in my time, and i have had some spiritual experiences of sorts, so maybe that's influencing my approach here, but I look at my atheist friends and they come over as arrogant, bland and rather misanthropic.

There, I'll await the flames and inevitable fucking downvotes from someone who probably considers themself a #skeptic.

I think that theistic religion is just bad science. God was a good hypothesis to begin with, but it's been superseded, so it's time to move on. The arguments against the existence of God are fairly conclusive, and the arguments for God's existence are almost all both logically and empirically flawed. If people continue to believe in God after hearing the arguments against, they just are wilfully ignoring the evidence in front of their eyes, and I'm afraid they lose my respect for that (not that they'd care).

Of course, people should be perfectly free to believe idiotic things if they want to.

Arrogant and misanthropic enough for you? ;)

(For the record, I don't go saying these sort of things to religious people in my day to day life, unless they ask me for my opinion, and even then I'm fairly reluctant to offend nice people who won't listen to me anyway.)

I think my own demise is something that is always something that confounds my atheism. The atheist path is a very difficult one tbh. Surely as a species aware of its own death and need to face it sometime as well experiencing the loss of loved ones means that religion, a supernatural or at least 'not rational' narrative is always going to be hanging around.

Indeed, just see transhumanism. Perhaps the religion with the biggest hard-on for science that exists.

Caiman del Barrio #108

I have no argument with the point of view you express in your post and am rather surprised that you interpreted my comments as you do.

I would regard myself as an agnostic. The day I long for is when the material conditions in the world are improved that people will not be attracted by ‘pie in the sky’. It also appears desirable to me that the need for a supernatural father figure will become superfluous. I mentioned religion becoming a ‘historical joke’ in reference to Russell (who in some respects I admire) as he found the ignorance of a working class person funny. It suggested to me an instance of a liberal aristocrat betraying his class prejudices. With the end of social class perhaps we’ll all get the joke.

Edit
On re-reading your post it occurred to me that I have not been subject to ‘religious conditioning’. My parents were both atheists who never overtly influenced me regarding religion. They thought it was something you had to go through – like puberty. I was allowed to join the predominantly Church of Scotland ‘Life Boys’, because some school friends were doing so. I remember my mother defending a Jewish woman, who lived above us, for hanging out washing on a Sunday by explaining to a neighbour their Sabbath was Saturday.

One of the last things my mum said to me was that if by any chance she was wrong and there was a god she could only say, “Well you should have made it more obvious”.

I consistently have made it plain in my posts that I oppose certainty in my beliefs, everything is provisional.

Auld-bod

The day I long for is when the material conditions in the world are improved that people will not be attracted by ‘pie in the sky’.

Referring back to the idea of "existential suffering", i.e. "the frustration, alienation and despair that result from the realization of our own mortality", I would say that the better material and especially social conditions get, the worse this sort of suffering will get. It's hard to worry about mortality when you're too busy worrying about your bastard of a boss, or paying the bills, or losing your home, or whatever. But when the problems of capitalism are removed, what will distract us from the inevitability of death?

One response to this sort of "existential suffering" is to say "maybe I won't really die after all". Isn't this the major attraction of most religions? (Not Buddhism, incidentally - although many traditional Buddhists do believe in re-incarnation, it's seen as a bad thing, a sign you're still trapped in Saṃsāra).

So I wouldn't take it for granted that a successful anarchist revolution would automatically lead to the end of religion - possibly quite the opposite.

autogestion #113

All the possible futures in a post-revolution society are equally unknowable.

I’m reminded of Bob Dylan:

‘So it may flow and be
To each his own, it's all unknown
If dogs run free.

If dogs run free, then what must be
Must be and that is all’

The unpleasant smears left on our psyches by the opposition of rationalism and religion that is being re-rehearsed in the shrill, twisted utterances of the ‘new-atheism-versus-right-wing-religious-fundamentalism’ canard, evaporate at the merest hint of the actual history of science. The overwhelming balance of probability is against such dreams of our imagination as god, immortality, etc. possessing any reality. Personally I’m absolutely opposed to the agnostic way of shunting religious ideas into the domain of the unknowable - intellectual morality demands of us that in the sphere of reality we shouldn’t cling to vague possibilities but prefer instead the greater probability that there is no "life after death” or divine “world-government", no moral world-order anywhere.

