Why do Communists tend to to be Atheist?

realitykeeper

Communism and Atheism tend to go hand in hand. Why is that? A leftist I know explained his opinion on the matter saying that humanity does not need God and humans can find the answers they needs through science.

But according to Proverbs 3:5-6 we should ...

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.

Obviously this will not mean much to an Atheist but there are fundamental truths connected to this proverb that are hard to dispute.

For example, Communism tends to fail and it only lasts when people do not have a democratic voice. This is because Communism contains in-built errors. Instead of everyone working hard for the good of everyone else, everyone tries to do as little as possible and hope the next guy will do all the work. Or, because they do not trust him to do his share. Christianity tends to be absent in Communist societies, and as mentioned, Communism tends to fail so there may be a connection there.

Another fundamental truth is that trust is a good thing and of course faith and trust are strongly connected. A lot of people tend to think it is a good idea not to trust and these people may have had a lot of bad experiences in their lives but I still say trust is vital if humanity is to survive. Trust should not simply be about eliminating risk and therefore the reason for trust. It is important that people take the risk of trusting each other even if that is not the streetwise thing to do. If you do not trust, you will never find out who is trustworthy and who is not.

Am I wrong?

Peregrinus

As ever, you oversimplify. From the evidence in Acts, the early Christian church appears to have been communist, and communism is firmly rooted in the Christian tradition in the form of monasticism.

Communists tend to be atheist, except for the ones who aren't atheist.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

As ever, you oversimplify. From the evidence in Acts, the early Christian church appears to have been communist, and communism is firmly rooted in the Christian tradition in the form of monasticism.

Communists tend to be atheist, except for the ones who aren't atheist.

Modern day Communism tends to be associated with atheism but a commune does not necessarily mean a bunch of Communists. I guess you could say Communists stole the word, just like they steal everything else.

Certainly there are people of faith in Communists societies but they tend not to be the people who are not Communist.

mikhail

If we limit the discussion to Marxists, rather than communists in general, then they do tend to be atheist. Which is hardly odd, given Marx himself wrote that religion is the opium of the masses. If your philosophy derives from an anti-religious book, you're probably going to be anti-religious. Does that mean anything deeper? Maybe not. Some folks say that if you're going to worship the state, then there's no room for rivals, but that never stopped the long line of kings and tyrants who wrapped themselves in religious clothing.

Skrynesaver

<cough> Liberation theology<cough>

Cabaal

realitykeeper wrote: »

Am I wrong?

You are quoting nonsense from the Bible,
You might as well be quoting from Lord Of The Rings,

So in all honestly, your post is just nonsense

oldrnwisr

realitykeeper wrote: »

Communism and Atheism tend to go hand in hand. Why is that? A leftist I know explained his opinion on the matter saying that humanity does not need God and humans can find the answers they needs through science.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Am I wrong?

In a word, yes. Well, at least you're mostly wrong.


At a very basic level you're making a fallacious argument, specifically the fallacy of questionable cause. Just because communism and atheism are sometimes associated doesn't mean that there is necessarily a causal connection. It's the same kind of flawed thinking as the people who claim that evolution leads to atheism or that evolution is inherently atheistic. In fact Aron Ra devoted an entire video (and subsequently chapter) to this idea in his Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series.



As mikhail explained it makes a difference what flavour of communism you're talking about and in the case of Marxism, its unsurprising that communism borne out of an anti-religious idea would end up atheistic in nature.

realitykeeper wrote: »

For example, Communism tends to fail and it only lasts when people do not have a democratic voice. This is because Communism contains in-built errors. Instead of everyone working hard for the good of everyone else, everyone tries to do as little as possible and hope the next guy will do all the work. Or, because they do not trust him to do his share. Christianity tends to be absent in Communist societies, and as mentioned, Communism tends to fail so there may be a connection there.

You're multiply wrong here.



First, Soviet communism failed but the Communist party of China is still in existence, it's still the ruling party, it's been going for 98 years and it currently has 90 million members. So, you might find it more enlightening to ask why Soviet communism in particular failed as opposed to communism in general.


In an old episode of the Uncommon Knowledge program the late Christopher Hitchens gives an insight into the rise and fall of Soviet communism:

"Until 1917, millions of Russians had been told for…hundreds of years that the czar is the head of the church – which he was, the Russian Orthodox Church. That the leader of the country should be something a little more than human. Not a god, but a little more. He’s not divine, but a holy father
If you’re Josef Stalin, you shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you don’t know how to exploit an inheritance like that: millions of credulous, servile people.
And what does he do? Lysenko’s biology – miracles, we can have three harvests a year if we believe in Lysenko’s biology. Inquisition, heresy hunt, orthodoxy. Everything comes from the top and must be thanked for, and groveled for. A complete replication of the preceding theocracy."




