Marxist Scholars CircleBoard

A lot of anti-religious rhetoric from the left comes from instances of the church being integrated into the society in the benefit of the Bourgeoisie. For instance, what we saw in Russia and China was the direct reaction to previously having a system wherein the church was the state, and thus the Tzar was upheld by god. This led to a lot of ugly rhetoric from the Soviet government, which was often religophobic, and highly problematic / oppressive.

In my opinion, you can not be Communist and support anti-religion. You can not be a comrade, and dogmouth people for believing in what they choose. As Communists, we should crush the church, but we should also help it rebuild anew under Socialism. Not kick the church into the dust and forget about it.

I can understand anger towards the church, regardless of the religion that church presents. In the west, the Orthodoxy has been used as a walking stick for bourgeois politics. But also, in the west religion has been liberating, religion has made life under the oppressive capitalist regime livable, religion can be a great nonbody-comrade that we must embrace openly going forwards. Do not hate people, single them out, make them feel isolated, for the mistakes and the oppressive postures the church has brought with it through the years. Instead, shake hands, offer bread, and teach religious folk who their true allies are.

If Islamic women want to wear their religious clothing, as is demanded in the orthodox of their faith, let them gods damned do it. While you're at it, extend open hands and stop gatekeeping leftism/liberation. People like myself, who are deeply religious, who are deeply communist, will thank you.

I feel this depends on a multitude of factors. One cannot just say "should be ban burkas?" because that in itself is a multifaceted question. While I understand the more popular Marxist idea is to reject religion for its ability to detract and distract from the workers movement, and that in many cases it is also used as a means of imperialism and oppression, and (in a more recent context) to install fascism because it is "god's mandate." I feel that within the western nations themselves, this is not the case as Muslims are a minority group, and often fall into the same class of oppression as African American and Hispanic persons.

If we are talking about our modern capitalist world, I feel that the situation is variable. It is my understanding that the Burka is more cultural than religious, and that is grew out of an interpretation of the Quran that became popular with many of the islamic governments in the Middle East. Thus, it would be seen as a means of women's liberation to oppose those conservative and right wing theocratic regimes, such as the KSA.

As for the United States, I feel the situation is different. In the US, the muslim minority group is increasingly becoming seen as a scapegoat for the problems in the middle east and in the world. Even more problematic, it divides the working class by bombarding them with "us and them" propaganda, and preventing unity amongst them. It fosters anti-immigration sentiment, feelings of racial sovereignty, and bolster's support for bills that will force "assimilation" (which is really an excuse to legislate capitalist and western conformity).

Moreover, their persecution by much of the establishment is inextricably tied up with their goal of building popular sentiment that the middle east is the new "uncivilized" Africa, and that it is the American duty to "free it." It is imperative that we stand with these muslim persons, not due to religious views, but because we stand against the American Empire and its goals to "democratize" the middle east and it's goals to divide the proletariat.

For those outside the imperialist heartland (if any), I'm curious to hear your observations.

Marxist Scholar Vanguard wrote:

Communists take the line that a "woman wears whatever she wants" so the Burka is permissible.

Seems more of an individualist line; what a woman - or anyone - wants isn't independent of social norms and conditioning, and adaptive preference can lead to people wanting what what they would not want in a freer and more egalitarian society.

Che in the msc wrote:

I'll take a genuine Liberation theologian over a libertarian like Mat Dilahunty any day

I happen to like many of the concepts associated with things is Christian socialism or anarchism. The issue isn’t the teachings per say (although some things are archaic), but how capitalist entities have twisted them to their own goals, the Catholic Church for example.

Luckynia wrote:

Seems more of an individualist line; what a woman - or anyone - wants isn't independent of social norms and conditioning, and adaptive preference can lead to people wanting what what they would not want in a freer and more egalitarian society.

Maybe, but that doesn't trample the right of a woman to wear what she wants to wear. Men have such rights, women in many parts of the world do not. This is not individualist because we're not talking about any I individual, we're talking about women's clothing hampered by religious beliefs or controlled by religious beliefs.

I think it's important that we as leftists promote freedom and equality on all fronts as a principle, this includes the freedom of and from religion and the right to not be discriminated because of your religion or lack there of, this includes Islam.
This also includes the freedom and equality of women, lgbtq+ individuals, people of all races, and the freedom and equality of everyone.
The freedoms of one group shouldn't come at the cost of the freedoms of another group.

