[DanDaMan]

Is socialism just a new religion and those that advance it just religious "priests" wanting to redistribute wealth in the name of Social Justice?

Are they not just fools following an imaginary social construct?

[VP Note: I will allow the discussion in this thread to develop. I do think there is room for something substantial and insightful. However, DDM, trolling will not be tolerated in this sub-forum. Please substantiate polemical rhetoric and avoid posting simply to provoke reactions. If this thread degenerates further it will be deleted. Any post that is clearly an attempt to troll will be deleted.]

[Ombrageux]

There is a practice of Social Democracy which is perfectly empirical and grounded in reality. I do think that Marxism is in its revolutionary ambition is almost Utopian and, in the late nineteenth to mid twentieth century, was much like a secular religion.

[Groih]

Dan would you please stop quoting Glenn Beck? The guy has no credentials and makes 20 some million dollars a year to be on Fox. If I was being paid 23 million I'd say whatever the fuck the big boss wants me to say too. He's a clown who is just saying whatever the bosses at Fox want him to say.

It worries me how wrong he is. He seems to think that social justice is a bad thing? How the fuck is it wrong to treat everyone the same regardless of their race, class, sex, sexual orientation etc... aka things that are more or less (there are 1 in a million exceptions to class) outside of their control? Are you not in favor of civil rights? The two usually go pretty hand in hand...

[Kman]

It worries me how wrong he is. He seems to think that social justice is a bad thing? How the fuck is it wrong to treat everyone the same regardless of their race, class, sex, sexual orientation etc... aka things that are more or less (there are 1 in a million exceptions to class) outside of their control? Are you not in favor of civil rights? The two usually go pretty hand in hand...

That isnt the only thing socialism is about, its also about taking from people that are hardworking and ambitious and giving that money to lazy slobs, all in the name of ''social justice''.

[DanDaMan]

It worries me how wrong he is. He seems to think that social justice is a bad thing? How the fuck is it wrong to treat everyone the same regardless of their race, class, sex,

I agree its wrong to treat people differently based on that.

sexual orientation

I disagree on deviant behavior. To do so would mean I treat person born to "love" children equally.

etc... aka things that are more or less (there are 1 in a million exceptions to class) outside of their control? Are you not in favor of civil rights?

Yes.
I'm talking in more general terms of Social Justice with regard to class warfare and the envy of the rich.

[sans-culotte]

Depends on the definition of religion; I prefer Durkheim's definition of something sacred apart from the profane to be religion. Socialism does not fit this definition, as it is a grand narrative of social organisation, covering all of its aspects with no separation between sacred and profane.

[DanDaMan]

Depends on the definition of religion; I prefer Durkheim's definition of something sacred apart from the profane to be religion. Socialism does not fit this definition, as it is a grand narrative of social organisation, covering all of its aspects with no separation between sacred and profane.

Capitalism is profane, to the collectivist, and Social Justice is sacred. Kudos Durk!

[sans-culotte]

That may be true for some (perhaps for a majority of militants - I linked to this great article regarding them in another thread), but for me (I tend to define myself as socialist) socialism is just as profane as capitalism, logically flowing out of it to the tune of the proletariat's material interests (perhaps making it even more profane than capitalism)

[Vera Politica]

Is socialism just a new religion and those that advance it just religious "priests" wanting to redistribute wealth in the name of Social Justice?

No. Religion, as an organized ideological framework, has a metaphysical basis. Socialism, in the Marxist tradition, does not base itself on metaphysical notions. In fact, Marxism is scientific and non-ideological - modern social science is entirely indebted to Marxian analysis. Marxism is certainly a part of the Western, Christian tradition. However, it broke with teleological (Aristotelian) explanations of historical development and, so, turned the analysis of history and society into a scientific venture.

Are they not just fools following an imaginary social construct?

No, they are not. The fault is on bourgeois ideologues who have idealized and naturalized what are, actually, phenomena restricted to particular socio-historical epochs.

There is a practice of Social Democracy which is perfectly empirical and grounded in reality. I do think that Marxism is in its revolutionary ambition is almost Utopian and, in the late nineteenth to mid twentieth century, was much like a secular religion.

How are you qualifying classical Marxism as a secular religion exactly?

[DanDaMan]

DDM wrote:
Is socialism just a new religion and those that advance it just religious "priests" wanting to redistribute wealth in the name of Social Justice?

No. Religion, as an organized ideological framework, has a metaphysical basis. Socialism, in the Marxist tradition, does not base itself on metaphysical notions.

Both of which are constructs of the mind.

And since both constructs are organized...both are equally defined as "religions".

[Ombrageux]

Vera Politica - It was a theory and a movement which had:
* Its founding texts and prophets (Capital, Marx and Engels)
* Its apostles Kautsky, Bernstein etc.
* An apocalyptic/messianic eschatology on the coming collapse of society and a new order of a "Paradise on Earth"
* A quasi-religious faith in said eschatology, as a necessary human aspiration to confront one's disgust from the wrongness of capitalist society
* Militant organizations sometimes to the point of fanaticism. Disagreements were not simply political or contingent, but parties characterized each other as veritable heretics (like the Pope/Anti-Pope conflicts of the middle ages when several people, notably Stalin, Trotsky and Mao, could plausibly claim the revolutionary mantle). I think here especially of the disputes between Trotsky and Stalin, Tito's autonomy, Mao's condemnation of peaceful coexistence, the constant accusations of "revisionism," etc.

Of Christ’s twelve Apostles, Judas alone proved to be traitor. But if he had acquired power, he would have represented the other eleven Apostles as traitors.