Second, you're skirting around this idea that communism is either inherently atheistic or leads to atheism and that as such, without the stabilising influence of Christianity any such society is doomed to fail. As it turns out, you're wrong on both counts.



Dealing with your second point first, you're trying, very subtly I might add, to imply that having Christianity might have prevented communism from failing had it been incorporated. This idea is obviously wrong. There are plenty of societies where Christianity has either never played a significant role or no longer plays a significant role and yet are in no danger of collapsing. Japan, for example.



The other point is one that many Christians have made over the years, specifically that a communist society built as it is on atheism is always going to lead to oppression, genocide, famine and eventual societal collapse because something something no morals something something, rant rant Hitler Stalin, or so the argument usually goes. However, as Christopher Hitchens points out:

"For your argument to have…any force at all, you’d have to point to a society that adopted the teachings of Lucretius, Spinoza, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Albert Einstein…and then fell into famine, dictatorship, torture and genocide. And you won’t, I think, be able to point to such. "

realitykeeper wrote: »

But according to Proverbs 3:5-6 we should ...

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.

Another fundamental truth is that trust is a good thing and of course faith and trust are strongly connected. A lot of people tend to think it is a good idea not to trust and these people may have had a lot of bad experiences in their lives but I still say trust is vital if humanity is to survive. Trust should not simply be about eliminating risk and therefore the reason for trust. It is important that people take the risk of trusting each other even if that is not the streetwise thing to do. If you do not trust, you will never find out who is trustworthy and who is not.

Perhaps you should read a bit more of Proverbs, specifically chapter 14:

"The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps."

You should learn from this sage advice, trusting without reservation is the path to gullibility, to being taken advantage of. Rather than Proverbs 3:5, you should follow the old Russian proverb, trust but verify.

Bannasidhe

oldrnwisr wrote: »

In a word, yes. Well, at least you're mostly wrong.

.....

I think we should all take a moment to rejoice in the welcome appearance of an oldnwisr post.

Right.

Carry on.

lazygal

Praise be!

realitykeeper

oldrnwisr wrote: »

First, Soviet communism failed but the Communist party of China is still in existence, it's still the ruling party, it's been going for 98 years and it currently has 90 million members. So, you might find it more enlightening to ask why Soviet communism in particular failed as opposed to communism in general.

Everyone knows China is only claiming to still be Communist. If there was any doubt, they could perhaps keep up a pretense to being Communist but even a pretense is out of the question. China is capitalist and therefore it is a benign fascist dictatorship which benefits most of it`s people and oppresses those it considers subversive.

That said, not every country that claims to be a democracy is a democracy. In fact most countries with "democratic" in the name are not democracies. The former GDR was one example.

Sonny noggs

Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not best Korea.

realitykeeper

oldrnwisr wrote: »

you should follow the old Russian proverb, trust but verify.

You learned of that proverb from one of my former posts. Am I right?

realitykeeper

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not best Korea.

Good example. Lest there be doubt, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is North Korea.

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

This is because Communism contains in-built errors. Instead of everyone working hard for the good of everyone else, everyone tries to do as little as possible and hope the next guy will do all the work.

Another 'realitykeeper' thread, another sketchy offering. Sweeping generalisations are your forte. "In-built errors" requires deeper analysis.

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

Another 'realitykeeper' thread, another sketchy offering. Sweeping generalisations are your forte. "In-built errors" requires deeper analysis.

Mod: Please restrict your criticisms to the post and do not attack the poster. Thanking you.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

Everyone knows China is only claiming to still be Communist. If there was any doubt, they could perhaps keep up a pretense to being Communist but even a pretense is out of the question. China is capitalist and therefore it is a benign fascist dictatorship which benefits most of it`s people and oppresses those it considers subversive.

That said, not every country that claims to be a democracy is a democracy. In fact most countries with "democratic" in the name are not democracies. The former GDR was one example.

By the same token the argument can be made that the Soviet Union was not communist.
It was an updated version of a feudal system with 'communist' stamped on it as a bit of rebranding so the serfs workers would accept that the person sitting on top of the pile was completely in charge, even though the 'Papa' was no longer the 'chosen by God' monarch.