But this shouldn’t be confused with some directive not to create for ourselves in imagination a fairer and more perfect world. For anyone not utterly devoid of human feeling there is a value to myth, as myth, as an ideal or absolute to strive for, or in which to take refuge from the limitations of our senses. If the world is intelligible at all it is also intelligible as a world of poetry, and it is just this which constitutes its value and dignity. Mythopoesis is a valid counterpoise to the pessimism which arises from a one-sided preoccupation with the actual. All poetry, all revelation is of course simply false the moment we test its material content by the standards of exact knowledge. But this experience of an Ideal or Absolute is of value only as an image, a symbol, and these errors or intentional deviations from reality only do harm when they are treated as material knowledge and dragged down to the level of dogma instead of being recognised quite consciously as useful fictions.

The feeling for ‘poetry’ retains its hold on the heart of any functioning human being through all the stages of life. In the poetic attitude the firm ground of reality is consciously abandoned and the same is the case with the creations of religious mysticism. We are dealing with conscious inventions for which a different concept of ‘truth’ is necessary. For those people who, like the ancient poets who were regarded as inspired seers, live a life of such complete spiritual exaltation that for them everyday realities take a secondary place, how else can they describe the vividness, permanency and practical efficacy of their experiences, than with the word ‘truth'? And since language belongs to all people, if we don’t want to follow the ‘new atheists’ we must, for the present, acquiesce in this double meaning of the word, remembering that the second meaning is only figurative, so as not to fall into weird fanatical oppositions to ‘truths’ of religion, whose ideal content possesses so much of value to so many people. From this perspective the idea of purifying religion (the arena of the purely symbolic) of all error is a distorted fantasy indulged in by zealots in both camps, even though it is possible to discover in their rhetoric that their religious conceptions are symbolic.

Although religious imaginary structures created by human brains have constantly altered their forms according to the needs of the times, they all set the character of the Absolute or Ideal alongside the phenomenal world. Metaphysical and religious ideas can be retained in their ethical efficacy without doing violence to facts. There is only one way by which human beings can arrive at permanent peace between religion and natural science. The imperishable nature of all poetry in art, religion and philosophy must be recognized, and a sense of religion as imaginative creation of an ideal openly and unreservedly transported into the realm of fantasy must be maintained, as processes no less indispensable to any human progress than the knowledge acquired through the intellect. The miserable pessimism of so many new atheists and religious fundamentalists is the pessimism of the dogmatist about human potentials. But this pessimism only affects their dogmatic notions, not our ideals. We are free, therefore, to retain this conception of religion as a consciously chosen fiction.

The essence of religion should consist in overcoming all superstition by a conscious elevation of our religious conceptions into a region above reality, and in a final abandonment of the falsification of reality by mythology, which, of course, can never be a means to knowledge. In opposition to crude belief in the crude reality of the religious world of ideas is the principle of consciously reverencing the religious conceptions as myths. So long as the essence of religion was sought in certain doctrines about god, the human soul, the creation and its order, it was inevitable that any criticism which attempted to separate the chaff from the wheat on logical principles must end in complete negation. Everything was sifted till nothing remained. The essence of religion should, on the contrary be sought in the lifting of the ‘spirit’ above reality into the imagined ‘home of the spirit’, i.e. into the unreal. The essence of the whole matter in religion lies not in the logical historical content of particular fictitious doctrines.

lt's a very widespread, fundamental error, to which materialists in particular are liable, to regard such conscious creations as for that reason valueless; whereas it is just in these ideas and ideals that some of the highest values of humanity lie.

The Religion of Technology

Five years ago I would have answered with an unequivical yes. Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age. I'm still an atheist (though I rarely use that as an identification as I used to, due to it's association with Dawkins and his Irish acolytes who are terrible reactionary islamophobes and completely elitist to boot), secularist but I guess it's okay that people believe in some sort of supernatural nonsense as long as it doesn't involve hierarchy, domination of women, sectarianism, racism etc. Like my mother would still call herself a catholic and have some vague belief in the hearafter but would rarely go to mass (mainly the big occasions) and is pro-choice, rejects homophobia, transphobia etc - I wouldn't see the point in trying to talk her out of that little bit of belief. A lot of people here are that way now, it's progress compared to what we had 20/30 years ago. The zealots are dying out, though they wield a lot of power.