This is why my personal stance is on Islam that people have the full right to adhere to the religion, and that it is a shame that Muslims have to be the victims of the 'us vs them' mindset and that we should be in solidarity with them. However, it is also important that Islam faces the same standards and criticisms that any other religion or any other non-religious philosophy should face. This means that I am for banning garments that cover the face in name of Islam, as it is a blatant disregard of women's rights, dangerous and problematic in other ways, as you can hide your identity with it, and not a requirment under Islam, this is why i'm for banning those garments that cover the face even if religion is used as an excuse. This is why I am against banning hijabs that do not cover the face.
We should also acknowledge and criticize the parts of Islam that are reactionary and violate human rights, we should also acknowledge and criticize that many muslims follow these reactionary tendencies, and we should fight for the right for muslim women not to wear a hijab, and the right of people born into Islam to change their religion or not be religious.
We should not do this by Islamophobia, toxicity and scapegoating, but by having a secular society, having alot of contact between different diverse groups, including religious groups, with the topics being included but not limited to religion, but also to getting to know eachother. and making sure that ex-muslims who have left islam have a social and economic support net as they are too many times ostracized and harassed for their choice and that women and other people who are suffering from reactionary tendencies have a social and economical support net too.

Don't see how Marx is "vague" when it comes to religion, honestly. The famous introduction of his Contributions to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the Right looks to me as rather clear about the importance of a critique of religion and how it is related to a critique of capitalist society in general. I advise that people take a look at the text.

Even if you try to attribute Marx's opinions to the general sentiment of the epoch, being associated with Left Hegelianism and all, and being a part of the same age that born two other big enemies of religion, those are Freud and Nietzsche, you can't really dismiss the fact that Marx stood firmly against religion. And it is not limited to the early writing that criticizes Hegel, it is actually all over Marx's works.

Very few socialists retain a strict opposition to religion today, I believe. The use of unprovoked violence against the armada of God in Earth sounds appalling, and even propaganda against religion is viewed as disturbing. Criticism is aimed at the institutions. That is the case with our age in general. The Holy Church is to be criticized, but spirituality is advised. "Personal" Gods and all sorts of "preachers" are everywhere. Christianity is in a process of secularization, that is the truth of ideology in Western societies.

I, however, still consider myself an enemy of Christianity and of all religion. Not only an enemy of its corrupt institutions, but one of religion even in its outmost generality. The principle of religion is what I am against, more than anything else. Individuals come and go, after all. The clergy may be consisted of fascist minions (that is correct for at least Greece). Tomorrow they may stand with the humanism of the soft left, who knows? But religion remains. It always does. Therefore, an inquiry about the essence of religion from a materialist and Marxist standpoint should come before all, in my opinion. You might be right, Marxist Scholar Vanguard. Maybe Marx is a bit vague when he discusses religion. But that vagueness of Marx is exactly what the issue demands and that's what we, as Marxists, should take up and use today.

Let's now take a look at the question regarding Islam. Burqa seems to me as a matter of legislation, more than anything else. As such, I support that no state (effectively talking about states in the West here) should limit the ability of anyone to wear a burqa, or anything else, if they want so. I get it that the line that separates willing to from being forced to wear a burqa can be considered as blurry, but I really don't get how they can support the ban on burqas. Ain't gonna make the life of those women any easier or better. Hell, they will probably feel much worse, being disallowed to wear something they believe is a part of their religion and culture. Nothing other than a sort of hidden Islamophobia can be behind this, from what I understand. And I expect that from anywhere, but as leftists we should at least take a stand against such opinions within the Left.

I don't know why I didn't think of it but before, but I feel like this discussion with the Hijab actually has a lot more cultural implications than the rise of Islamaphobia and the rise of fascism, atleast with the argument that they should be banned because it's patriarchal to force people how to dress through social and familial pressure, if that's the argument they're using, and they actually believe that argument is valid, that obviously means they have some very far reaching critiques on things like gender, gender roles, and things like fashion

Because you don't really have a choice in what you wear on a broad societal level, atleast here in the US, you're told since a pretty young age that if you look a different way you dress a certain way, if you're, and I'm gonna put these terms in heavy quotation marks, "male" you're to told from a very young age what you can and can't wear, dresses are a big no no, same with "females", there are things you can wear and things you can't

And as far as the actual physical violence aspect of it goes, I don't know of anywhere in the US atleast where this is legal, but it violence against god I'm trying to make a wording for this that doesn't come off as incredibly transphobic, you know what I mean, people who go outside of those norms in the US are regularly murdered and assaulted

Aesengir wrote:

So while the right to wear the veil is important, so too is the right not to wear it. And while some criticism of Islam is undoubtedly rooted in racism and scapegoating, it can also be legitimate to criticise oppression as my friend does above.