And I do not describe Marxism like this to condemn it. Its militantism and messianic character was necessary if, in forming movements, Marxist intellectuals could have any political existence. In the golden age of Marxism, 1870s to Stalinism, if only these characteristics had given the international worker's movement the unity and strength we could have avoided the worst catastrophes of the twentieth century (I think, in particular, if Jaures's general strike had stopped war in 1914, if the German Revolution had succeeded in 1919, if Gramsci had beaten Mussolini, if Trotsky had not ceded to Stalinism...). Today such a religious tinge is outdated and ineffectual, the context is different, it may only be relevant again if we have apocalyptic (environmental?) prospects. Certainly once "Marxism" was limited to post-Stalinism and Third World upheaval, such religious characteristics served no purpose at all.

[Vera Politica]

Both of which are constructs of the mind.

So is mathematics, formal logic and most of the theoretical sciences. Being a 'construct of the mind' is not similar to being 'religious'. What an abhorrent and juvenile definition. Stop trolling, you have been warned - please engage with what I have posted or do not post at all.

Vera Politica - It was a theory and a movement which had:
* Its founding texts and prophets (Capital, Marx and Engels)
* Its apostles Kautsky, Bernstein etc.
* An apocalyptic/messianic eschatology on the coming collapse of society and a new order of a "Paradise on Earth"
* A quasi-religious faith in said eschatology, as a necessary human aspiration to confront one's disgust from the wrongness of capitalist society
* Militant organizations sometimes to the point of fanaticism. Disagreements were not simply political or contingent, but parties characterized each other as veritable heretics (like the Pope/Anti-Pope conflicts of the middle ages when several people, notably Stalin, Trotsky and Mao, could plausibly claim the revolutionary mantle). I think here especially of the disputes between Trotsky and Stalin, Tito's autonomy, Mao's condemnation of peaceful coexistence, the constant accusations of "revisionism," etc.

Certainly Marxism developed from within the theoretical frameworks of Western Christianity - this doesn't make it religious only similar in its internal and external organization to other organized ideologies (religious or not). I take issue, however, with describing Marxism as a 'messianic eschatology'. This is a superficial qualification. Marxism's analysis of capitalism using methods which have now come to be the basis for modern social science led to a conclusion about the eventual collapse of capitalist economies (Marx also mentioned that it was, indeed, possible that civilization fell into barbarism rather that revolution - although he thought this outcome unlikely). More precisely, Marxism was the antithesis of teleological explanation in historical development (i.e. the Aristotelian remnants of analysis were still alive and well in the areas of what we now call 'social science' prior to Marxism) - this makes Marxism the quintessential break from Christian teleology in socio-historical analysis (Darwin broke from the teleology concerning natural history and was, as such, very influential to Marxists in the 19th century).

[DanDaMan]

ideology
1.
the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2.
such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3.
Philosophy.
a.
the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
b.
a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
4.
theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.

What is your ideology VP?

DDM wrote:
Both of which are constructs of the mind.

So is mathematics, formal logic and most of the theoretical sciences. Being a 'construct of the mind' is not similar to being 'religious'.

You are comparing math and logic to that of Social Justice Constructs designed to facilitate a means to an end.
They are not the same.

[Vera Politica]

What is your ideology VP?

I have many conservative values which cannot be linked into one ideological umbrella - so I would say I am ideologically conservative (although not conservative in the sense used in American politics). Marxism, however, is not an ideology.

You are comparing math and logic to that of Social Justice Constructs designed to facilitate a means to an end.
They are not the same.

Obviously it is not. But you qualified a definition of 'religion' with the simple characteristic quality of being 'a mental construct'. I simply showed the absurdity of your definition via a reducio ad absurdum. Your statement has nothing to do with the way in which I criticized your post.

[DanDaMan]

I still see no substance in your position against mine.

[Vera Politica]

I still see no substance in your position against mine

You need not look to hard, it is there and quite evident. I have stated, first, that Marxian socialism, unlike religion, does not have a metaphysical basis. Second, that Marxism isn't accurately pegged as an ideology but is, in fact, a scientific method of social analysis - unlike religion. Third, Marxian analysis broke with Aristotelian teleology as it concerns social history (effectively giving birth to modern social science) while teleology is an important explanatory basis in Christian theology.

Those are three solid, logical and well formulated reasons against the idea that Marxian socialism is a kin to religion. You responded with the unimaginative, irrelevant and erroneous claim that, well, since Marxian socialism is a mental construct like religion - which I quickly rebutted with a reducio ad absurdum.

There is not only substance in my position against yours, but my posts have definitively rejected the entire premise of this thread.

[DanDaMan]

Well, to us little people... the zealotry of the Liberal left in this country is not unlike the Bible beaters on the religious channel!
It's almost the carbon opposite. A film negative, if you will.

[Vera Politica]

Liberal left

Marxian Socialists are not liberals. Socialism is anti-liberal.

[Ombrageux]

Perhaps I am not understanding the term, but it seems to me that Marxism is intensely teleological by definition.

[Okonkwo]

Perhaps I am not understanding the term, but it seems to me that Marxism is intensely teleological by definition.

I would very much like to second that question: if we accept the definition of teleology as purposive activity directed towards a specific ideal state of affairs which should be achieved by certain means I would be under the impression that Marxists view communism as their "End" achieved by "Means" of revolution to specifically use Hegelian terms.
We could even venture to go one step further and describe this communist End as the ideal existence that was never achieved. The actual outcome of the adopted Means was the Hegelian "Realised End", or really existing socialism, an outcome that was rather different from the abstract End for which the Means was adopted in the first place.