Are scientific socialists atheists these days?

[In Bloom]

I was happy to let people self define. It implies a systematic approach to theories of class and capital, using economic observation and empirical approach towards social structures, rather than gut emotion.

By that definition, you don't necessarily have to be an atheist to be a scientific socialist.

Dialectical materialism refers to a belief in the material basis of ideas, that ideas come from human society and the world around us, rather than some mystical external force or a set of "ideal forms" that exist somewhere out in the aether. Materialism as Marx used it doesn't necessarily refer to any particular belief about God, merely one about how human society works.

 

[poster342002]

Of course Albania did ban religion and it declined massively in Czechoslovakia and the GDR.

And if I were given the choice of living in the GDR or Iran, I'd pick the GDR every time. And if I were given the choice of Albania under Hoxha or Afghanistan under the Taliban, I'd have to pick Albania.

Which would you pick, if you had to choose?

 

[belboid]

Of course I can. What makes you think I think otherwise?

can't really see the point of this thread then, is all.

 

[scawenb]

By that definition, you don't necessarily have to be an atheist to be a scientific socialist.

One could argue that the whole aim of Marx's Scientific Socialism was to rid us of the alientation inherent in class society. His attack on relgious belief seems to be at the core of this and I really can't see how you can accept his argument without necessarily being an atheist

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Karl Marx, Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, February, 1844)

 

[scawenb]

And if I were given the choice of living in the GDR or Iran, I'd pick the GDR every time. And if I were given the choice of Albania under Hoxha or Afghanistan under the Taliban, I'd have to pick Albania.

Which would you pick, if you had to choose?

The same, obviously.

 

[poster342002]

The same, obviously.

Glad to hear it!

 

[In Bloom]

One could argue that the whole aim of Marx's Scientific Socialism was to rid us of the alientation inherent in class society. His attack on relgious belief seems to be at the core of this and I really can't see how you can accept his argument without necessarily being an atheist

But do you necessarily have to agree with everything Marx said to consider yourself a scientific socialist (taking dlr's definition)?

Besides which, Marx's views on religion varied a lot throughout his lifetime, so pinning down "Marx's Scientific Socialism" is somewhat difficult. Especially since he never used the phrase "scientific socialism" once in his entire body of works, AFAIK.

 

[scawenb]

But do you necessarily have to agree with everything Marx said to consider yourself a scientific socialist (taking dlr's definition)?

It was you who mentioned Marx.

It was Proudhon who invented the term and as you sayit was not used by Marx himself (as he thought "communism" summed it up better at the time) but he didn't question Engels use when defend their position.

For Marx and those who did see themselves as Scientific Socialists, may have varied their views on religion but it never draws away from the conviction that it is symptomatic of the alienation of humanity in a class divided society. If one accepts the premises of Scientific Socialism (or even just the earlier ideas of Feuerbach and the Positivists) then I don't see how you can also accept the premises of religion. Perhaps I missing something.

 

[In Bloom]

It was you who mentioned Marx.

It was Proudhon who invented the term and as you sayit was not used by Marx himself (as he thought "communism" summed it up better at the time) but he didn't question Engels use when defend their position.

For Marx and those who did see themselves as Scientific Socialists, may have varied their views on religion but it never draws away from the conviction that it is symptomatic of the alienation of humanity in a class divided society. If one accepts the premises of Scientific Socialism (or even just the earlier ideas of Feuerbach and the Positivists) then I don't see how you can also accept the premises of religion. Perhaps I missing something.

Maybe you're missing the fact that communism isn't some theoretical game where the person with the "best" politics wins.

What matters is how people view the material world. They could believe that the universe was created by Iggy the magic elf for all I fucking care.

 

[belboid]

I'd agree that being a 'sceintific sociliast' and a believer of any kind is fundamentally contradictory. However I wouldn't say that that would necesarilly mean no believer could join a communist party. Describing oneself as a scientific socialist wouldn't be a requirement - as various thoroughly decent marxists would reject the term for sound materialist reasons. If a believer thought that they could reconcile their theism with a belief in the need for working-class revolution and rule in the here and now, then I dont see why any party should really reject them.

 

[In Bloom]

If a believer thought that they could reconcile their theism with a belief in the need for working-class revolution and rule in the here and now, then I dont see why any party should really reject them.

Apparently because religion is a result of bourgeois society.

And as we all know, communists are special people who are completely untouched by bourgeois ideology and capitalist society

 

[scawenb]

Maybe you're missing the fact that communism isn't some theoretical game where the person with the "best" politics wins.

No its not a game and I'm not talking about the best politics but what Marx called "communism" and what others call "scientific socialism" is based on a certain understanding of human society and the laws that govern it. They may be right or they may be wrong, they may or may not win out but they don't seem to allow for religion and their aim of ridding humanity of alientation would be misguided if you believed in religion.

I'm not saying that one should dismiss religious believers just that it seems incompatable with a group or party of self-declared scientific socialists.

