Ask a Communist?

[Silmarien]

For me, Atheism and Communism are synonymous with one another. I am on another forum and have found that most atheists will assume that Atheism is "lack of belief" and therefore that atheism is treated in isolation. This is the completely opposite of my experience and it was actually a shock to debate people downplaying the relationship between Communism and Atheism. Atheism is the positive rejection of the existence of god and seeking to build a "new religion" in its place. So- weirdly- I actually get on with religious people better than atheists because its such a all-embracing experience that affects your personality, how you feel, what you think and have you behave. In terms of its behaviour and "inner" experience, it is completely accurate to describe Communism as a Religion or even a Cult. there is just no god in it. Its an atheistic religion that places man, rather than god, at the centre of the world.

This is very interesting to me. I'm a former atheist existentialist myself, and I tend to clash very badly with atheists around here. I think it's less because of theism vs. atheism and more because European forms of atheism, like Marxism and existentialism, work very differently than atheism in the Anglosphere. I identify with atheists like Friedrich Nietzsche or Albert Camus, and need to catch up on the Marxists myself, so "atheism is a lack of belief" just seems very shallow and self-deceptive to me. If you're going to be an atheist, be a real one.

I have wanted to give up Communism because obviously some of the things they did were genuinely horrific, but in practice I couldn't do that without also ceasing to be an atheist (or my particular kind of atheism). Being Active on Christian Forums may help me think through my atheism enough either to reject it (and therefore Communism), or else built it on more solid foundations.

If you're interested in a viable atheism without communism, there is always absurdism. If you would like to be challenged on your atheism, I would suggest starting with the Christian existentialists. Their approach can be really compelling for people who are all about the relation between the self and the world. I've got a lot of experience crawling out of Nietzsche's abyss, and I think it's better to start with writers who stress the existential over the evidential aspects of religion--Augustine before Aquinas. An ideological approach might work better for you, though. I'm sure there are postmodern Christian responses to Marx out there. I just bought this, which is a dialogue between Slavoj Žižek and postmodern Anglican theologian John Milbank on the meaning of Christianity--I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but it might be the sort of thing that would interest you too.

 

[Francis Drake]

Having read about Communist atrocities, I am more than comfortable admitting I am in a position of intellectual and moral bankruptcy. My pride in my own intellect led me down a dark path and I was wrong, even if I don't know exactly how. I am very aware of the fact Communism killed people. But recognising that doesn't offer a solution to the problem that human beings chose to do it and that it represents a part (or at least a capacity) within our nature that we have to take responsibility for. Communism is evil and it is an evil that I chose to be part of, even if only in a small way. I want to take responsibility for it, but I don't know how.

I appreciate your honesty Red in acknowledging the intellectual pride.
I would also admit that religion can be as equally evil as communism. You only have to read about the Spanish Conquistadors or the Spanish Inquisition to realise that.
God doesn't need tyranny to get people's attention.

I don't understand why you want to take responsibility for the evils of Communism. You accept that it is evil, can you not just walk away and have nothing more to do with it?

You followed communism because you are an atheist, and you said the two go together.
However I have news for you, Marx was never an atheist. He fully believed in God but because of his own pride, began to hate God so therefore chose to serve Satan instead.

Marx deliberately created the atheist/communist dogma as the best way of hitting against the God he knew but hated.

Don't follow Marx's pattern. Even though you resist the idea of a creator God, I suggest you speak to God himself about that. Until you explore the idea of a God who loves you, you will never be a free man!
I am not talking about religion, I'm talking about a freewill relationship.

 

[Shadow]

This is very interesting to me. I'm a former atheist existentialist myself, and I tend to clash very badly with atheists around here. I think it's less because of theism vs. atheism and more because European forms of atheism, like Marxism and existentialism, work very differently than atheism in the Anglosphere. I identify with atheists like Friedrich Nietzsche or Albert Camus, and need to catch up on the Marxists myself, so "atheism is a lack of belief" just seems very shallow and self-deceptive to me. If you're going to be an atheist, be a real one.