This is a very interesting discussion thread. Thanks all for tapping out your ideas.

I think that anarchists of the materialist persuasion need not associate with religionists, but it is not necessary or advisable to condemn them, either.

Yorkie Bar wrote:

Vlad336 wrote:

their world view is not just a matter of them having the wrong beliefs.

Err, hang on, isn't a world view a belief?

I'd buy that one. Apparently this was also Tolstoy's view in religion.

autogestión wrote:

Quote:

at least no separation between life and religion.

Yuck. Sounds a bit like religious fundamentalism when you put it like that!

Well... Considering that some etymologists trace the word 'religion' back to the Latin 're-' and 'ligere', i.e 're' and 'connect', that might not be such a far-fetched idea. Religion is about humans re-establishing the connection with God, that they severed when they nicked His apples - that's the Abrahamic faiths, anyway, I know even less about any others.

On that basis, a Marxist worldview could indeed qualify as religion: Marxism goes on a lot about alienation - of man from his species being, from the product of his labour, from his fellow man etc. (and I include women in this, it's just that I am trying to emulate 19th century language), and communism is meant to overcome this alienation, and to re-connect man - not with
god, but with his true humanity. I remember reading a footnote in one of Marx's books to the effect that he "cannot understand how anybody in this day and age (again, that's the 19th century) could still pray to God, unless of course by God we mean to refer to the sum of all of human consciousness". Can't remember where I read it , though, sorry.

Marxism, like Christianity, Islam and Judaism, clearly has a millenarian outlook, a promise of universal happiness and contentment after a period of very intense struggle and tribulations. Again, years ago, in a pamphlet distributed by the Australian Communist League, I read some US-American activist even refer to the "Socialist Salvation"?!?

And Shlomo Avineri, in his book: "The Social And Political Thought Of Karl Marx", quotes some other writer, who characterised Marx as "the last of the Lutherans" - not unjustified, I think. Luther, after introducing some long overdue anarchist perspectives into the Christian faith, like making the Bible available in commoner's language and preaching the 'priesthood of all believers', thereby challenging the Roman Catholics' hold on eternal as well as temporal power, went on to decry the "thieving and murderous hordes" of peasants during the German Peasant's war - mirrored, I believe, quite nicely by Marx's contempt for the lumpenproletariat.

Regardless of whether one subscribes to the Marxist version and buys into its moralistic outlook, the question can and probably ought to be asked: how far off being a religion is revolutionary materialism, really?

True anarchism is placed in a single individual who's own thoughts and beliefs are uninfluenced by any others. Anti-religion is a religion in itself. When more than one single entity expresses a belief in anything, it forms a religion. It's the religious aspect that makes religion a hypocrisy.
Atheism is a religion. Although Anarchism may have followers in numbers regarding more anti-political and social beliefs, it is the lone anarchist that is kept from expressing thought due to the laws of religion, politics and socialism.
Beurocracy is the hypocrisy of democracy.
Abolish the state.

JayDee #118
‘True anarchism is placed in a single individual who's own thoughts and beliefs are uninfluenced by any others.’

If this is ‘true’ and you felt the need to post the above, this thread must surely be a figment of your imagination.

True anarchism is placed in a single individual who's own thoughts and beliefs are uninfluenced by any others. Anti-religion is a religion in itself. When more than one single entity expresses a belief in anything, it forms a religion. It's the religious aspect that makes religion a hypocrisy.
Atheism is a religion. Although Anarchism may have followers in numbers regarding more anti-political and social beliefs, it is the lone anarchist that is kept from expressing thought due to the laws of religion, politics and socialism.
Beurocracy is the hypocrisy of democracy.
Abolish the state.

No, I am only answering the question at hand.

It is the absence of social hierarchy, with no one imposing their will on another by force or threat of punishment. Anarchy means "without a ruler", or "without government". Government here is meant in the sense of "governing over" and forcing compliance through coercion.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/classes/anarchy/finalprojects/flores/anarchy.html

That's a pretty superficial understanding of anarchism. You may as well have quoted Thatcher: "There is no society".