 

[belboid]

I'm not saying that one should dismiss religious believers just that it seems incompatable with a group or party of self-declared scientific socialists.

I'd agree. But if one of those believers joined such party, wouldn't that be a contradiction for them to bother with, rather than for the party to bother with?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I'd agree. But if one of those believers joined such party, wouldn't that be a contradiction for them to bother with, rather than for the party to bother with?

Depends whether they advocate it or not. Privately held views can be tolerated, but what about when they proselytise for religion?

I certainly know one member of the SWP in my locality who sees no contradiction between membership of the party and their religious belief. Although I am a non-member of the SWP, they freely advocate to me their belief in the supernatural, even though I argue it is incompatible with a materialist understanding of the universe.

 

[scawenb]

I'd agree. But if one of those believers joined such party, wouldn't that be a contradiction for them to bother with, rather than for the party to bother with?

Once you admit it is a contraction (and I would argue a fundamental one) then it becomes an issue, as one of you now isn't actually a scientific socialist and doesn't share the others understanding of the nature of human society or the aim of scientific socialism. So either you take the view that you're a wider collective of views or that they need re-educating to the party line.

Scientific Socialism is all about the unravelling of contradicitions!

 

[belboid]

Proselytising would indeed be the relevant cut off, imo. I wouldn't see their arguing that their beliefs are complemantary to be a problem per se, as long as they did it in a 'private context' - ie, as in conversations like you describe, and not shouting 'God is a revolutionary socialist' on a paper sale or owt.

 

[belboid]

Once you admit it is a contraction (and I would argue a fundamental one) then it becomes an issue, as one of you now isn't actually a scientific socialist and doesn't share the others understanding of the nature of human society or the aim of scientific socialism. So either you take the view that you're a wider collective of views or that they need re-educating to the party line.

Scientific Socialism is all about the unravelling of contradicitions!

but that wouldn't be the only such disagreement that any party would have, likely as not. How many other 'contradictory' views could not be allowed? the problem there would be you would soon have not a party but a mindless, unquestioning sect.

 

[scawenb]

Proselytising would indeed be the relevant cut off, imo. I wouldn't see their arguing that their beliefs are complemantary to be a problem per se, as long as they did it in a 'private context' - ie, as in conversations like you describe, and not shouting 'God is a revolutionary socialist' on a paper sale or owt.

This seems to contradict your assertion that "if one of those believers joined such party, wouldn't that be a contradiction for them to bother with, rather than for the party to bother with?"

You have now described a Party which surpresses its own member's fundamental views.

 

[belboid]

How is it such a contradiction?

 

[scawenb]

but that wouldn't be the only such disagreement that any party would have, likely as not. How many other 'contradictory' views could not be allowed? the problem there would be you would soon have not a party but a mindless, unquestioning sect.

My argument is the opposite. It is that mindful, questioning people who are Scientific Socialists come together with others who share the same conclusions to form a Party to better forward their ideas. There will be lots of things they disagree upon but they will continue to share the same basic fundamental premises of Scientific Socialism.

 

[scawenb]

How is it such a contradiction?

Because the Party you described was now "bothered" about their proselytising. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Proselytising would indeed be the relevant cut off, imo. I wouldn't see their arguing that their beliefs are complemantary to be a problem per se, as long as they did it in a 'private context' - ie, as in conversations like you describe, and not shouting 'God is a revolutionary socialist' on a paper sale or owt.

So what about if they say they are a christian in a discussion in a Respect meeting, where it is also known they are a member of the SWP (which would have to be through paper sales because your lot never admit it in Respect meetings)? And how about if another member of the SWP says that they are a marxist-atheist in the same meeting. It happens, believe me.

 

[William of Walworth]

The Registan in Samarkand (the second city, 1 million population, in modern day Uzbekistan) is one of the most incredible public squares in the world, surrounded on three sides by three of the largest medieval Madrassah's/Mosques in the world (it's like having Paris' Notre Dame, Westminster Cathedral and the Vatican all in one place).
http://www.virtourist.com/asia/samarkand/02.htm

During the early 1920s, the Bolsheviks publicly burned the veil/niqab there in front of huge crowds as a symbol of the ending of the oppression of women by Islam under the Soviet Union ....




There, that's thrown petrol on the flames ...

Yeah Fisher Gate, and there are so many atheists on this thread and elsewhere, advocating exactly that policy ....

Do the SWP run special 'ludicrously polarised arguing' courses, or does it just come naturally to you?

 

[belboid]

Because the Party you described was now "bothered" about their proselytising. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

aah, okay. the difference is between a privately held belief and a publically held one. If it is the former, no problem imo, not so if it is the latter.

