Going against religion is undialectical. It presupposes that religion has no inherent change, and that its base is always reactionary and unchanging. Religion has changed, and always will change. It can be progressive, or it can be inherited by reactionaries for the purpose of fulfilling their own reactionary ideology. This is what marxists should oppose. Reactionary people who utilise religion for their own benefit, but not religion itself.
Okay, why religion gets a free pass when literally socdem, nazol, patsoc, monsoc, etc also exists?
Isn’t it “aNtIdIaLeCtICaL” to want a change in the system when its obvious that capitalists ideologies ALSO change? For example, Carlists, (Spanish Imperialists, basically) also portray themselves as something “progressive teehee”, yet we know it can’t be.
Or even there are also Gustavo Buenismo, also called “Atheist Catholicism” (an incredibly reactionary bullshit about protecting traditions and cristofascism and whatnot). Isn’t it oximoronic too?
Let me tell you something so you get it:
To bent is to be the most reactionary. This is why “Socdem is the soft hand of Fascism” and “Scratch a Liberal and a Fascist bleeds”.
Hey, guess what!
The soctheo is the soft hand of Theofascism. And scratch a progressive theist, and a bigot fundamentalist bleeds.
why religion gets a free pass when literally socdem, nazol, patsoc, monsoc, etc also exists?
Religion is not an ideology. It is based on faith on a being with certain customs, not political ideas that a person must follow. Also monsoc is a joke ideology, with very few people actually supporting it.
Isn’t it “aNtIdIaLeCtICaL” to want a change in the system when its obvious that capitalists ideologies ALSO change?
Strawman, yet you accuse people of fallacies. Curious. Also you didn’t read anything I wrote. I know the laws of dialectics.
For example, Carlists, (Spanish Imperialists, basically) also portray themselves as something “progressive teehee”
Here’s a quote from Lenin:
Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.
Progress isn’t about what you say. Your actions matter more than your intentions. Progress is about advancement. Reactionary is about regression. The spanish imperialists may have been progressive at one point, but they certainly are not nowadays especially since socialist nations exist. You congeal an idea that is based on the rigid structure, yet you concern yourself about dialectics. Curious.
scratch a progressive theist, and a bigot fundamentalist bleeds.
This is fundamentally not true. Let’s take LGBT people as an example. LGBT people are ‘clearly’ progressive according to your definition, so according to statistics, 42% of LGBT people belong in Christianity in the US. Are the LGBT christians now bigot fundamentalists? Some (a small minority) may be. But most of them certainly aren’t. Just because people identify with a religion does not mean it affects their lives on a daily basis. I identify as an atheist. I don’t see this affecting my life in a significant manner. And so many others will follow the same even if they follow a religion or not (for the most part).
That is literally the case though. Islamic Sharia for example is a political framework for how to run a state Islamically, it also tells individuals how to live their life down to the most minute details. It’s not a separate text, the rulings are compiled from the Quran and Hadith and collectively referred to as Sharia (it literally means law in Arabic). As far as I know, this kind of legal framework exists in some Jewish sects as well as the Old Testament for Christians (the sects that still recognize it as Christian text).
I’m not claiming that those three religions are the only ones to exist but Christianity and Islam are number 1 and 2 respectively on a global scale and they are followed by over 50 percent of the world population source.
So, a man made set of rules, that explain in dogmatic ways how the world and politics must be understood and run, isn’t in any sort an ideology.
Because it can be mixed with “actual ideologies”
Good thing people don’t mix ideologies, like Nazism and Socialism even if just trying, and ends being just Nazism with aesthetics… Oh, no, it happens. I wonder what happens with TheoSocialists… Oh no, theocracism with aesthetics.
Dude. Stop.
You’re just ignoring history since Mesopotamia while diving in echo chamber attitudes just to keep jerking off with the same people that ain’t able to get shit like why both Marx and Marxists and Anarchists were rabid Anti-Theist.
It’s like saying “oh, no, I know evolution real, but still it’s all creation, aleluya” and see no problem with that.
BTW peope is capable of holding contradictory beliefs, like being even black and a white supremacist, this argument of LGBT people holding to Christianity due to indoctrination says nothing. Christianity at its core is still bigoted, yes.
So, a man made set of rules, that explain in dogmatic ways how the world and politics must be understood and run, isn’t in any sort an ideology.
Religion isn’t an ideology. Religion (especially the larger ones) isn’t made by just one person, but usually a collective of people who have the same faith. They believe in God.
