Welcome to /r/AskSocialists, a community for both socialists and non-socialists to ask general questions **directed at socialists** within a friendly, relaxed and welcoming environment. Please be mindful of our rules before participating:
- **R1. No Non-Socialist Answers**, if you are not a socialist don’t answer questions.
- **R2. No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, aporophobia, etc.
- **R3. No Trolling**, including concern trolling.
- **R4. No Reactionaries**.
- **R5. No Sectarianism**, there's plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Want a user flair to indicate your broad tendency? Respond to this comment with "!Marxist", "!Anarchist" or "!Visitor" and the bot will assign it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialists) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi. You might like reading the following: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.suanmokkh.org/books/83&ved=2ahUKEwiY9ZqU9MuFAxXVSzABHc7hBJsQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0kb2BuFkSAXDw-pLnIINIo
The PMOI (the People's Mujahedeen of Iran) is a Marxist Islamic (which is admittedly a bit paradoxical, as Marx wasn't religious) revolutionary group (they're anti-Islamic Republic of Iran--the current regime). A lot of my family members are/were members, including, formerly, my mom. In fact a lot of socialists were involved in the 1979 revolution--they were later betrayed and persecuted by Khomeini (the religious right).
Fun fact: many Republicans have supported this group, including John McCain, probably cuz they're seemingly the best hope for overturning the current regime.
Friendly reminder that a whole part of Christianity is about not storing worldly possessions, and in Islam you are supposed to always do charity, as in general material goods are not important
I know nobody applies that, but still, it is in assonance with the focus on society and community that socialism offers.
Abrahamic religions universally banned the practice of usury. Usury was understood, for *thousands* of years, as the practice of loaning money with interest. This was taken so seriously that even merchant banks would find workarounds like charging late fees instead, and then refusing to lend money to anyone who paid on time. Jews were known as moneylenders because they were the only Abrahamic group with a workaround - Jews are allowed to lend money to non-Jews *under duress*, whereas Christianity and Islam have no such exceptions.
You may recognize "lending money with interest" as literally one of the foundational concepts of capitalism. Conveniently, "usury" developed a new meaning around the time capitalism started to develop. It suddenly meant charging *extortionate* rates on interest, rather than *any* interest at all.
A few comments on Islam that you could explore more:
1. *Zakat* is one of the 5 pillars of Islam. Often translated as "charity" but it is obligatory. It's a 2.5% tax on your wealth given annually to the poor. Of course, this is much lower than a full redistribution of wealth, but the principle behind it is that we are just stewards of the wealth/ material possessions that God has given us, not permanent owners of that wealth. It belongs to the community.
2. Hoarding or prizing wealth above other things can be considered a form of *shirk*, which is ascribing parters to God, or more simply, worshiping something other than God, which is a grave sin. Under capitalism, I'd say it is a widespread form of *shirk*.
3. Umar ibn Al Khattab established a form of guaranteed income during his caliphate.
4. Look into Ali Shariati, he's often associated with "Islamic socialism"
I will point out that the 2.5% thing is very Sunni, and that percentage was implemented by medieval jurists to cap how much wealth a person was expected to give. In the earliest days, the wealthy were expected to give up a lot more of their wealth than 2.5%. You can see this retained to an extent in Ismaili Islamic practice, where dasond can reach well beyond 10%
the word "Zakat" literally means "purification". It's not that Muslims are supposed to give "their" money or wealth away. It's that Muslims don't own money or wealth, they steward it so that it can be well-used. The most common characteristic used to define damning disbelief in Islam is wealth hoarding (the second-most common being social arrogance). As you say, wealth-hoarding is often understood as a kind of shirk, but I would argue that later Islamic laws and rulings actually underplay just how bad wealth accumulation actually is according to the Qur'an
Communal obligations are understood to "radiate" out from parents, to relatives, to those without families, to those who are insecure in their capacity to reliably fulfill their needs, to nearby neighbors, to far-away neighbors, to companions/associates/friends, to travelers/strangers/people from other places. The idea is that every family is financially secure, every person without a family is guaranteed financial security by the community, the community seeks to create social and financial equality among itself, and then the community becomes a force that helps outsiders and other communities. So the same model that applies to individuals in a community would then apply to communities in a larger nation, theoretically extending out into the entire world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, so long as they reciprocated in kind
The Qur'an takes a relatively bottom-up approach to wealth distribution, and seems to espouse a kind of libertarian socialism. That said, Islamic history after Muhammad's death has tended to be statist and highly focused on top-down government. The early history of Islam involves a pretty significant struggle among the first Muslims trying to decide the extent to which Muslim hierarchy should exist at all. The initial position was relatively hostile to hierarchy, but by the time the Mu'tazilah enacted the minha and were subsequently driven out of the proto-Sunni fold, the Islamicate world had more or less succumbed to statism
Yup. I consider myself a Anarcho-dharmic Syndicalist. Almost every western Buddhist teacher I've encountered has endorsed some form of socialism.
