Post by redstar2000GUEST on Mar 26, 2005 15:09:32 GMT -5
repeater wrote: So you are claiming that individual people who believe in god are all reactionary because the social role of religion is reactionary.
To all intents and purposes, yes!
The exceptions are too trivial to matter.
They are like "good Nazis" (or maybe a better phrase would be "accidental Nazis" who didn't have "what it takes" to be real Nazis).
repeater wrote: Was Einstein reactionary?
Was he religious? I don't think so. There are fragmentary quotes from him that can be interpreted as a crude sort of pantheism...but no one has ever suggested, to my knowledge, that he actually practiced any religion or took any of it at all seriously.
I think that, like all too many scientists, he simply wanted to avoid flak from the godsuckers and so made a few vaguely "religious" statements to deflect unwelcome attention.
repeater wrote: Revolution on a mass scale cannot hope to require purity of ideology from everyone involved.
True...but the more "purity" you have, the better your chances!
A rational proletariat has a good chance of making a successful revolution. An irrational (believing) proletariat's chances are much worse...even if they win initially, they are all too likely to submit to despotism and, ultimately, the restoration of capitalism.
As we have seen.
Burningman wrote: Maybe religion as such is reactionary, but religious people are not by definition the enemy.
A subtle distinction in practice. Reactionaries are "by definition" people who advocate/defend reactionary ideas.
Some, of course, are much worse than others. A Christian fascist is (usually) much worse than a Christian "Liberal".
But the general "rule of thumb" is that those who advocate/defend reactionary ideas will behave in a reactionary fashion.
Burningman wrote: One thing that's become increasingly curious to me is that he never offers practical or contemporary examples of what people should be doing.
I don't do it very often...but I have done that. In the context of this thread, I have suggested on a number of occasions that public appearances by prominent Christian fascists should be greeted with hostile and raucous demonstrations...the way that we in SDS greeted prominent supporters of the war in Vietnam back in the 60s.
(Note that in New York City, the threatened appearance of a Hindu fascist generated a demonstration. Why can't we do that with our domestic Christian fascists?)
Perhaps that's "impractical"...but if it is, perhaps that's because most people in the "left" are still "mushy" about religion and don't grasp its reactionary character.
Burningman wrote: This is the problem with the anti-authoritarian method you are caught up in. There is intense focus on the ideas in people's heads and not their practical activity. Because you can't accept any mediative function, politically or philosophically, you end up out of your head because living people make living choices based on their living realities.
The reason I focus so "intensely" on the "ideas in people's heads" is because I find them highly correlated with what they actually do.
People don't just "live" (like bacteria)...they also "think". And when they think poorly or irrationally, they have a very strong tendency to act likewise.
Burningman wrote: I think the RCP is too harsh on the religious. If someone believes in God, but is willing to put up with organizational discipline and is deeply secular, then I think they can be a communist.
A good illustration of what I find myself criticizing all the time at the Revolutionary Left forums. How does one "believe in God" and yet "be deeply secular"?
Unity of opposites? Or just confusion.
I've long since conceded the hypothetical possibility that someone could be religious and yet also be pro-communist. I don't think that happens nearly as often as some maintain...but in a really large sample of believers, it almost certainly happens occasionally.
But I also maintain that it is necessarily a transient phenomenon...the individual will choose between communism and religion because the conflict of those two paradigms is, in the long run, insupportable. You cannot act in the real world as both a communist and a believer...for very long.
Burningman wrote: I think it's funny that Redstar is breaking their balls.
The "vanguard" must meet higher standards.
Burningman wrote: In the meantime, whole sections of this country are DEEPLY religious and if the existence of god is the dividing line question, WE WILL LOSE.
Well, sure. Were you under the impression that we were winning?
My impression is that we're in about the same place as Russian revolutionaries were...in 1825.
Clearing away the godcrap is "part of our job" before "our 1917" if we are to have a real chance to win.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Revolutionary Left Forums
To all intents and purposes, yes!
The exceptions are too trivial to matter.
They are like "good Nazis" (or maybe a better phrase would be "accidental Nazis" who didn't have "what it takes" to be real Nazis).
repeater wrote: Was Einstein reactionary?
Was he religious? I don't think so. There are fragmentary quotes from him that can be interpreted as a crude sort of pantheism...but no one has ever suggested, to my knowledge, that he actually practiced any religion or took any of it at all seriously.
I think that, like all too many scientists, he simply wanted to avoid flak from the godsuckers and so made a few vaguely "religious" statements to deflect unwelcome attention.
repeater wrote: Revolution on a mass scale cannot hope to require purity of ideology from everyone involved.
True...but the more "purity" you have, the better your chances!
A rational proletariat has a good chance of making a successful revolution. An irrational (believing) proletariat's chances are much worse...even if they win initially, they are all too likely to submit to despotism and, ultimately, the restoration of capitalism.
As we have seen.
Burningman wrote: Maybe religion as such is reactionary, but religious people are not by definition the enemy.
A subtle distinction in practice. Reactionaries are "by definition" people who advocate/defend reactionary ideas.
Some, of course, are much worse than others. A Christian fascist is (usually) much worse than a Christian "Liberal".
But the general "rule of thumb" is that those who advocate/defend reactionary ideas will behave in a reactionary fashion.
Burningman wrote: One thing that's become increasingly curious to me is that he never offers practical or contemporary examples of what people should be doing.
I don't do it very often...but I have done that. In the context of this thread, I have suggested on a number of occasions that public appearances by prominent Christian fascists should be greeted with hostile and raucous demonstrations...the way that we in SDS greeted prominent supporters of the war in Vietnam back in the 60s.
(Note that in New York City, the threatened appearance of a Hindu fascist generated a demonstration. Why can't we do that with our domestic Christian fascists?)
Perhaps that's "impractical"...but if it is, perhaps that's because most people in the "left" are still "mushy" about religion and don't grasp its reactionary character.
Burningman wrote: This is the problem with the anti-authoritarian method you are caught up in. There is intense focus on the ideas in people's heads and not their practical activity. Because you can't accept any mediative function, politically or philosophically, you end up out of your head because living people make living choices based on their living realities.
The reason I focus so "intensely" on the "ideas in people's heads" is because I find them highly correlated with what they actually do.
People don't just "live" (like bacteria)...they also "think". And when they think poorly or irrationally, they have a very strong tendency to act likewise.
Burningman wrote: I think the RCP is too harsh on the religious. If someone believes in God, but is willing to put up with organizational discipline and is deeply secular, then I think they can be a communist.
A good illustration of what I find myself criticizing all the time at the Revolutionary Left forums. How does one "believe in God" and yet "be deeply secular"?
Unity of opposites? Or just confusion.
I've long since conceded the hypothetical possibility that someone could be religious and yet also be pro-communist. I don't think that happens nearly as often as some maintain...but in a really large sample of believers, it almost certainly happens occasionally.
But I also maintain that it is necessarily a transient phenomenon...the individual will choose between communism and religion because the conflict of those two paradigms is, in the long run, insupportable. You cannot act in the real world as both a communist and a believer...for very long.
Burningman wrote: I think it's funny that Redstar is breaking their balls.
The "vanguard" must meet higher standards.
Burningman wrote: In the meantime, whole sections of this country are DEEPLY religious and if the existence of god is the dividing line question, WE WILL LOSE.
Well, sure. Were you under the impression that we were winning?
My impression is that we're in about the same place as Russian revolutionaries were...in 1825.
Clearing away the godcrap is "part of our job" before "our 1917" if we are to have a real chance to win.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Revolutionary Left Forums