Like I said, I am anarchist.
I do not follow any religion including political values. The Republican believes that anyone beneath him deserves nothing. The Democrat believes that the less fortunate should atleast be able to walk among your society. The bureaucratic system of Democracy believes in taxing the rich and doing absolutely nothing for the poor. Do you really believe that your tax money goes where your trusted government tells you? The Republican is an angry person because he believes he is supporting the poor, when In fact he is supporting democracy. There can't be a society without life. When there is more than one entity there then forms a colony, when a single entity from that colony expresses a belief, in which people follow, then, in turn, forms a society. Everyone that has belief and faith in that society becomes both religiously and politically involved in pushing the beliefs of that single entity into the minds of others. A hypocrisy.
I am True Anarchist. I stand alone.

JayDee #123
‘I am True Anarchist. I stand alone.’

I thought Anarchy was only True in fairy tales
Meant for someone else but not for me.
Society was out to get me
That's the way it seemed.
Disappointment haunted all my dreams.

Then I read this post, now I'm a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind.

"True anarchism is..." a mishmash of individualism and solipsism, right? But if it's only you standing alone, how can you really know this? Why are you even talking to us? Why not set up your own true anarchist forum with just you on it? And to keep your "true anarchist" principles intact, you'd need to avoid using any handed-down concepts and knowledge, of course... and computer technology and actual computers devised by anyone else other than yourself. Oh, and that includes the Internet.

PS: I am not real... just a little bell tinkling in your mind.

https://youtu.be/sf_1jw1AVsE

https://youtu.be/sf_1jw1AVsE

What's this, the british Louis CK?

JayDee

True anarchism is placed in a single individual who's own thoughts and beliefs are uninfluenced by any others. Anti-religion is a religion in itself. When more than one single entity expresses a belief in anything, it forms a religion. It's the religious aspect that makes religion a hypocrisy.
Atheism is a religion. Although Anarchism may have followers in numbers regarding more anti-political and social beliefs, it is the lone anarchist that is kept from expressing thought due to the laws of religion, politics and socialism.
Beurocracy is the hypocrisy of democracy.
Abolish the state.

Nobody exists in a vacuum, free from any other influences; that's not what anarchism is about. Anarchism is also not apolitical; anything concerning how people should organize themselves is political. Anarchist thought does oppose the state, but it also opposes private property and hierarchical workplace relations (i.e. capitalism). It's recognized we're social animals, educated on how to think and behave by the people around us. We couldn't exist otherwise. That doesn't mean one shouldn't challenge what he or she has been taught. If someone decides they no longer to want to follow a particular faith, then they should be free to do so without fear of the consequences. I do think religion is compatible with anarchism, but that people would lose interest in that way of thinking. I see no problem with anyone believing a flying spaghetti monster created the universe, so long as they allow people to not believe that.

And then there is this as well which tackles the question from a different historical perspective:
http://libcom.org/library/demonology-working-class
Though I struggled to identify any final conclusion!

zugzwang

https://youtu.be/sf_1jw1AVsE

What's this, the british Louis CK?

you what?! No he's the British Simon Amstell! Used to host the best ever music TV show, Popworld, then quit to do comedy
[youtube]_bIC4V_DIrg[/youtube]

"A boss in heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth" Bakunin. Sums it up perfectly for me.

What's the other Bakunin quote?

"If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."

I always liked that one.

That said, as much as I think religion is shit and basically incompatible with anarchism, it's just not something I think anarchists should particularly focus on. I don't really give a shit if someone believes in a man in the sky, I want to build up solidarity and consciousness amongst my co-workers, fellow tenants, etc. Even under capitalism, religious belief drops dramatically in developed, urban environments. If we ever achieve this communism thing, I think religion will quite naturally go out the window.

As for the shit embodied by religion - patriarchy, homophobia, intolerance - I think we battle that shit on it's own terms and give support and solidarity to the people who will have to turn away from religious families on those grounds.

:D

https://youtu.be/WiBzVFkGQ_c

[youtube]WiBzVFkGQ_c[/youtube]

Chilli Sauce

What's the other Bakunin quote?