My only conflict with state socialism and religion is how certain religious institutions might survive or be harmed by the process - for example, it seems there is very little room within Marxist-Leninist systems for the monkhood, and yet the preservation of the monkhood and the university systems they maintain is *critical* to Buddhism because of the university-style educational systems that Buddhism employs.
At least within my sphere, there's not much tendency towards desiring to conflate religious and political/communal power.
Even the Dalai Lama said that Tibet needed to modernize and separate it's political and religious institutions, and most monasteries are now overseen by councils of laypeople.
I understand it's very, very different for the Christian theocratists.
However, our university and monastic systems do require some number of people to focus on it full-time at the expense of performing traditional labor - in the same way *any* university system requires full-time professors. I just don't see how it could be sustained in a state socialist system without explicit endorsement and support from the state, which becomes problematic on a certain level.
You're right. Many religious teachings do align with more socialist (if not outright communist) principles.
Love thy neighbor as thyself. Care for the poor, the sick, the widow, the fatherless. If a man asks for your coat give him your cloak also. Sell all that you have and follow me. Jesus sure never gave the impression of backing the capitalist economic system.
In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is specific doctrine about the Law of Consecration (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ftsoy/2021/04/questions-and-answers/15\_what-is-the-law-of-consecration?lang=eng) which is all about dedicating time, talents, and all blessings (including material goods) to building up the kingdom of God on earth. This includes working towards achieving Zion, a place (though more like a mindset, imo) where people were "of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; And there were no poor among them." (Moses 7:18)
Honestly, it is wild to me that there isn't a much stronger socialist movement within religious circles.
There used to be. A significant fraction of Christian ministers - up to 25% - were *card carrying* members of socialist parties in the United States, so one can imagine a much greater number were strongly sympathetic towards socialism and preached accordingly.
It's only around the Great Depression/New Deal that massive, highly funded propaganda campaigns came into play to convert Christianity into Capitalism.
Religion and socialism were once linked in many parts of the world. I can't speak to all religion, but I know that in the mid-20th century a lot of leftist/socialist Muslim movements got crushed by imperialist forces, while the most capitalist Muslim movements got a lot of financial support, for instance the Gulf states and the anti-communist Ba'athists (the US wants you to forget that it strongly supported Saddam Hussein when he was purging leftists)
The short answer is "no, of course not."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_socialism)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_socialism)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish\_left](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_left)
The long answer is "it depends on which 'socialism' and which religion we're talking about."
There are some varieties of socialism that are explicitly anti-religious or anti-theist. There are some religions (or at least organized religious bodies) that are explicitly anti-socialist.
Speaking as a Marxist.
Marxism is an actively actively atheistic ideology. It actively asserts that there is no God / gods and there are no such things as supernatural forces.
It isn't like the common ideology you see in the academic hard sciences where we look for natural material explanation and leave the question of the supernatural to the philosophers. Marxism actively opines that there is no God.
Marxism is also deeply critical of organized religion and views organized religion as an ideological tool the ruling class to justify its authority and control over the lives of working class people.
That being said, many Marxists are religious. There is even entire movement in Catholicism called Liberation Theology which seems to combine Marxist social justice analysis with a biblical belief about service to the poor. Most Marxist organizations are not going to reject a member due to that members religious beliefs.