You had a pretty much absolute ruler, below him was a powerful inner circle who may or may not challenge for control. Beheadings purges occasionally needed to maintain the status quo.

Beneath them you had the lesser baronsparty officials who enforced the rules, curried favour with those above, and rose or fell with their patrons.

Next came the Craft workers (fully paid up guild members) - the Bourgeois middle management shopkeeping nursing teachers who are the real danger to any political system. It's vital they are kept happy lest they get notions above their station and start demanding changes that benefit them. A mixture of reward and punishment works best with them. Toe the line, follow the rules, ensure that your university educated children become successful respectable professionals who also toe the line. You will be suitably rewarded. Demand more (rights, freedom, influence, power, money) and you will lose everything.
When the Bourgeois get seriously p*ssed off revolutions tend to happen. Ask Lenin, or Robespierre, or Guevara, or Pearse, or Franklin.

Then there is the majority. The people who do most of the work and get the least in return. The ones who do most of the dying in the wars but exert the least political influence. Fed a diet of paternalistic nationalism and denied any real opportunity for advancement. Sure, a few farmer's sons might become squires and rise up the ranks to become knights but that is an important safety valve in the feudal system. Hope of a better life is powerful. Hope for your children/grandchildren is an unbeatable motivator to follow the rules.

Communism states everyone is equal. In the USSR everyone was patiently not equal. Therefore it was not communist.

oldrnwisr

realitykeeper wrote: »

Everyone knows China is only claiming to still be Communist. If there was any doubt, they could perhaps keep up a pretense to being Communist but even a pretense is out of the question. China is capitalist and therefore it is a benign fascist dictatorship which benefits most of it`s people and oppresses those it considers subversive.

That said, not every country that claims to be a democracy is a democracy. In fact most countries with "democratic" in the name are not democracies. The former GDR was one example.

Bannasidhe has already dealt with this point so I would direct you to their rather excellent response.


I would simply like to add that Soviet communism wasn't any more or less communist than China because, like China, Soviet Russia substituted the nation for the people so that it was the nation who owned everything and any actual control by the people was only in theory. But if you'd really like to know to what extent China is actually communist I'm sure pauldla could provide some valuable insights.

realitykeeper wrote: »

You learned of that proverb from one of my former posts. Am I right?

Nope, you're wrong again. I'm old enough to remember Ronald Reagan's use of the term in the 80s although the phrase was more recently brought to mind by the fantastic HBO Chernobyl series. In fact, that series offers some idea of what Soviet Russia was really like and whether it was really a communist nation.

realitykeeper

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Communism states everyone is equal. In the USSR everyone was patiently not equal. Therefore it was not communist.

I`ve heard that one before. Everytime Communism fails, people say that wasn`t real Communism.

You do however pinpoint one of Communism`s in-built errors. It fails to take account of human nature. Some people are hardworking, others are happy to be slobs.

As for everyone being equal, they are not of course. Nature dictates that we are all unequal to a greater or lesser extent.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

I`ve heard that one before. Everytime Communism fails, people say that wasn`t real Communism.

Oddly enough, people say that about Christianity as well.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

I`ve heard that one before. Everytime Communism fails, people say that wasn`t real Communism.

You do however pinpoint one of Communism`s in-built errors. It fails to take account of human nature. Some people are hardworking, others are happy to be slobs.

As for everyone being equal, they are not of course. Nature dictates that we are all unequal to a greater or lesser extent.

You seem to have spectacularly missed the point that I was making - which was, in fact, an extension of the point you yourself had made.

i.e. that just because a thing (e.g. a State's description of it's own political system) says it is something (communist/democracy etc etc) that does not mean the thing is actually that something.

The Democratic People's republic of Korea is neither democratic or a republic. We determine this by looking at it's political system and comparing it to the definition of 'democratic' and 'republic' to see if it conforms. It doesn't.

When we analyse the political system of the USSR it was more closely aligned to feudalism than communism.

Human nature and whether or not equality is possible is completely beside the point. The fact is that the USSR made no effort to implement equality. It kept the basic structures of Imperial Russia, rebranded, and exchanged the ruling aristocracy based on bloodlines with one based on party affiliation.

By the by - every political system has in-built errors.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oddly enough, people say that about Christianity as well.

Don't forget they also say it about Christians/Catholics,

The priest that ****ed children that was fully supported/protected by the Cardinal and Bishops and was moved around to different parishes inline with Vatican guidelines to continue his "priest duties" apparently wasn't a proper catholic don't you know....