TheoSocialists… Oh no, theocracism with aesthetics.
Stop going to the polcompball political ideologies and actually think for a second. Does that ideology actually exist, if so, does a significant number of people uphold it? “TheoSoc” does not fit either of the categories.
the same people that ain’t able to get shit like why both Marx and Marxists and Anarchists were rabid Anti-Theist.
You think Marx is an anti-theist? Such “schoolboy behaviour” as Marx put it:
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
Also anarchists are not marxists, and Anarchists are individualists who share nothing alike with Marxism. “MLs” who are anti-theist are not marxist at all, but rather revisionist. Enver Hoxha is one example. Same with the leaders Post-Stalin USSR which banned religion.
BTW peope is capable of holding contradictory beliefs
So every LGBT Christian is a bigot fundamentalist? Good to know that you despise Christianity so much it actually overshadows your opinions on the characteristics of the person because of what they believe in. Also you fallen into the trap of Identity Politics, which is exactly what I feared would happen.
Aren’t religions manmade? Really? Are you saying seriously this?
Or, if you refer to individual…
Oh, boy, you haven’t heard of Josiah’s reforms in Israel, the birth of the current notion of Abrahamic god…
Religions ARE ideologies, and it has been like this since ancient times.
You’re just special pleading nonsense. You have no argument regarding this, only “faith and God”. So? Fascism in Italy and Spain and Portugal was also “faith and god”, they just added patriotism to the equation, being even more similar to when theocracy was implemented in city states of the Crescent Fertile and many other regions.
“theosocialism doesn’t exist!!” well, they go by names such as “theology of liberation”, for example.
Also, nice quote from Marx describing Religions as a palliative drug that is given to people to stop complaining and make their miserable lifes a little more easy to handle, by calling it literally OPIUM, which, I hope you don’t go full apologetic and try to spin it to have a different meaning, which… Have you read the rest of it? About how only after getting rid off religion happens something?
Oh, and I see that Lenin was a revisionist by your own standards, nice bullshit you made there, “comrade”. I’m the revisionist for understanding that religions are manmade ideologies.
Then,you go crying because you ain’t capable of distinguish individuals from ideology, cried “Idpol” when we thought there was consensus on class reductionism, yada yada.
Frankly, it shows how literally you’re all brainwashed by religion to the point you’re doing their job for free.
Before answering, have you read what I said regarding what to do with religion in this same post?. Because I never even referred to the "stop religion at once button"and stopped reading beyond that, already knowing about contextual tactics from Lenin too, you know?
Going against religion is undialectical. It presupposes that religion has no inherent change, and that its base is always reactionary and unchanging. Religion has changed, and always will change. It can be progressive, or it can be inherited by reactionaries for the purpose of fulfilling their own reactionary ideology. This is what marxists should oppose. Reactionary people who utilise religion for their own benefit, but not religion itself.
Completely agree, comrade
Okay, why religion gets a free pass when literally socdem, nazol, patsoc, monsoc, etc also exists? Isn’t it “aNtIdIaLeCtICaL” to want a change in the system when its obvious that capitalists ideologies ALSO change? For example, Carlists, (Spanish Imperialists, basically) also portray themselves as something “progressive teehee”, yet we know it can’t be. Or even there are also Gustavo Buenismo, also called “Atheist Catholicism” (an incredibly reactionary bullshit about protecting traditions and cristofascism and whatnot). Isn’t it oximoronic too?
Let me tell you something so you get it: To bent is to be the most reactionary. This is why “Socdem is the soft hand of Fascism” and “Scratch a Liberal and a Fascist bleeds”. Hey, guess what! The soctheo is the soft hand of Theofascism. And scratch a progressive theist, and a bigot fundamentalist bleeds.
Religion is not an ideology. It is based on faith on a being with certain customs, not political ideas that a person must follow. Also monsoc is a joke ideology, with very few people actually supporting it.
Strawman, yet you accuse people of fallacies. Curious. Also you didn’t read anything I wrote. I know the laws of dialectics.
Here’s a quote from Lenin:
Source
Progress isn’t about what you say. Your actions matter more than your intentions. Progress is about advancement. Reactionary is about regression. The spanish imperialists may have been progressive at one point, but they certainly are not nowadays especially since socialist nations exist. You congeal an idea that is based on the rigid structure, yet you concern yourself about dialectics. Curious.