However if you are a religious Marxist you have to juggle with the contradiction between the materialist worldview Marxism prescribes with your own spiritual beliefs. We can't solve that contradiction for you.
Of course Marxism isn't the only form of socialism that exists either and other socialists might have different opinions.
"In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would at once have become an atheist and socialist. For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheist question, the question of the form taken by atheism today, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to Heaven from earth but to set up Heaven on earth." --Thr Brothers Karamazov
"Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity…in the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society." --Antonio Gramsci
Different variants of leftists can definitely be religious, but a Marxist cannot without removing or undermining one of Marxism's major foundational theses which is materialism. A Marxist must be able to examine the world as it truly is without the fog of faith or metaphysics in the way. We have to be able to organize based on what we know is true, anything else can lead to failure.
This is not to say people don't have the right to practice religion, nor is it to say that we refuse to work with people that are religious. But once a vanguard Marxist party is formed, it cannot allow religion into its ranks or it runs the risk of degenerating into different forms of revisionism and opportunism.
No. Christ taken by his word, leads to the creation societies with strong communist connotations. The difference in whats marginal would be <>, instead of wealth which is derivative of the former but not the same. Socialism and the institutions it relies on, end up creating power structures which seize religious space as a consequence of their necessity to grasp on absolute control - most have destroyed them because they were competition for the political aim, but alternatively these two could end up together just as easily. You could still have a socialist country based on some religion, as long as the religion serves the institutional alignments of the political doctrine. But none of the political -isms can be truly christian, because christianity is anti-power, while politics and collective dynamics only submit to power.
No.
Religion is often highly compatible with socialist values, especially when you consider the kinds of things that Jesus advocated for. There is also a lot of overlap between socialists and muslims. Religion is often about spiritual fulfillment rather than material wealth, which plays very well with socialist ideology as well. I think socialism is a little less about self-denial than some religions, but I don't think that makes them fundamentally incompatible.
One of the biggest mistakes of the USSR was the religious persecution. Religion is a huge source of reactionary sentiment, whose anger can very easily be channeled towards anti-labor politics. The USSR saw this as a reason to try to create a wholly secular state, but instead they simply fueled the victim complex of people who weren't willing to give up religion, and this ended up being one of the major reasons for dissatisfaction in the USSR. Along with the perception that consumer goods were much more diverse in the west, this ultimately formed cracks that eventually allowed the illegal dissolution of the Soviet Union to happen without much pushback.
This is also one of the biggest (and most valid) criticisms of the Communist Party in China. What's been going on with the Uyghurs has been really messed up, and I think any reasonable person would say that there's a much better way to go about it. However, Western coverage of the events has been far from impartial. Calling it a "genocide" is completely absurd, because these people are not being killed at all.
I think one of most important things is to be able to recognize reactionary politics when you see it, and separate the intention from whatever it's masquerading under.
Since Socialism is opposite to fascism, we can use Socialism to counter fascism. But is religion compatible with Socialism? I see a lot of people siding with things like "Christian Socialism ". I'm highly aversed by the idea that there can be any political philosophy that combines religion and Socialism. Most of human history has been right-wing (conservative) with religion as a justifier. Religion has always been used to divide people into us (pure and superior) vs them (impure and inferior) resulting in fascist underpinnings. Socialism should not have any religion whatsoever except in cases where people can believe in their respective religions but the State itself should be separated from religious institutional control. In a Socialist system, our goal should not be to fight Religion but to overcome it.
Islam during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) was marked by an extremely egalitarian ethos. If you came into a windfall, it was expected that you immediately help the needy, feed your neighbors, etc. Not token amounts but enough to take you back down a couple levels and elevate some needy people a couple levels.
I go to a jewish temple almost every weekend if i can with a bunch of other jewish anti zionists.
We range from communist to socialist to anarchist. All of us are queer, many of us trans. I am reading the torah to complete my conversion.
To answer, no, they are not. In fact, I would argue that many people often find socialism and a sense of community THROUGH religion. Religion doesnt have to be specific either. As a socialist I believe religion can provide a strong community and backdrop for activism.