& I'm afraid I dont really see the rigid distinction you make between religious belief and other fundamental concerns of marxism (eg on nationalism, reformism, or even the class nature of the soveit union). Why is one a 'basic fundamental premises of Scientific Socialism' but not another? The question is how one defines those 'fundamental principles'. If it is a belief that socialism is the only way by which the free and equal expression of all peoples is possible, and that it can only be achieved through the active assertion of working class power, by the class, as a class, then why could not someone believe all that, and have some notion that there is a 'god' as well?

If such a party were formed, would all recruits have to pass an exam in fundamentals first? What would happen if someone, who seemed to be a 'good un', led strikes or whathaveyou, said one day 'actually, I do believe there is some kind of god, but that she gave us freewill down here'? Should they be kicked out immediately? If the party described itself as 'revolutionary socialist' rather than 'scientific socialist', could they be allowed to stay in then?

Overwhelmingly such religious concerns would, I think, create a contradiction with party principles somewhere down the line, but it should be when that happens that any question of continued membership came up. Who knows,vthe practical experiences of being in a marxist party might make them question their religious beliefs more.

As to FG's question, first off, 'my lot' never go to Respect meetings, still less are SWP members, but we'll let that pass. it's an intersting question in that instance, & I'd have to say I'm not sure. it would depend, i think, on whether they were really expounding such a view - ie going on to justify it in terms of scripture or whatever, or merely stating it in a passing fashion.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Yeah Fisher Gate, and there are so many atheists on this thread and elsewhere, advocating exactly that policy ....

Do the SWP run special 'ludicrously polarised arguing' courses, or does it just come naturally to you?

No idea what you are talking about - especially since I'm not and never have been a member of the SWP.

I was just illustrating that in a different context and time there could be a different approach to these things. In the context of central asia during the 1920s following a socialist revolution, to burn the veil as a symbolic end to religious repression of women was seen as a progressive step. In today's context it would undoubtedly be questionable.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...As to FG's question, first off, 'my lot' never go to Respect meetings, still less are SWP members, but we'll let that pass. it's an intersting question in that instance, & I'd have to say I'm not sure. it would depend, i think, on whether they were really expounding such a view - ie going on to justify it in terms of scripture or whatever, or merely stating it in a passing fashion.

Sorry to confuse you with SWP members ... my mistake.

These are interesting questions and I'm genuinely interested in what positions are today.

In the early 1980s I was in an IMG branch: a lay preacher in a non-standard religious group asked to join. The view of the majority was that he should be permitted to join and that his role as a preacher was not a problem. The majority was mostly composed of those people who supported the US SWP, ie castroite. The view of the minority, who were also a national minority, was that he had a right to have religious views and be a member, but that operating as a preacher, even if it was only once a week before members of the church congregation rather than in public, was incompatible with membership of a revolutionary socialist organisation as it was openly proselytising for supernatural rather than material solutions; he should therefore choose between resigning as a preacher or not being a member. The national leadership supported the minority's view but said that recruitment was a matter for the Branch and they weren't prepared to over-rule it, though they requested the branch to support the minority position, which they did not. He was permitted to join and ironically tended to support the perspectives of the minority on all other issues.

 

[belboid]

mmm, I would share those concerns about any preacher. Of coursre there was that CofE vicar who was also in the CPGB (leniniest)

 

[Fisher_Gate]

mmm, I would share those concerns about any preacher. Of coursre there was that CofE vicar who was also in the CPGB (leniniest)

The CPB/Morning Star had a catholic priest as a parliamentary candidate at an election.

 

[scawenb]

Belboid - perhaps I'm looking at it in too abstract a manner but I find you quietist (don't ask, don't tell) approach far more destructive and heavy handed than admitting that someone whose views contradict Scientific Socialism are probably best not being in a Party of Scientific Socialists.

I think there is a difference between fundamentals and other political concerns. A similar argument has occured within biology as to whether Creationists can be viewed as scientists in the discipline. Biologists disagree on masses of major questions but you can deal with someone who disagrees with it whole basis on an irrational nonsense.

As I said earlier one could be another type of Socialist and be religious (even Marx's description of primitive communism is amoungst religious believers). I suppose you could even be a Revolutionary Socialist and religious. I've never suggested kicking anyone out I just said I can see the logic - other than a tactical one of trying to convert them (but that could be better done before they joined without the false pretences). Otherwise it is just an obsession with Party building regardless whose in. I also think that religious people can be a 'good un' and do excellent work to the benefit of Scientific Socialists rather than the sectarian view that those outside the party are either enemies or potential recruits.

 

[Wilf]

Might be wrong, but i'd always understood Sci Soc to come from Engels pamphlet (Socialism: scientific and utopian). Very long time since i read it, but i thought the debate was about different approaches to achieving socialism. The utopian was characterised as Idealist, in that it involved the promotion of an idea as the primary means. Scientific socialism involved an analysis of social forces and class struggle within societies (tied in with creating movements that worked to transform that social reality).

As such, a religious perspective was not likely to fit too easily with a sci-soc view - but wasn't the point at issue in that debate.

[actually, I may never have read it ]