"If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."

I always liked that one.

That said, as much as I think religion is shit and basically incompatible with anarchism, it's just not something I think anarchists should particularly focus on. I don't really give a shit if someone believes in a man in the sky, I want to build up solidarity and consciousness amongst my co-workers, fellow tenants, etc. Even under capitalism, religious belief drops dramatically in developed, urban environments. If we ever achieve this communism thing, I think religion will quite naturally go out the window.

As for the shit embodied by religion - patriarchy, homophobia, intolerance - I think we battle that shit on it's own terms and give support and solidarity to the people who will have to turn away from religious families on those grounds.

I remember hearing that quote in a kmfdm song, never knew it belonged to Bakunin though.

Steven.

zugzwang

https://youtu.be/sf_1jw1AVsE

What's this, the british Louis CK?

you what?! No he's the British Simon Amstell! Used to host the best ever music TV show, Popworld, then quit to do comedy
[youtube]_bIC4V_DIrg[/youtube]

Sorry never heard of him, probably because I'm from the states. He sounds like a funny guy, though.

Because true anything is from the heart. A reflection of what people see and know to be true. Not false pretenses as told by the people you follow. hierarchy, boss , wife, leader, president. I notice every one in this thread gets there rocks off by judgements and trying to push their religion, totally undermining the question asked. Such a simple task. Nobody has any other choice but to step in line. Not I. So if you all want to sit there and think about what jabs you can take at me and what religion you can push on me, understand this, that is exactly what seperates us. Because you can't lead, you follow. Everybody has to be a part of something. And you couldn't imagine anyone else out there being any different. In spite of what many of you want to believe, I do have a heart.
I will give a hundred percent to anyone in need because I want to, not eighty percent to your government because I'm made to. There are many suckers to society out there and I am not making any judgements, that would be against my beliefs, but you took on that role as soon as you were capable of understanding. It's not your fault, it's how you were raised. God said, "let there be light", and you were all there to witness it. I wasn't there, but you will tell me it happened and then judge me because I choose not to believe it. I know many of you will use your long words and famous quotes to show your intelligence, but let's see if you can use those long words and still be able to follow the topic without judgement.

wtaf are you on about? none of that made sense, the only thing i am sure about from your posts is you've made a bunch of assumptions about anarchism and the people on this thread, which you decided to resurrect for some reason

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8
[youtube]cwBVcsWYJd8[/youtube]

As for Buddhism, I am well aware of the very popular monk Ajahn Brahm stating many times in recent years things such as "don't worry about the 'financial/economic crisis' happening in the world, just be happy. There is nothing we can do about it."
It is ofcourse easy for him to state that living as he does as a popular monk- and not so easy for the rest of us to forget about such things and just 'get on with our lives' as they effect us directly. I suppose it suits his role of being an adviser to leaders of certain countries in the world, he has openly stated this.
Having met people of such a persuasion myself and met others who have known Buddhists and followers of similar 'paths' - I am well aware of the elitist smugness and sanctamoniousness of such people with regard to those of us who enjoy what they consider to be pleasures of the 'lower self' or things they consider 'base'. But they tend from my experience, and the experience of others I know, to be preachy and holier than thou, often to an irritating and arrogant extreme.

As for the different religions and how they treat women, here are some interesting facts-

Christianity: Exodus 4:22-28 When a King sins only the best sacrifice will do - he must offer a male goat to god, but if a commoner sins, a female will do.

Islam: 4:24 Don't marry women that are already married unless they are slaves that you stole in war.

Hinduism- Manusmriti 'Trinsha' 9/93 Males aged 24 and 30 should marry females between the ages of 8 and 12.

Judaism: Talmud Tractate Shabat- a woman is a sack full of excrement.

Buddhism: Nuns have one third more rules to follow than monks in the Vinaya-Pitaka. The failed man becomes a woman in the next life.

Jainism- Digambara- women cannot achieve liberation without being reborn as men first.

Regarding Jainism, I found this info from the Socialism or Your Money Back blog horrifically revealing https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/the-misery-of-religion.html

And here are some examples of a certain Buddhist state and it's oppression:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIT8wgfe7eY
[youtube]zIT8wgfe7eY[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqaMrdgKjo4
[youtube]DqaMrdgKjo4[/youtube]

The situation in Myanmar has since deteriorated into out and out genocide.