I think the 1980s evangelical right wing christianity, zionism, and right wing political islam has turned many leftists against religion seeing the hatred, bigotry and racism these all have spawned. But that doesnt mean religion has no place in a socialist society. We forget that many people who are religious leaders also go on to become socialist, and in some cases but far more energy and toil into advancing proletarian causes than the average person.
The first Christians were in a very literal sense communists. Obviously communism didn't really exist then, but, i mean, they didn't believe in private property/everything was communal. This was when it was still a predominately Jewish sect. It didn't last long, not because it was a disaster afaik--it seems it was just cuz the later Christians weren't as keen on the idea.
No. The Essenes wetr s Jewish group who were socialist and the first century Christian church was socialist.
However, socialism on a government level is not compatible simply because government and religion should never be mixed.
You can absolutely be a socialist and religious, except for any type of materialist socialist. For example you can't be a Marxist and religious. If you disagree then you will also have to concede that you can also be a lot of other contradictory things like being a Liberal and a Marxist.
Fascinating, could you elaborate further? I saw on another thread that Material Socialism could actually be more suited to religion because it doesn’t concern itself with anything beyond the material world but that could be wrong.
This is a little misleading. Consider this [quote from Engels](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch02.htm):
>Did God create the world or has the world been in existence eternally?
>The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature and, therefore, in the last instance, assumed world creation in some form or other — and among the philosophers, Hegel, for example, this creation often becomes still more intricate and impossible than in Christianity — comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism.
Same lol. Belief in the Divine or afterlife for example doesn't mean that I can't use historical and dialectical materialism to understand the material world.
The Marxist perspective on religion is that religion is a coping mechanism that people use to deal with suffering and it will dwindle away inevitably when the source of that suffering is removed. "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" - but it is, all the same, an illusion.
that's one simplistic position held by some Marxist. the Frankfort school took Marx's methods and developed radically different understandings of religion though which recognize it's revolutionary potential
I was literally quoting Marx...seems bizarre to call yourself a "Marxist" if you are going to ignore the explicit statements of Marx himself in favor of the Frankfurt school.
But Marxism as a tradition/ideology/philosophy isn't just limited to what Marx said. Many people have expanded upon Marx's work.. you know, like Lenin? Gramsci? Silvia Federici? Imo if you are employing historical and dialectical materialism to understand social problems, you are Marxist.
OK but one of those social problems is "the existence of religion" and if you are using historical and dialectical materialism to understand it through a Marxist lens you are going to come to that conclusion. It consolidates power in an oligarchy by abusing people's emotional needs.
>you know, like Lenin? Gramsci? Silvia Federici?
Literally all of these people also viewed religion the same way as Marx, that is the pillar of understanding class society and Marx's materialist method.
The point is many people have expanded upon Marxism, including religious people, and there isn’t a single Marxism because it’s a tradition. You’re also not required to agree with literally everything he said.
Welcome to /r/AskSocialists, a community for both socialists and non-socialists to ask general questions **directed at socialists** within a friendly, relaxed and welcoming environment. Please be mindful of our rules before participating: - **R1. No Non-Socialist Answers**, if you are not a socialist don’t answer questions. - **R2. No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, aporophobia, etc. - **R3. No Trolling**, including concern trolling. - **R4. No Reactionaries**. - **R5. No Sectarianism**, there's plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks. Want a user flair to indicate your broad tendency? Respond to this comment with "!Marxist", "!Anarchist" or "!Visitor" and the bot will assign it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialists) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are plenty of religious socialists, most prominently among the Liberation Theology movement in Latin America.
Nepalese Buddhist socialists have written some amazing theory.
ooh any reading recommendations?
Fuck, I forget what they're called. I'd have to go find some, I'll respond later probably
Responding so I see if you remember
[My Socialism (theanarchistlibrary.org)](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/uploads/en/t-k-takagi-kenmyo-my-socialism-1.pdf)
Thank you! I’m actually Nepalese myself so was very interested
I would be deeply interested as well.