Funny really, because the Vatican saw that he was, enough to keep him in the job.

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote:

Communism and Atheism tend to go hand in hand. Why is that? A leftist I know explained his opinion on the matter saying that humanity does not need God and humans can find the answers they needs through science.

Did this leftist say he was a communist, or....?

smacl

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Did this leftist say he was a communist, or....?

Did this leftist even say they were a leftist?

Given that leftist regularly tends to be used as a pejorative term by those on the far right for those that are in any way to the left of them, it seems unlikely. I've seen people self identifying as left-leaning, socialist and communist but rarely if ever as leftist.

Cabaal

smacl wrote: »

Did this leftist even say they were a leftist?

Given that leftist regularly tends to be used as a pejorative term by those on the far right for those that are in any way to the left of them, it seems unlikely. I've seen people self identifying as left-leaning, socialist and communist but rarely if ever as leftist.

I know plenty of atheists, honestly I've never had a conversation with them where they said "I'm a leftist", must say I've never met anyone who has identified as a communist.

Its frankly amazing that realitykeeper knows so many people that outline such things in day to day conversation

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Toe the line

I just wanted to say that in the Undemocratic Republic of Desiato, the mouth-breathers who post "tow the line" on internet forums will be summarily executed.

Harsh, but fair, I think you'll find.

Also it's always hilarious to see a christian deploy the "no true Scotsman" fallacy...

smacl

Cabaal wrote: »

I know plenty of atheists, honestly I've never had a conversation with them where they said "I'm a leftist", must say I've never met anyone who has identified as a communist.

I was lucky enough to have John De Courcy Ireland as a teacher in secondary school, who was certainly involved with the Irish communist party though no idea if he identified as communist. Absolutely fantastic bloke who from memory was adored without exception by students and staff alike. Well remembered though no notion of his religious leanings or lack thereof.

Bannasidhe

Cabaal wrote: »

I know plenty of atheists, honestly I've never had a conversation with them where they said "I'm a leftist", must say I've never met anyone who has identified as a communist.

Its frankly amazing that realitykeeper knows so many people that outline such things in day to day conversation

I've only met two people who identified as communist. 1980s. Hackney.
One is French, the other is Turkish.
Both were atheists as it happens.

I've met truck loads of socialists. Atheist and religious.
People often get the two mixed up when they are quite different.
Saying they are the same is like saying anyone on the right is a fascist....

Come to think of it, I have met more people who identify as fascist than I have who identify as communist. In my world the difference is the two communists are still friends of mine but I avoid the fascists like the plague. The reason being when I would point out to the communists why I thought their preferred system was unworkable the Turk would earnestly lend me worthy tomes and have heartfelt discussions, the Parisian would shug, say "f*ck you eh" and pour some wine. When I tried to do this with the fascists they became abusive and tended to threaten violence quite quickly.

realitykeeper

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You seem to have spectacularly missed the point that I was making - which was, in fact, an extension of the point you yourself had made.

i.e. that just because a thing (e.g. a State's description of it's own political system) says it is something (communist/democracy etc etc) that does not mean the thing is actually that something.

The Democratic People's republic of Korea is neither democratic or a republic. We determine this by looking at it's political system and comparing it to the definition of 'democratic' and 'republic' to see if it conforms. It doesn't.

When we analyse the political system of the USSR it was more closely aligned to feudalism than communism.

Human nature and whether or not equality is possible is completely beside the point. The fact is that the USSR made no effort to implement equality. It kept the basic structures of Imperial Russia, rebranded, and exchanged the ruling aristocracy based on bloodlines with one based on party affiliation.

By the by - every political system has in-built errors.

But why pick on the USSR when you could say the same for so many other regimes that claim to be Communist. Granted China is a powerhouse of economic success but their case it is true, they are not real Communists. Maybe that is it, when Communists are really capitalists, then they succeed and when they are not, they don`t.

realitykeeper

oldrnwisr wrote: »

In fact, that series offers some idea of what Soviet Russia was really like and whether it was really a communist nation.

The contrast between the prosperous west and Russia was stark. So of course the USSR began to ape the west even before Communism collapsed.

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Did this leftist say he was a communist, or....?

I bunch them all together.

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote: »

I bunch them all together.

im a proud lefty, ive never considered myself a communist or socialist for that matter, so maybe....

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

Did this leftist even say they were a leftist?