The Soviets divided Atheism between those they thought were agnostic atheist and Gnostic atheist (if you will). People like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris etc, would come under the agnostic atheist label and I get on with their "followers" really badly because we share almost nothing in common besides the label. In my experience, they are the group I clash with the most, so I know where you're coming from.

Unfortunately there isn't a huge amount of literature on Marxist Atheism which is why I've had so many problems with it. There is also very strong evidence that the Soviet understanding criticism of religion was poor because they thought it would disappear over night and there was little room for discussion of religion. (I don't think they could even do Bible Criticism as the bible was banned possibly). It wasn't until the 1960's that they really tried to get to grips with it, teaching "Scientific Atheism" courses in schools and universities (and boring the heck out of everyone who took them as mandatory courses). If there had been a "bible" I could just turn to and figure out what the heck they meant I would have been much happier. (There was a general Overview of "Marxist-Leninist Scientific Atheism" by James Thrower which is as close as I could get. Its rare, expensive and good for non-marxists, but for a marxist reader you can see holes but still very good. It does show that Atheism is built on weak foundations in the USSR even if there are some really interesting ideas in it as well. )

I haven't read them but "The Essence of Christianity" by Ludwig Feuerbach and "The Foundations of Christianity" by Karl Kautsky would be your best bet. Maxime Rodinson was a French Marxist who did some books on Muhammad and Islam and could be of interest too. However, I think all of it is dependent on accepting the basic "dogmas" of Marxism, namely materialism. Really good explanations of "why" materialism is a valid approach to understanding religion are hard to find and is why I've found Marxism is not very satisfying at a really advanced level. there's always something missing.

If you're interested in a viable atheism without communism, there is always absurdism. If you would like to be challenged on your atheism, I would suggest starting with the Christian existentialists. Their approach can be really compelling for people who are all about the relation between the self and the world. I've got a lot of experience crawling out of Nietzsche's abyss, and I think it's better to start with writers who stress the existential over the evidential aspects of religion--Augustine before Aquinas. An ideological approach might work better for you, though. I'm sure there are postmodern Christian responses to Marx out there. I just bought this, which is a dialogue between Slavoj Žižek and postmodern Anglican theologian John Milbank on the meaning of Christianity--I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but it might be the sort of thing that would interest you too.

ah. "Nietzsche's abyss". Lol. Sounds like you know the territory well.

I will certainly have a look in to it. My sense of humour may be a bit absurdist as it is.

 

[Shadow]

I appreciate your honesty Red in acknowledging the intellectual pride.
I would also admit that religion can be as equally evil as communism. You only have to read about the Spanish Conquistadors or the Spanish Inquisition to realise that.
God doesn't need tyranny to get people's attention.

I don't understand why you want to take responsibility for the evils of Communism. You accept that it is evil, can you not just walk away and have nothing more to do with it?

You followed communism because you are an atheist, and you said the two go together.
However I have news for you, Marx was never an atheist. He fully believed in God but because of his own pride, began to hate God so therefore chose to serve Satan instead.

Marx deliberately created the atheist/communist dogma as the best way of hitting against the God he knew but hated.

Don't follow Marx's pattern. Even though you resist the idea of a creator God, I suggest you speak to God himself about that. Until you explore the idea of a God who loves you, you will never be a free man!
I am not talking about religion, I'm talking about a freewill relationship.

Someone's been reading Richard Wurmbrand's "Marx and Satan". There's a quote you may be interested in: “God is on your side? Is He a Conservative? The Devil's on my side, he's a good Communist.” (Stalin) Even as a Joke, that's kind of revealing for someone trained to become an Orthodox Preist don't you think?