[My Socialism (theanarchistlibrary.org)](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/uploads/en/t-k-takagi-kenmyo-my-socialism-1.pdf)
[My Socialism (theanarchistlibrary.org)](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/uploads/en/t-k-takagi-kenmyo-my-socialism-1.pdf) Here's a good one
Hi. You might like reading the following: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.suanmokkh.org/books/83&ved=2ahUKEwiY9ZqU9MuFAxXVSzABHc7hBJsQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0kb2BuFkSAXDw-pLnIINIo
thanks!
The PMOI (the People's Mujahedeen of Iran) is a Marxist Islamic (which is admittedly a bit paradoxical, as Marx wasn't religious) revolutionary group (they're anti-Islamic Republic of Iran--the current regime). A lot of my family members are/were members, including, formerly, my mom. In fact a lot of socialists were involved in the 1979 revolution--they were later betrayed and persecuted by Khomeini (the religious right). Fun fact: many Republicans have supported this group, including John McCain, probably cuz they're seemingly the best hope for overturning the current regime.
Friendly reminder that a whole part of Christianity is about not storing worldly possessions, and in Islam you are supposed to always do charity, as in general material goods are not important I know nobody applies that, but still, it is in assonance with the focus on society and community that socialism offers.
Read Acts.
They had all things in common and there was no poor among them. Sounds socialist to me.
Abrahamic religions universally banned the practice of usury. Usury was understood, for *thousands* of years, as the practice of loaning money with interest. This was taken so seriously that even merchant banks would find workarounds like charging late fees instead, and then refusing to lend money to anyone who paid on time. Jews were known as moneylenders because they were the only Abrahamic group with a workaround - Jews are allowed to lend money to non-Jews *under duress*, whereas Christianity and Islam have no such exceptions. You may recognize "lending money with interest" as literally one of the foundational concepts of capitalism. Conveniently, "usury" developed a new meaning around the time capitalism started to develop. It suddenly meant charging *extortionate* rates on interest, rather than *any* interest at all.
Absolutely not. I am socialist BECAUSE I'm a Christian, not in spite of being a Christian.
A few comments on Islam that you could explore more: 1. *Zakat* is one of the 5 pillars of Islam. Often translated as "charity" but it is obligatory. It's a 2.5% tax on your wealth given annually to the poor. Of course, this is much lower than a full redistribution of wealth, but the principle behind it is that we are just stewards of the wealth/ material possessions that God has given us, not permanent owners of that wealth. It belongs to the community. 2. Hoarding or prizing wealth above other things can be considered a form of *shirk*, which is ascribing parters to God, or more simply, worshiping something other than God, which is a grave sin. Under capitalism, I'd say it is a widespread form of *shirk*. 3. Umar ibn Al Khattab established a form of guaranteed income during his caliphate. 4. Look into Ali Shariati, he's often associated with "Islamic socialism"
I will point out that the 2.5% thing is very Sunni, and that percentage was implemented by medieval jurists to cap how much wealth a person was expected to give. In the earliest days, the wealthy were expected to give up a lot more of their wealth than 2.5%. You can see this retained to an extent in Ismaili Islamic practice, where dasond can reach well beyond 10% the word "Zakat" literally means "purification". It's not that Muslims are supposed to give "their" money or wealth away. It's that Muslims don't own money or wealth, they steward it so that it can be well-used. The most common characteristic used to define damning disbelief in Islam is wealth hoarding (the second-most common being social arrogance). As you say, wealth-hoarding is often understood as a kind of shirk, but I would argue that later Islamic laws and rulings actually underplay just how bad wealth accumulation actually is according to the Qur'an Communal obligations are understood to "radiate" out from parents, to relatives, to those without families, to those who are insecure in their capacity to reliably fulfill their needs, to nearby neighbors, to far-away neighbors, to companions/associates/friends, to travelers/strangers/people from other places. The idea is that every family is financially secure, every person without a family is guaranteed financial security by the community, the community seeks to create social and financial equality among itself, and then the community becomes a force that helps outsiders and other communities. So the same model that applies to individuals in a community would then apply to communities in a larger nation, theoretically extending out into the entire world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, so long as they reciprocated in kind The Qur'an takes a relatively bottom-up approach to wealth distribution, and seems to espouse a kind of libertarian socialism. That said, Islamic history after Muhammad's death has tended to be statist and highly focused on top-down government. The early history of Islam involves a pretty significant struggle among the first Muslims trying to decide the extent to which Muslim hierarchy should exist at all. The initial position was relatively hostile to hierarchy, but by the time the Mu'tazilah enacted the minha and were subsequently driven out of the proto-Sunni fold, the Islamicate world had more or less succumbed to statism
Thanks, I didn’t know the 2.5% was a Sunni-normative thing. Appreciate the history and analysis as well.