Given that leftist regularly tends to be used as a pejorative term by those on the far right for those that are in any way to the left of them, it seems unlikely. I've seen people self identifying as left-leaning, socialist and communist but rarely if ever as leftist.

No. You are correct. I applied that term to him (just not to his face, cause I am too polite for that).

oldrnwisr

realitykeeper wrote: »

But why pick on the USSR when you could say the same for so many other regimes that claim to be Communist. Granted China is a powerhouse of economic success but their case it is true, they are not real Communists. Maybe that is it, when Communists are really capitalists, then they succeed and when they are not, they don`t.

The USSR entered into this discussion because of the claim you originally made in the OP. You said:

realitykeeper wrote: »

For example, Communism tends to fail and it only lasts when people do not have a democratic voice.

The problem with this claim is that while the USSR failed and it's true that it's people didn't have a democratic choice, China which is also nominally communist and is also a country where there is only very limited democracy (the ruling party decides which parties can run in elections), and is still going strong.


So when you said communism tends to fail, China disproves that because it is a communist country and its people also don't have a true democratic voice.


In response to me pointing this out, you claimed that China wasn't a real communist country and was only pretending to be. Bannasidhe then showed that this argument of yours is also without foundation since the USSR could also not really be described as a communist country in any meaningful way and was just a rebranding of the imperalist system which went before.



We're not picking on the USSR just using it as an example to show that your arguments don't hold water.

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

im a proud lefty, ive never considered myself a communist or socialist for that matter, so maybe....

Noted. But if like me you were to consider leftism a bad thing then you might be inclined to bunch it together also. Think of the old fashioned rubbish bin before recycling started. All the rubbish went in together, just an analogy of course, no offense intended

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

But why pick on the USSR when you could say the same for so many other regimes that claim to be Communist. Granted China is a powerhouse of economic success but their case it is true, they are not real Communists. Maybe that is it, when Communists are really capitalists, then they succeed and when they are not, they don`t.

Ummm... because you had already dismissed the idea that China is actually communist so I argued that the 'other' large 'communist' bloc also wasn't really communist.

Tell you what.
Why don't you tell us what countries you believe are actually communist and we'll go from there.

Mainly to see if you understand what 'communist' actually means because when you make statements like "Communists are really capitalists" I tend to wonder. See, if communists are 'really' capitalists then they aren't communists. They are capitalists.

It's like saying when Christians are really Hindu...

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

I bunch them all together.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Noted. But if like me you were to consider leftism a bad thing then you might be inclined to bunch it together also.

How very fascist of you. :P

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote: »

Noted. But if like me you were to consider leftism a bad thing then you might be inclined to bunch it together also. Think of the old fashioned rubbish bin before recycling started. All the rubbish went in together, just an analogy of course, no offense intended

as was said earlier, be very careful with over simplification of our reality, our world is a very complex place, and human behavior can be extraordinarily complex. right or more conservative thinking is also complex, and too should not be viewed in a simple manner, both exist, and both should be equally respected

realitykeeper

oldrnwisr wrote: »

China which is also nominally communist ...

Nominally indeed. I think Hitler`s national socialists were nominally socialist but his concentration camps would not be an ideal substitute for social housing. That is the difference between nominally and the real thing.

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

Another 'realitykeeper' thread, another sketchy offering. Sweeping generalisations are your forte. "In-built errors" requires deeper analysis.

I just glanced at this thread now and I was wondering why s/he was on my ignore list.

Anyway, I think I have never seen such a comprehensive and cogent post point by point response on boards.ie than oldrnwiser's.

It made mince meat of reality keeper's generalisations - ashes to ashes, dust to dust!

All you can say is well done - most would not be bothered.

He/she would be a great preacher/orator which is ironic considering the thread that is in it.

Anyway out of curiosity - the first overtly leftist leader of a party I thought of at the moment was Jeremy Corbyn (I don't think he is a particularly good politician but that is for the politics threads)

Anyway when I searched "Jeremy Corbyn atheist" ( I did not know whether he was or not ) I found this interesting article below -

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2016/sep/29/corbyn-is-an-atheist-but-his-ideas-are-true-to-the-bible

The author's take is that while Corbyn does not believe in God his ideas in line with the bible. About the rich v poor etc.

I thought it was a very interesting way of looking at it.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

Nominally indeed. I think Hitler`s national socialists were nominally socialist but his concentration camps would not be an ideal substitute for social housing. That is the difference between nominally and the real thing.