JayDee

Because true anything is from the heart. A reflection of what people see and know to be true.

People see and know a lot of things that are not true. Like my neighbours know that there is one true god, like others know that it's just arabs and blacks who don't pay for the metro etc

every one in this thread gets there rocks off by judgements and trying to push their religion,

What religion is that?
Incidentally you said that atheism is a religion, this is ridiculous so you'll have to back it up somehow. It's a typical point used by the religious to shut down criticism of religion (usually its imposition). "But atheism is just like a religion so really we're all the same / you're forcing your beliefs on me"

Because you can't lead, you follow.

You think leading is a good thing?

There are many suckers to society out there and I am not making any judgements, that would be against my beliefs,

You have literally said that after making a judgement

I know many of you will use your long words and famous quotes to show your intelligence, but let's see if you can use those long words and still be able to follow the topic without judgement.

Well you haven't really shown that anyone can't follow the topic. People have disagreed with you and you haven't offered any kind of logical response. Accepting that other people know things is not slavish obedience. I've never been inside a power plant but I use electricity. Using other people's knowledge and discoveries to advance is what humanity should be doing. We should question what has come before and we shouldn't blindly accept things. But thinking that each individual needs to start from scratch is ridiculous. I don't need to write Capital to understand how it works (don't actually need to read it either)

All this individualist "I stand alone" stuff is nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchism is about society, there is evidently going to be personal responsibility, but that is for our actions. For example I have to take personal responsibility for completing the necessary tasks to maintain the group I live in. I can't vote for damming a river because I would like a nice lake if that will destroy wildlife and cause three years of drought for my neighbours etc.

Not false pretenses as told by the people you follow. hierarchy, boss , wife, leader, president.

I've always said anarchism needs to finally tackle, head on, the oppressiveness of wives.

Chilli Sauce

Not false pretenses as told by the people you follow. hierarchy, boss , wife, leader, president.

I've always said anarchism needs to finally tackle, head on, the oppressiveness of wives.

Lol! well spotted chilli. How did I miss that?

Chance would be a fine thing :P

*goes down on one knee in front of Chilli* ...

potrokin

"A boss in heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth" Bakunin. Sums it up perfectly for me.

literally.

LET every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. 2Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.

Rom 13:1

also,

jef costello

Because you can't lead, you follow.

You think leading is a good thing?

How shall the meek ever inherit the earth when all that is left is irrogance?
Whoops, did he just call us all irrogant?
Yea, you should've read what he said about our wives.
This guy's a jerk.
And he thinks leading is a good thing.
Did he really say that?
Well that's what my eyes read and that's how I interpret it so it must be true.

Anarchism is against society you idiot..

That's why most Anarchist stand alone you idiot.

wojtek

Chance would be a fine thing :P

[youtube]v9FGxAt1cKw[/youtube]

Jay, no reputable anarchist organization subscribes to the sort of individualist anarchist you're advocating here. I'd, at the very least, suggest you acquaint yourself with the politics of this site - and, indeed, basically the entirety of the modern anarchist movement:

http://libcom.org/library/libertarian-communism-introduction

If not, I'd expect you'll continue to get the piss taken out of you.

Not just the modern anarchist movement but the historic too. The "anarchism" of which Jay writes does not and never did exist outside the realms of individualist or bourgeois liberal fantasy. The main trend of the anarchist movement, wherever it has ever had any significance, has always been social, class struggle and communist.