I don't believe that "Satan" is real, but I have flirted with Le Vey's Atheistic Satanism. There is absolutely some similarities between Satanism and Marxism in that if god is the symbol of the ruling class, it is plausible that satan is the symbol of the revolt of the oppressed, of the desire for worldly enlightenment, the value of worldly knowledge and possessions, etc. Le Vey's Satanism borrows from Ayn Rands Objectivism and various sources but lacks Marxism's "dialectical" flavour so its not as anywhere near as complete as a worldview. The one thing that stuck with me was the realisation that Social Darwinism is part of Marxism and it was a missing piece of the puzzle. Of course, that takes in to the darkest territory imaginable because the idea of a state that "clenses" society of class enemies is essentially eugenic.

I don't understand why you want to take responsibility for the evils of Communism. You accept that it is evil, can you not just walk away and have nothing more to do with it?

The Soviets wanted to eliminate all independent and individual thought. They didn't believe in the individual. There was no private life and no private thought. Everyone had to think the same way; the party's way. Everything had to be standardised. People think and feel and behave the same way. Its how it is in North Korea now. Its like a language and when you can "translate" it you can get inside these people's heads.

So you're living in two worlds- your own immediate everyday experience, but then you can flip a switch and you're imagination takes you in to the middle of meetings of Communist Party officials. you can pick out moments of conversation, personal thoughts and chatter, the chinking of wine glasses and other vivid details. There was a chilling BBC drama (Conspiracy, 2001) about the Wannsee Conference where the Nazis agreed to the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" (some clips below). If you spend long enough studying these people you get an unnerving insight and intimacy with that "way of thinking". For me, its the Soviets rather than the Nazis, but imagine being able to sit in that room and hearing people saying these things, treating the death of thousands or even millions of people with a dismissive and causal officaldom. It makes you uncomfortable and makes you realise how easy it is for people to slip in to these things.

Its a psychological insight I could do without but it can be so ordinary, personal and so sinister simultaneously and you can't really hide from it. It just gives you chills and its "haunts" you honestly. But the fact I understand these people means I have to be very careful how I use it. Hence, its necessary to take some responsibility for the nature of the knowledge that comes from this.

 

[Radagast]

Though I suppose the alternative is to call socialism a Christian heresy.

Well, old-school communism is close to being that. Both its morality and its eschatology are borrowed from the Bible. But, of course, inevitably it turned into a monster.

 

[Erik Nelson]

how does one justify Marx' theory of Surplus Value?

if any private business that earns more in Revenues than it pays in Expenses is "stealing" the difference from its workers (= Factors of Production > Labor) and so should pay them more wages...

then maybe it is really "stealing" from investors, and should pay them more stock dividends...

or maybe it is actually stealing from land lords, and should pay them more in rents...

(= Factors of Production > Capital)

So, maybe it is really the Capitalist investors and land lords who are the real victims?


Similarly, whilst we are accusing private sector entities of hoarding miserly, then whatever goes for private businesses logically also goes for private households...

Any industrious hard working head of household workers who earn more than they spend each year are "stealing" the difference from all of their factor inputs...

they ought to pay their children more allowance money for doing chores, they ought to pay the grocery store more for food, they ought to pay the hardware store more for tools, they ought to pay more for computers, cell phones, internet, cable TV, Netflix, etc. etc. etc.


Non arbitrarily selective application of the theory of Surplus Value makes all private sector entities into guilty miserly thievish hoarders whose savings deserve to be expropriated. I don't think that any workers, as private sector entities, would ever sign up for the theory of Surplus Value, if they better understood it.

 

[Percivale]

The Soviets divided Atheism between those they thought were agnostic atheist and Gnostic atheist (if you will). People like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris etc, would come under the agnostic atheist label and I get on with their "followers" really badly because we share almost nothing in common besides the label. In my experience, they are the group I clash with the most, so I know where you're coming from.