This is fundamentally not true. Let’s take LGBT people as an example. LGBT people are ‘clearly’ progressive according to your definition, so according to statistics, 42% of LGBT people belong in Christianity in the US. Are the LGBT christians now bigot fundamentalists? Some (a small minority) may be. But most of them certainly aren’t. Just because people identify with a religion does not mean it affects their lives on a daily basis. I identify as an atheist. I don’t see this affecting my life in a significant manner. And so many others will follow the same even if they follow a religion or not (for the most part).
That is literally the case though. Islamic Sharia for example is a political framework for how to run a state Islamically, it also tells individuals how to live their life down to the most minute details. It’s not a separate text, the rulings are compiled from the Quran and Hadith and collectively referred to as Sharia (it literally means law in Arabic). As far as I know, this kind of legal framework exists in some Jewish sects as well as the Old Testament for Christians (the sects that still recognize it as Christian text).
I’m not claiming that those three religions are the only ones to exist but Christianity and Islam are number 1 and 2 respectively on a global scale and they are followed by over 50 percent of the world population source.
So, a man made set of rules, that explain in dogmatic ways how the world and politics must be understood and run, isn’t in any sort an ideology.
Because it can be mixed with “actual ideologies” Good thing people don’t mix ideologies, like Nazism and Socialism even if just trying, and ends being just Nazism with aesthetics… Oh, no, it happens. I wonder what happens with TheoSocialists… Oh no, theocracism with aesthetics.
Dude. Stop. You’re just ignoring history since Mesopotamia while diving in echo chamber attitudes just to keep jerking off with the same people that ain’t able to get shit like why both Marx and Marxists and Anarchists were rabid Anti-Theist.
It’s like saying “oh, no, I know evolution real, but still it’s all creation, aleluya” and see no problem with that.
BTW peope is capable of holding contradictory beliefs, like being even black and a white supremacist, this argument of LGBT people holding to Christianity due to indoctrination says nothing. Christianity at its core is still bigoted, yes.
Religion isn’t an ideology. Religion (especially the larger ones) isn’t made by just one person, but usually a collective of people who have the same faith. They believe in God.
Stop going to the polcompball political ideologies and actually think for a second. Does that ideology actually exist, if so, does a significant number of people uphold it? “TheoSoc” does not fit either of the categories.
You think Marx is an anti-theist? Such “schoolboy behaviour” as Marx put it:
Source
Also anarchists are not marxists, and Anarchists are individualists who share nothing alike with Marxism. “MLs” who are anti-theist are not marxist at all, but rather revisionist. Enver Hoxha is one example. Same with the leaders Post-Stalin USSR which banned religion.
So every LGBT Christian is a bigot fundamentalist? Good to know that you despise Christianity so much it actually overshadows your opinions on the characteristics of the person because of what they believe in. Also you fallen into the trap of Identity Politics, which is exactly what I feared would happen.
Aren’t religions manmade? Really? Are you saying seriously this? Or, if you refer to individual… Oh, boy, you haven’t heard of Josiah’s reforms in Israel, the birth of the current notion of Abrahamic god…
Religions ARE ideologies, and it has been like this since ancient times. You’re just special pleading nonsense. You have no argument regarding this, only “faith and God”. So? Fascism in Italy and Spain and Portugal was also “faith and god”, they just added patriotism to the equation, being even more similar to when theocracy was implemented in city states of the Crescent Fertile and many other regions.
“theosocialism doesn’t exist!!” well, they go by names such as “theology of liberation”, for example.
Also, nice quote from Marx describing Religions as a palliative drug that is given to people to stop complaining and make their miserable lifes a little more easy to handle, by calling it literally OPIUM, which, I hope you don’t go full apologetic and try to spin it to have a different meaning, which… Have you read the rest of it? About how only after getting rid off religion happens something?
Oh, and I see that Lenin was a revisionist by your own standards, nice bullshit you made there, “comrade”. I’m the revisionist for understanding that religions are manmade ideologies.
Then,you go crying because you ain’t capable of distinguish individuals from ideology, cried “Idpol” when we thought there was consensus on class reductionism, yada yada.
Frankly, it shows how literally you’re all brainwashed by religion to the point you’re doing their job for free.
deleted by creator
Before answering, have you read what I said regarding what to do with religion in this same post?. Because I never even referred to the "stop religion at once button"and stopped reading beyond that, already knowing about contextual tactics from Lenin too, you know?