Society is nothing but a colony of people playing barrel of monkeys and circle jerks. Bashing anybody that's not playing the game. If you are true to your religion then please, go against it and let those children out of your dungeons you sick freaks. You believe that because Jesus died for your sins that your hypocrisy is justified but yet you condemn you sick freaks. You believe that just because a man commits murder that he deserves the death penalty because your society says so yet you don't even know anything about the man yourself you sick freaks. Judgements based on assumptions I can't call a sin because I am not religious but I can pray to rightiousness that the weight lies in the pain of your death. You deem me stupid because you ask yourself, well how can someone pray and not be religious? I pray that, I don't pray to. I follow no idol.
My belief is in what is right. I noticed in my first post, I had stated that my beliefs are uninfluenced. I was wrong and should be hung in your eyes. Truth is, I have studied all religions including atheism and politics. Most religions follow a specific slogan because it sounds right, the rest of that same religion is all contradictory to its slogan. Now please, again, I already know what I am to you, you say man is entitled to his own thoughts and beliefs but you know as well as I that, that does not go without judgement. Most judgements are based on assumption. He believes this so he must be that. In your eyes, I am merely the name your heart desires to call me. I have yet to recieve a response regarding my thoughts. Me being this and that has nothing to do with the topic. Try understanding the messege without the urge in your Christian heart to attack the messenger.

Thank you Serge. The only real response without judgement.

JayDee. Are you a teenager? Serious question. If you are, people may be bothered to engage with you more. And your views would make more sense. If not... well, sorry to say that you have a juvenile and solipsistic understanding of anarchism.

It is the absence of social hierarchy, with no one imposing their will on another by force or threat of punishment. Anarchy means "without a ruler", or "without government". Government here is meant in the sense of "governing over" and forcing compliance through coercion.

The Nexxus Anarchy Page.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/classes/anarchy/finalprojects/flores/anarchy.html

I only got into the discussion of other topics due to the fact that the only responses I have recieved were, and still are, doing nothing but undermining the thoughts and beliefs of another. The true anarchist does not deny a person's right to do so, but will rebel against the latter.

I am not trying to push my beliefs upon another. I am merely stating my own thoughts and beliefs towards what I believe to be true anarchism.

Khawaga, I am not asking for your thoughts about me. I thought that this threads intent was to answer the questoners thoughts regarding Anarchy and anti-religion. And not towards the person giving their own interpretation to the question asked. Now obviously you should look at the mentality of your own responses and ask yourself, am I wise enough to answer such a question, or am I just gonna bash the person that doesn't respond in the way I feel it should be responded to.

JayDee #160

After that last egocentric whinge, a wee snatch of Burns springs to mind:

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!

Turing test?

I'm sorry guys. I had no idea I had the power to turn this thread into being all about me. Now if you can get back to your focus on the question at hand, I would really like to read only opinions regarding the subject. Thank you.

God as an idea was deeply repulsive to Bakunin and flew in the face of reason and rational thought. He saw the idea of God as a human creation, an absolute abstraction without reality, content and determination. In other words it is absolute nothingness. God and religion are both human fantasies, a distortion of life on earth. The belief in God destroys human solidarity, liberty, co-operation and community. Human love becomes transferred to the nonsense of love for something which does not exist and into religious charity. For Bakunin, God and religion were the enemies of all oppressed classes and indeed their role was to contribute to exploitation and oppression in concert with the ruling class. The acceptance of the idea of God was for Bakunin the denial of humanity, freedom and justice. He argued that if God is truth, justice and infinite life then humanity must be “falsehood, gross injustice and death”.[5] Bakunin further argues that by accepting the existence of God humanity becomes enslaved, and that because humanity is capable of intelligence, justice and freedom, it follows that there is no such thing as God.

Religions for Bakunin are the result of human fantasy in which heaven is a mirage. Once installed, God naturally becomes the master to whom people bow down. Of course, Bakunin recognized that God does not exist and that religion is a human form of organising and controlling the masses. He proposed that whoever takes it upon themselves to become prophet, revealer or priest (God’s representative on earth) becomes the teacher and leader. From that role religious leaders end up “commanding, directing and governing over earthly existence”.[5] So, slaves of God become slaves of the Church and State insofar as the latter is given the blessing of organised religion. The organised religions of the world, particularly Christianity, have always allied themselves with domination and even persecuted religions discipline their followers, laying the ground for a new tyranny. All religions, but again especially Christianity, were in the words of Bakunin “founded on blood”.[5] How many innocent victims have been tortured and murdered in the name of the religion of love and forgiveness? How many clerics, even today, asks Bakunin, support capital punishment?