Unfortunately there isn't a huge amount of literature on Marxist Atheism which is why I've had so many problems with it. There is also very strong evidence that the Soviet understanding criticism of religion was poor because they thought it would disappear over night and there was little room for discussion of religion. (I don't think they could even do Bible Criticism as the bible was banned possibly). It wasn't until the 1960's that they really tried to get to grips with it, teaching "Scientific Atheism" courses in schools and universities (and boring the heck out of everyone who took them as mandatory courses). If there had been a "bible" I could just turn to and figure out what the heck they meant I would have been much happier. (There was a general Overview of "Marxist-Leninist Scientific Atheism" by James Thrower which is as close as I could get. Its rare, expensive and good for non-marxists, but for a marxist reader you can see holes but still very good. It does show that Atheism is built on weak foundations in the USSR even if there are some really interesting ideas in it as well. )

I haven't read them but "The Essence of Christianity" by Ludwig Feuerbach and "The Foundations of Christianity" by Karl Kautsky would be your best bet. Maxime Rodinson was a French Marxist who did some books on Muhammad and Islam and could be of interest too. However, I think all of it is dependent on accepting the basic "dogmas" of Marxism, namely materialism. Really good explanations of "why" materialism is a valid approach to understanding religion are hard to find and is why I've found Marxism is not very satisfying at a really advanced level. there's always something missing.



ah. "Nietzsche's abyss". Lol. Sounds like you know the territory well.

I will certainly have a look in to it. My sense of humour may be a bit absurdist as it is.

It appears that you were interested in communism not so much as an economic system as for its eschatology or the promise that the world is heading in the right direction, maybe also for the purpose in life that it offers? I would think it would be easier to have faith in scientific progress and democracy than in the communist dialectic, though they have some things in common. But even if material prosperity increases, that won't necessarily make life better in every way. Faith in God and valuing religion and community give me a broader sense of hope than anything atheistic system good I think. For me pragmatism defeats skepticism and so the probable evidence from things like the cosmological argument and near death experiences is enough to convince me of the existence of God and the soul.

 

[Silmarien]

I haven't read them but "The Essence of Christianity" by Ludwig Feuerbach and "The Foundations of Christianity" by Karl Kautsky would be your best bet. Maxime Rodinson was a French Marxist who did some books on Muhammad and Islam and could be of interest too. However, I think all of it is dependent on accepting the basic "dogmas" of Marxism, namely materialism. Really good explanations of "why" materialism is a valid approach to understanding religion are hard to find and is why I've found Marxism is not very satisfying at a really advanced level. there's always something missing.

Yes. I think there's actually good reason to believe that materialism is a terrible approach to understanding religion. A really interesting book that I read recently is Rodney Stark's Discovering God--he's a sociologist of religion, an agnostic who eventually became Christian (before this particular book was written; hence the title), and he was quite incisive with his criticisms of a lot of secular explanations for religion, Marxist or otherwise. If religion's main goal were to keep the disenfranchised quiet, as Marx believed, one would expect that it would be more attractive amongst the poor, but a study of early Christian history shows instead that the earliest converts were largely from more privileged classes. Something doesn't add up here if religion is supposed to be the opium of the masses.

On the other hand, the more stable your economic and social situation is, the more time and energy you will have to focus on questions that don't revolve around day-to-day survival. If material possessions themselves do not fill the void, so to speak, you're likely to go seeking something that will. The only atheist critique of religion that really holds any water for me is Albert Camus's, since he grounds it in the search for meaning in a meaningless universe rather than in material or social needs. I think he was ultimately wrong, since in true postmodern fashion, I see atheism as a construct of modern society based on faulty Enlightenment prejudices, but I'd consider him one of the most insightful thinkers out there, for theists and atheists alike.

Anyway, if you're trying to decide what the most valid approach to explaining religion is, don't neglect to look into what major religious thinkers have said as well. A lot of the secular theories out there are completely detached from reality because they're too busy defending their pet ideologies to go out and find out what people actually believe and why. Theism is, unfortunately, really hard to wrap your head around unless you've already assented to it.

 

[Shadow]

It appears that you were interested in communism not so much as an economic system as for its eschatology or the promise that the world is heading in the right direction, maybe also for the purpose in life that it offers?