Yes, and here is where I think the situation matters. No one needs to be fighting for the right of women to wear a hijab in Saudi Arabia, for example, but the fight for the right of women not to wear a hijab in such societies is a progressive one.

At the same time, in the West, Muslim women come under fire (due to racism, bigotry, Islamophobia, etc.) for choosing to wear the hijab, and defending their right to wear it is similarly progressive.

Alright comrades, we've had several weeks to discuss this topic. Does anyone else have a topic of interest that they'd like to learn about or speak on?

Marxist Scholar Vanguard wrote:

Alright comrades, we've had several weeks to discuss this topic. Does anyone else have a topic of interest that they'd like to learn about or speak on?

Considering the relevance to current events in the world, and considering that the Marxist understanding on this topic is often different to common notions, I personally suggest delving into the theory of imperialism.

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:

Lately, I have been considering two very different approaches to imperialism: Antonio Gramsci (who, of course, introduced the concept of the subaltern into Marxism) and the Third-World Maoist approach. Gramsci, as someone who was literally imprisoned by Mussolini, is fairly useful. He focused on how cultural imperialism actually thwarted the chances of revolution. Third-Word Maoism, however, presents a much more simplistic (and not as useful) perspective. Many of them argue that imperialist countries have no dialectical potential. Obviously, that idea contradicts Marx's concept of an international Proletariat and leaves us with more limited national revolutions.

I would ask how and why you view one as more useful than the other. Gramsci's theories have been instrumentalized by far more than simply Marxists, so asking for whom a theory is useful is important as well.

I ultimately disagree with the vulgar Third Worldist position you present, of imperialist countries having no revolutionary potential, and some of the actual positions of serious Third Worldists like Zak Cope, but I find their perspectives important to engage with for a few reasons.

First, Third Worldists attempt to theorize a material basis to opportunism and chauvinism in the working class in the core through their extension to classical Marxist labor aristocracy theory, answering basic questions about why revolutions haven't broken out in developed capitalist states yet as was expected by Orthodox Marxist theorists. They focus on the base in their explanations rather than give primacy to superstructural features as the primary bulwarks to revolution in the core, which I find much more compelling since they're referencing actual data which can be challenged and/or improved as we get more or newer data. In short, Third Worldists don't lean on saying that workers in the core are held back by ambiguous (and in this context, arguably patronizing) notions such as false consciousness, but suggest instead that they have real, material interests in the continued exploitation of the periphery.

Second, Third Worldists focus on concepts that many leftists may not be familiar with or have outright had no exposure to. Things like unequal exchange which are critical to understanding our world economy today and were not explored enough by classical theorists on the left, who largely addressed exploitation at the point of production rather than trade. These are not important merely in giving us a sharper, fuller, picture of the world but in raising new avenues to explore in strategy. These concepts have little reason to stay almost exclusively in the purview of Third Worldist theorists as they are now.

Relating to the second, some of the value in Third Worldists comes from how controversial and challenging their positions can be. Their analysis, regardless if one agrees with it or not, cuts to the bone and should make leftists reflect on their own perceptions and practice. It undermines the myth of an undifferentiated international working class as you mention, but also hits an emotional chord in making leftists in the core question if what they're doing has any much value. In this regard I recommend folks engage with Third Worldists like I do with Bordiga's work on democracy because it strikes hard at some widely held dogmas on the left. Hopefully it prompts leftists to approach their theory and practice with a bit more rigor in the future.

I personally was very antagonistic towards Third Worldists in the past from my exposure to people in the field that unfortunately are minor popular figures on the internet left and aren't good representatives to put it lightly. Beyond the obvious controversies their position implies, my other point against it was a looseness I perceived in how they used various Marxist terms. "Labor aristocracy" for example was used in a much more specific way by Engels and Lenin. But reading folks like the aforementioned Cope, I largely got over it. At this point I don't think it's sufficient to dismiss their theory for where it breaks with orthodoxy, I don't think it challenges or rebuts their claims.