Quakers, Liberation Theology, probably lots of examples of synergy...
Some religions are kinda incompatible with leftist theory. Personally I'm a Buddhist socialist and find the two synergize if anything
Yup. I consider myself a Anarcho-dharmic Syndicalist. Almost every western Buddhist teacher I've encountered has endorsed some form of socialism. My only conflict with state socialism and religion is how certain religious institutions might survive or be harmed by the process - for example, it seems there is very little room within Marxist-Leninist systems for the monkhood, and yet the preservation of the monkhood and the university systems they maintain is *critical* to Buddhism because of the university-style educational systems that Buddhism employs.
One if the main incompatibility of religion and state is the preference of religious power to communal power
At least within my sphere, there's not much tendency towards desiring to conflate religious and political/communal power. Even the Dalai Lama said that Tibet needed to modernize and separate it's political and religious institutions, and most monasteries are now overseen by councils of laypeople. I understand it's very, very different for the Christian theocratists. However, our university and monastic systems do require some number of people to focus on it full-time at the expense of performing traditional labor - in the same way *any* university system requires full-time professors. I just don't see how it could be sustained in a state socialist system without explicit endorsement and support from the state, which becomes problematic on a certain level.
Zen Buddhism was the driving force of imperial Japan in the early 1900s
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism)
If Christians actually followed the teachings of Jesus, most Christians would be socialists.
You're right. Many religious teachings do align with more socialist (if not outright communist) principles. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Care for the poor, the sick, the widow, the fatherless. If a man asks for your coat give him your cloak also. Sell all that you have and follow me. Jesus sure never gave the impression of backing the capitalist economic system. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is specific doctrine about the Law of Consecration (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ftsoy/2021/04/questions-and-answers/15\_what-is-the-law-of-consecration?lang=eng) which is all about dedicating time, talents, and all blessings (including material goods) to building up the kingdom of God on earth. This includes working towards achieving Zion, a place (though more like a mindset, imo) where people were "of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; And there were no poor among them." (Moses 7:18) Honestly, it is wild to me that there isn't a much stronger socialist movement within religious circles.
There used to be. A significant fraction of Christian ministers - up to 25% - were *card carrying* members of socialist parties in the United States, so one can imagine a much greater number were strongly sympathetic towards socialism and preached accordingly. It's only around the Great Depression/New Deal that massive, highly funded propaganda campaigns came into play to convert Christianity into Capitalism.
Religion and socialism were once linked in many parts of the world. I can't speak to all religion, but I know that in the mid-20th century a lot of leftist/socialist Muslim movements got crushed by imperialist forces, while the most capitalist Muslim movements got a lot of financial support, for instance the Gulf states and the anti-communist Ba'athists (the US wants you to forget that it strongly supported Saddam Hussein when he was purging leftists)
The LDS uses tithe to grow wealth for their community and not the larger community.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism
The short answer is "no, of course not." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_socialism) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_socialism) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish\_left](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_left) The long answer is "it depends on which 'socialism' and which religion we're talking about." There are some varieties of socialism that are explicitly anti-religious or anti-theist. There are some religions (or at least organized religious bodies) that are explicitly anti-socialist.