Bakunin believed that God does not exist, and that this is good enough reason for opposing religion. However he also states that religions must be combated because they create an intellectual slavery which, in alliance with the state, results in political and social slavery. Religions demoralise and corrupt people. They destroy reason and “fill people’s minds with absurdities”.[5] Religion is an ancient form of ideology which, in alliance with the state, can be reduced to a simple statement – ‘We fool you, we rule you.’

Basic Bakunin, the Anarchist Federation.

Other anti-religious anarchist figures/thinkers:

William Godwin, Peter Kropotkin, Pierre Joseph Proudhon "God is evil", Errico Malatesta, Carlo Cafiero (active with the National Secular Society when he visited England), Elisee Reclus, Sebastian Faure (wrote Twelve Proofs of God's Inexistence), Johan Most (wrote an article titled The God Pestilence), Voltairine DeCleyre, Emma Goldman: "Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and society. Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man's enslavement and all the horrors it entails"
.and Li Shizeng who stated at the 1922 Beijing Atheist's League "Religion is intrinsically old and corrupt, history has passed it by. . . why are we of the twentieth century even debating this nonsense from primitive ages?"

Some years ago I was helping support a banner which carried the likeness of Bakunin and a passing comrade suggested that even anarchist have their gods. It is ironic that while ridiculing the notion of an ‘all knowing god’ the name of Bakunin is often evoked as an ‘all seeing eye’. Unfortunately Bakunin could be a bit of a dick. He was flawed, as we all are flawed.

If you wish to undermine the notion of god use reason and tackle specific aspects relevant to today’s believer. Historical attacks simply bypass the subject. Select the ‘best’ theology to deconstruct. By that I mean not some concocted ‘Aunt Sally’. Best to let the dead bury the dead.

Auld-bod

Some years ago I was helping support a banner which carried the likeness of Bakunin and a passing comrade suggested that even anarchist have their gods. It is ironic that while ridiculing the notion of an ‘all knowing god’ the name of Bakunin is often evoked as an ‘all seeing eye’. Unfortunately Bakunin could be a bit of a dick. He was flawed, as we all are flawed.

If you wish to undermine the notion of god use reason and tackle specific aspects relevant to today’s believer. Historical attacks simply bypass the subject. Select the ‘best’ theology to deconstruct. By that I mean not some concocted ‘Aunt Sally’. Best to let the dead bury the dead.

If you are referring to what I just posted, I was just trying to illustrate that all the original anarchist thinkers (including Bakunin, because he seems to have been the one to say the most on the topic of religion) known about were anti-religious, they were all atheists who wanted a secular society and hoped religion would die out.

Potrokin #166

I think history is important, as it supplies us with a context for our beliefs. Your post simply reminded me that we have to select our arguments carefully. The religious people I know ‘disown’ the past. The problem is the ‘need’ some people have to believe. Change will bring about change, as I think our beliefs are mainly shaped by our material existence.

Edit:
Leo Tolstoy was an anarchist and a Christian.

Didn't Proudhon hold some sexist views as well? I don't know; I'm more inclined to take only some of these thinkers' contributions and to disregard the more questionable ones. I don't like this indiscriminate hostility toward anyone holding religious beliefs, however unsound they may be. Not everyone is a religious fanatic, going around screaming at people; some people's religious beliefs take on a more personal nature. There can be intelligent, reasonable people who are still religious; Chris Hedges comes to mind. As long as they're not going around imposing their beliefs on others and they allow others to not share their beliefs, then I see no problem with anarchism and religion coexisting.

Auld-bod

Potrokin #166

I think history is important, as it supplies us with a context for our beliefs. Your post simply reminded me that we have to select our arguments carefully. The religious people I know ‘disown’ the past. The problem is the ‘need’ some people have to believe. Change will bring about change, as I think our beliefs are mainly shaped by our material existence.

Edit:
Leo Tolstoy was an anarchist and a Christian.

I think you make good point, however I still think what Bakunin and co wrote very relevant even if religious people you know don't.

This guy, though not an anarchist and not someone whose politics I agree with, also made some very good, and more recent points about religion, including in this vid. Wether it is actually worthwhile putting in effort with many believers though is another matter. However, I haven't always been an atheist so I hope thats not the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tw3i3k4zCs
[youtube]1Tw3i3k4zCs[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA55jGyq2C8
[youtube]HA55jGyq2C8[/youtube]