Yeah, that is a very accurate assessment.

I would think it would be easier to have faith in scientific progress and democracy than in the communist dialectic, though they have some things in common. But even if material prosperity increases, that won't necessarily make life better in every way.

The Communist Dialectic is potentially very abstract, but when its combined with Materialism is can be something that directly relates to your personal experience. It is rather easier to have faith in the dialectic that you would expect.

You are of course right, that even if material prosperity increases, it won't make life better in every way. But it is a start. When human beings have an abundance of goods and services and do not life in want, they are certainly much more free in terms of their freedom of action than they would be in poverty. At this point, when mankind is freed from having the concentrate on focusing on material wants, we can then focus on our "spiritual" needs if you will.

There definitely is a core of Communist-Marxist doctrine which does do that, and when you use the dialectic to apply to everyday problems, you can see it is possible. However, this side of it is under-developed and is more limited to a tendency known as the "God-Builders". For Communists, it would mean achieving the goal of not establishing a "new world" but also a "new man" and "new woman" to live in it who are both very prosperous but also have a rich spiritual/inner life. So in a sense, Communism would behave as a new religion even if it may profess to be Scientific.

Faith in God and valuing religion and community give me a broader sense of hope than anything atheistic system good I think. For me pragmatism defeats skepticism and so the probable evidence from things like the cosmological argument and near death experiences is enough to convince me of the existence of God and the soul.

Human beings knowledge is necessarily incomplete and can never be absolute, so there is always a degree of uncertainty in our ideas about the world. I am not entire sure how Communism deals with the more absolute claim that only "matter is real" to dealing with the uncertainty of individual claims. Its hidden somewhere in the dialectic which I don't fully understand. So in this sense you are on much safer ground than I am.

 

[Shadow]

Yes. I think there's actually good reason to believe that materialism is a terrible approach to understanding religion. A really interesting book that I read recently is Rodney Stark's Discovering God--he's a sociologist of religion, an agnostic who eventually became Christian (before this particular book was written; hence the title), and he was quite incisive with his criticisms of a lot of secular explanations for religion, Marxist or otherwise. If religion's main goal were to keep the disenfranchised quiet, as Marx believed, one would expect that it would be more attractive amongst the poor, but a study of early Christian history shows instead that the earliest converts were largely from more privileged classes. Something doesn't add up here if religion is supposed to be the opium of the masses.

The idea that Socialism would be popular amongst the masses who would then "spontaneously" develop class consciousness and rise up against the capitalist class is one that was very popular in the late 19th century. This is where Lenin comes in and would say that you have to draw on the "bourgeois" intellectuals as a source (initially at least) for the "vanguard of the proletariat". A Kind of Communist Priesthood and missionary class if you will who understand the "Theology" of Marxism and spread it to the masses. However, it is very debatable as to whether this "Vanguard" then itself turns in to a new exploiting class of intellectuals or bureaucrats whose interests are opposed to the workers themselves, and that is a key criticism of Party rule by Anti-Communists. Its really hard to tell if that is the case, but it is a point that is hard to ignore.

Thanks for the link to Stark's book btw. I will give it a look.

On the other hand, the more stable your economic and social situation is, the more time and energy you will have to focus on questions that don't revolve around day-to-day survival. If material possessions themselves do not fill the void, so to speak, you're likely to go seeking something that will. The only atheist critique of religion that really holds any water for me is Albert Camus's, since he grounds it in the search for meaning in a meaningless universe rather than in material or social needs. I think he was ultimately wrong, since in true postmodern fashion, I see atheism as a construct of modern society based on faulty Enlightenment prejudices, but I'd consider him one of the most insightful thinkers out there, for theists and atheists alike.