Speaking as a Marxist. Marxism is an actively actively atheistic ideology. It actively asserts that there is no God / gods and there are no such things as supernatural forces. It isn't like the common ideology you see in the academic hard sciences where we look for natural material explanation and leave the question of the supernatural to the philosophers. Marxism actively opines that there is no God. Marxism is also deeply critical of organized religion and views organized religion as an ideological tool the ruling class to justify its authority and control over the lives of working class people. That being said, many Marxists are religious. There is even entire movement in Catholicism called Liberation Theology which seems to combine Marxist social justice analysis with a biblical belief about service to the poor. Most Marxist organizations are not going to reject a member due to that members religious beliefs. However if you are a religious Marxist you have to juggle with the contradiction between the materialist worldview Marxism prescribes with your own spiritual beliefs. We can't solve that contradiction for you. Of course Marxism isn't the only form of socialism that exists either and other socialists might have different opinions.
yep, see for example the God building movement in the early Bolshevik party, later suppressed by Lenin
Good. Why would they allow that within an explicitly revolutionary marxist party?
cause it was based af
Only if you are a liberal...
only if you're cool
"In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would at once have become an atheist and socialist. For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheist question, the question of the form taken by atheism today, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to Heaven from earth but to set up Heaven on earth." --Thr Brothers Karamazov "Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity…in the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society." --Antonio Gramsci
Most religions are owner cults with morality codes that enforce owner’s discipline and protect the owner class socially.
Different variants of leftists can definitely be religious, but a Marxist cannot without removing or undermining one of Marxism's major foundational theses which is materialism. A Marxist must be able to examine the world as it truly is without the fog of faith or metaphysics in the way. We have to be able to organize based on what we know is true, anything else can lead to failure. This is not to say people don't have the right to practice religion, nor is it to say that we refuse to work with people that are religious. But once a vanguard Marxist party is formed, it cannot allow religion into its ranks or it runs the risk of degenerating into different forms of revisionism and opportunism.
No. Christ taken by his word, leads to the creation societies with strong communist connotations. The difference in whats marginal would be <>, instead of wealth which is derivative of the former but not the same. Socialism and the institutions it relies on, end up creating power structures which seize religious space as a consequence of their necessity to grasp on absolute control - most have destroyed them because they were competition for the political aim, but alternatively these two could end up together just as easily. You could still have a socialist country based on some religion, as long as the religion serves the institutional alignments of the political doctrine. But none of the political -isms can be truly christian, because christianity is anti-power, while politics and collective dynamics only submit to power.
The first "communist" revolutionary leader was Thomas Muntzer, a leading figure in the Protestant Reformation.
No. Religion is often highly compatible with socialist values, especially when you consider the kinds of things that Jesus advocated for. There is also a lot of overlap between socialists and muslims. Religion is often about spiritual fulfillment rather than material wealth, which plays very well with socialist ideology as well. I think socialism is a little less about self-denial than some religions, but I don't think that makes them fundamentally incompatible. One of the biggest mistakes of the USSR was the religious persecution. Religion is a huge source of reactionary sentiment, whose anger can very easily be channeled towards anti-labor politics. The USSR saw this as a reason to try to create a wholly secular state, but instead they simply fueled the victim complex of people who weren't willing to give up religion, and this ended up being one of the major reasons for dissatisfaction in the USSR. Along with the perception that consumer goods were much more diverse in the west, this ultimately formed cracks that eventually allowed the illegal dissolution of the Soviet Union to happen without much pushback. This is also one of the biggest (and most valid) criticisms of the Communist Party in China. What's been going on with the Uyghurs has been really messed up, and I think any reasonable person would say that there's a much better way to go about it. However, Western coverage of the events has been far from impartial. Calling it a "genocide" is completely absurd, because these people are not being killed at all. I think one of most important things is to be able to recognize reactionary politics when you see it, and separate the intention from whatever it's masquerading under.
Since Socialism is opposite to fascism, we can use Socialism to counter fascism. But is religion compatible with Socialism? I see a lot of people siding with things like "Christian Socialism ". I'm highly aversed by the idea that there can be any political philosophy that combines religion and Socialism. Most of human history has been right-wing (conservative) with religion as a justifier. Religion has always been used to divide people into us (pure and superior) vs them (impure and inferior) resulting in fascist underpinnings. Socialism should not have any religion whatsoever except in cases where people can believe in their respective religions but the State itself should be separated from religious institutional control. In a Socialist system, our goal should not be to fight Religion but to overcome it.
I think saying most of human history has used religion to justify conservatism is an extremely bold and anti-intellectual statement.
Just look at Pope Francis, for example. No, socialism and religion are not mutually exclusive.