Leaving aside that you have now Godwinned your own thread.

I think you may be unclear as to what 'socialist' means.

I would also refer you to the point originally raised by you re: just because a thing says it is something doesn't mean it is that thing.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

Nominally indeed. I think Hitler`s national socialists were nominally socialist but his concentration camps would not be an ideal substitute for social housing. That is the difference between nominally and the real thing.

Mod: That crack about concentration camps is in extremely poor taste and not really the sort of comment we encourage here in A&A. No more of that please.

Huntergonzo

I don't believe in god but I'm not certainly not a communist, infact if anything I'm right wing economically and support the free market.

Socially I supported gay marraige and repeal but I have no time whatsoever for modern social justice warriors or the increasingly feminist agenda in the media.

So how did I score on the atheist/communist test?

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

Noted. But if like me you were to consider leftism a bad thing then you might be inclined to bunch it together also. Think of the old fashioned rubbish bin before recycling started. All the rubbish went in together, just an analogy of course, no offense intended

That being the case, could you clearly define what you mean by the term. For example, which of the following state subsidies would you be against;

Healthcare
Social housing
Social security payment
Education
Childcare
Support for the elderly
Maternity leave

I consider myself left leaning and have no problems paying a substantial amount of my income in tax to help fund the above even though I'd imagine my contribution greatly exceeds the direct benefit to myself or my family. Personally, I'm far happier being part of a caring society than an uncaring one. While I'm an atheist, I would have thought that this was pretty much in line with the core principles of Christianity.

branie2

Marx did say that religion was the opium of the people

smacl

branie2 wrote: »

Marx did say that religion was the opium of the people

As has already been said in this thread, there's more to communism than Marxism.

smacl

Huntergonzo wrote: »

So how did I score on the atheist/communist test?

Find out here; https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057191497

Unfortunately, the old boardsie group link is down but the test still works fine. I'm now one square more left and liberal than when I originally took the test. I thought we were supposed to drift towards the right and authority as we aged?

Edit: Fixed up the boardsie group chart in thread linked above. We A&A folks seemed to be a bunch of left leaning liberal hippies for the most part at that point, no obvious commies other than Calibos. I reckon certain posters attitudes may have changed somewhat since they last did the test.

Huntergonzo

smacl wrote: »

Find out here; https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057191497

Unfortunately, the old boardsie group link is down but the test still works fine. I'm now one square more left and liberal than when I originally took the test. I thought we were supposed to drift towards the right and authority as we aged?

Jaysus I haven't done that test in years. I went from slightly right of centre to centre-right, still half way down the libertarian axis though, no change there.

robindch

branie2 wrote: »

Marx did say that religion was the opium of the people

The full quote is a little more interesting than that often-quoted bit:

"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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

Peregrinus

In Marx's time, opium wasn't primarily thought of as a drug of abuse, but as a painkiller. Marx's argument here is that the appalling conditions created by capitalism give rise to religion, which people develop and practice because it mitigates the horrors of life in a capitalist world. He doesn't see religion as a source of problems, but as a response to them. He doesn't argue that indidivual socialists must be non-religious; more that in a socialist society there will be no religion, because there will be no need for it. Hence for those who are attempting to construct a socialist society, the persistence of religion is an embarrassment, because it is evidence that the project has not (yet) been successful.

two wheels good

Peregrinus wrote: »

In Marx's time, opium wasn't primarily thought of as a drug of abuse, but as a painkiller. Marx's argument here is that the appalling conditions created by capitalism give rise to religion, which people develop and practice because it mitigates the horrors of life in a capitalist world. He doesn't see religion as a source of problems, but as a response to them. He doesn't argue that indidivual socialists must be non-religious; more that in a socialist society there will be no religion, because there will be no need for it. Hence for those who are attempting to construct a socialist society, the persistence of religion is an embarrassment, because it is evidence that the project has not (yet) been successful.

Thanks. A necessary explanation. And more eloquent than I'd have written.
"Opium of the people " and "Survival of the fittest": two quotations consistently misinterpreted.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

In Marx's time, opium wasn't primarily thought of as a drug of abuse, but as a painkiller.

I'm not so sure about that,

China didn't fight the British in relation to opium just because they didn't like British illegal importing it. They saw it for what it was, addictive and damaging to their society.

The British knew well it was addictive too, but like drug company's are doing right now with opioids painkillers the British were happy to sell as much of it as they could while they could get away with it. They even fought any restrictions.