I think Marxists would say that the pursuit of material needs is the economic basis for the freedom to pursue our spiritual needs. As you say, once the economic and social situation is stable, people have more time and energy to focus on more philosophical and spiritual questions. The difficulty for Marxism is that most of its theory was developed directly engaged in Party matters and so was very immediate. The need for a Marxist spirituality (if you wish) was treated as irrelevant even if there is a need for it. It is definitely true that Atheism is based on Enlightenment ideas of progress in science and of making discoveries about the natural world, and it is difficult to know if these are prejudices or are actually "true" in a sense outside of that context.

Anyway, if you're trying to decide what the most valid approach to explaining religion is, don't neglect to look into what major religious thinkers have said as well. A lot of the secular theories out there are completely detached from reality because they're too busy defending their pet ideologies to go out and find out what people actually believe and why. Theism is, unfortunately, really hard to wrap your head around unless you've already assented to it.

Yeah, I am going to try and get to understand Christian Theology if I can. I don't actually know much of the deatils of it and really am not in a position to criticise it effectively, so it is hard to know how secure my beliefs are in the face of new knowledge or experience. Time will tell.

 

[Liza B.]

No worries. I have done this on a couple of forums before and its always got people talking. Its good to see and I can get to know people better.



For me, Atheism and Communism are synonymous with one another. I am on another forum and have found that most atheists will assume that Atheism is "lack of belief" and therefore that atheism is treated in isolation. This is the completely opposite of my experience and it was actually a shock to debate people downplaying the relationship between Communism and Atheism. Atheism is the positive rejection of the existence of god and seeking to build a "new religion" in its place. So- weirdly- I actually get on with religious people better than atheists because its such a all-embracing experience that affects your personality, how you feel, what you think and have you behave. In terms of its behaviour and "inner" experience, it is completely accurate to describe Communism as a Religion or even a Cult. there is just no god in it. Its an atheistic religion that places man, rather than god, at the centre of the world.

I know Atheism can be defined in many ways but if I were to say what it means for me, it is the belief that "there is no god: Man created God". Ludwig Feuerbach would say that humans project themselves on to nature and call it "god". So rather than having "no religion", my experience of Atheism is intensely religious- It is man's pursuit of becoming "God-like" in terms of being able to know or control as much as humanly possible and alter it in our interest. To want to know and control everything is essentially the basic idea behind Communism. If you know everything and control everything you can build a "new heaven and a new earth".

Of course, wanting to "play god" is a terrible idea, but when I started out I was just a kid. I liked history and science and I was fascinated by the idea of science fiction and time travel. Studying Marxist ideas sort of gave me a process to imagine what it would be like to travel in to the future and eventually evolved in to a desire to know everything. That was more my ambition, and Communism promised that you could use "Science" (or more accurately "Scientific Materialism") to understand everything. Its a huge and very addictive buzz. It was only much, much later that I started to realise that desire for knowledge may also mean a desire for power given that "knowledge is power". That side of it is much darker, but it can be useful because trying to get you know yourself better and wanting the power to change things means you focus a lot of self-improvement.

I have wanted to give up Communism because obviously some of the things they did were genuinely horrific, but in practice I couldn't do that without also ceasing to be an atheist (or my particular kind of atheism). Being Active on Christian Forums may help me think through my atheism enough either to reject it (and therefore Communism), or else built it on more solid foundations.

its worth mentioning that there is definitely a connection between atheism, communism and the fact I have depression. There is the potential for an intense nihilism in all this and it is something I struggle with. Nietzsche's philosophy is extremely complicated, but it does describe the trauma of not having a god and having to build beliefs from scratch very well. Losing the sense that man has some kind of "divine protection", the good guys don't win simply because they are good and there is no cosmic propensity for natural justice is pretty traumatic when you realise all the horrors that are lurking out there. It's all very Darwinian, but i try not to think about it because its hard. At the same time, this is also a tool kit to get you to solve problems and get you out of depression.

Having been agnostic at one point, and having interacted with atheists-agnostics for something like 10+ years now, I have to say this is probably one of the most honest and compelling posts I have ever read. You don't pull any punches here, and I appreciate that.