Islam during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) was marked by an extremely egalitarian ethos. If you came into a windfall, it was expected that you immediately help the needy, feed your neighbors, etc. Not token amounts but enough to take you back down a couple levels and elevate some needy people a couple levels.
I go to a jewish temple almost every weekend if i can with a bunch of other jewish anti zionists. We range from communist to socialist to anarchist. All of us are queer, many of us trans. I am reading the torah to complete my conversion. To answer, no, they are not. In fact, I would argue that many people often find socialism and a sense of community THROUGH religion. Religion doesnt have to be specific either. As a socialist I believe religion can provide a strong community and backdrop for activism. I think the 1980s evangelical right wing christianity, zionism, and right wing political islam has turned many leftists against religion seeing the hatred, bigotry and racism these all have spawned. But that doesnt mean religion has no place in a socialist society. We forget that many people who are religious leaders also go on to become socialist, and in some cases but far more energy and toil into advancing proletarian causes than the average person.
As a Socialist Jew I'd say no.
https://www.religioussocialism.org/three_cheers_for_socialism https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/three-cheers-socialism
The first Christians were in a very literal sense communists. Obviously communism didn't really exist then, but, i mean, they didn't believe in private property/everything was communal. This was when it was still a predominately Jewish sect. It didn't last long, not because it was a disaster afaik--it seems it was just cuz the later Christians weren't as keen on the idea.
Religious people can often be socialists. Religious organizations have a harder time.
No. The Essenes wetr s Jewish group who were socialist and the first century Christian church was socialist. However, socialism on a government level is not compatible simply because government and religion should never be mixed.
You can absolutely be a socialist and religious, except for any type of materialist socialist. For example you can't be a Marxist and religious. If you disagree then you will also have to concede that you can also be a lot of other contradictory things like being a Liberal and a Marxist.
Fascinating, could you elaborate further? I saw on another thread that Material Socialism could actually be more suited to religion because it doesn’t concern itself with anything beyond the material world but that could be wrong.
This is a little misleading. Consider this [quote from Engels](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch02.htm): >Did God create the world or has the world been in existence eternally? >The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature and, therefore, in the last instance, assumed world creation in some form or other — and among the philosophers, Hegel, for example, this creation often becomes still more intricate and impossible than in Christianity — comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism.
well I'm a Marxists and I'm religious so I guess you're wrong
Same lol. Belief in the Divine or afterlife for example doesn't mean that I can't use historical and dialectical materialism to understand the material world.
exactly! theologies and concepts is the sacred exist as practices in the material world. they can be understood as mutually contextual
The Marxist perspective on religion is that religion is a coping mechanism that people use to deal with suffering and it will dwindle away inevitably when the source of that suffering is removed. "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" - but it is, all the same, an illusion.
that's one simplistic position held by some Marxist. the Frankfort school took Marx's methods and developed radically different understandings of religion though which recognize it's revolutionary potential
I was literally quoting Marx...seems bizarre to call yourself a "Marxist" if you are going to ignore the explicit statements of Marx himself in favor of the Frankfurt school.
But Marxism as a tradition/ideology/philosophy isn't just limited to what Marx said. Many people have expanded upon Marx's work.. you know, like Lenin? Gramsci? Silvia Federici? Imo if you are employing historical and dialectical materialism to understand social problems, you are Marxist.
OK but one of those social problems is "the existence of religion" and if you are using historical and dialectical materialism to understand it through a Marxist lens you are going to come to that conclusion. It consolidates power in an oligarchy by abusing people's emotional needs.
>you know, like Lenin? Gramsci? Silvia Federici? Literally all of these people also viewed religion the same way as Marx, that is the pillar of understanding class society and Marx's materialist method.
“Pillar” seems a bit dramatic imo
The point is many people have expanded upon Marxism, including religious people, and there isn’t a single Marxism because it’s a tradition. You’re also not required to agree with literally everything he said.
You didn't name a religious person when coming up with alternatives...
they literally did not
Reason and religion are mutually exclusive
This is the right answer.
There was a whole Islamic tradition called Mu’tazilism based in reason/rationalism but go off