You probably don't need me to tell you that Communism, then, is just a more sophisticated system of dog-eat-dog world. But not much more sophisticated, just one tiny shade more. It doesn't work, it will never work, because it is not only clumsy, but ugly. God did not design us to live with the clumsy and ugly. I hope there's enough of Him left in your soul to get a glimpse of what I'm saying.

 

[Shadow]

Having been agnostic at one point, and having interacted with atheists-agnostics for something like 10+ years now, I have to say this is probably one of the most honest and compelling posts I have ever read. You don't pull any punches here, and I appreciate that.

Thanks. That does mean alot.

You probably don't need me to tell you that Communism, then, is just a more sophisticated system of dog-eat-dog world. But not much more sophisticated, just one tiny shade more. It doesn't work, it will never work, because it is not only clumsy, but ugly. God did not design us to live with the clumsy and ugly. I hope there's enough of Him left in your soul to get a glimpse of what I'm saying.

Yeah, I have realised it (My wounded ego is still recovering ). In reality, Communism is a meat processing factory where good intentions go in and the human wreckage comes out (often literally). Marxism is intellectually compelling to read, but as living doctrine I'm consistently in the position where "something" doesn't add up. I wouldn't call the persistent voice in my conscience "god" but there is a lot of "inner light" in my heart fighting to find its way out. That much I am comfortable with.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The society that the Lord set up under the Law of Moses was essentially capitalist!
It did however have certain caveats built in to prevent abuse.
ie. Nobody could mortgage the family land inheritance forever. It always returned after 50 years. Had it been obeyed, that would prevent what we know in Britain as the "landed gentry" taking over huge swathes of the country and effectively owning the serf classes under them.

Trying to read ancient societies under the capitalist-communist dichotomy is excessively anachronistic. However if we are going to be using anachronistic language, then ancient Israel was functionally a welfare state. As the Law God gave Israel established a system of welfare for the poor.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Liza B.]

Thanks. That does mean alot.



Yeah, I have realised it (My wounded ego is still recovering ). In reality, Communism is a meat processing factory where good intentions go in and the human wreckage comes out (often literally). Marxism is intellectually compelling to read, but as living doctrine I'm consistently in the position where "something" doesn't add up. I wouldn't call the persistent voice in my conscience "god" but there is a lot of "inner light" in my heart fighting to find its way out. That much I am comfortable with.

From The Fall "something" doesn't add up. That is the experience of us all.

But I hope you will keep posting...your honesty is a breath of fresh air.

 

[Shadow]

how does one justify Marx' theory of Surplus Value?

if any private business that earns more in Revenues than it pays in Expenses is "stealing" the difference from its workers (= Factors of Production > Labor) and so should pay them more wages...

then maybe it is really "stealing" from investors, and should pay them more stock dividends...

or maybe it is actually stealing from land lords, and should pay them more in rents...

(= Factors of Production > Capital)

So, maybe it is really the Capitalist investors and land lords who are the real victims?


Similarly, whilst we are accusing private sector entities of hoarding miserly, then whatever goes for private businesses logically also goes for private households...

Any industrious hard working head of household workers who earn more than they spend each year are "stealing" the difference from all of their factor inputs...

they ought to pay their children more allowance money for doing chores, they ought to pay the grocery store more for food, they ought to pay the hardware store more for tools, they ought to pay more for computers, cell phones, internet, cable TV, Netflix, etc. etc. etc.


Non arbitrarily selective application of the theory of Surplus Value makes all private sector entities into guilty miserly thievish hoarders whose savings deserve to be expropriated. I don't think that any workers, as private sector entities, would ever sign up for the theory of Surplus Value, if they better understood it.

Marx's theory of surplus value is based on the Labour Theory of Value, namely that applying Labour to something is what gives it's utility. So iron ore is pretty much useless, but if you dig it up, refine it and mould it, it can be very useful. The Labour Theory of Value dates back to Classical Economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo and Marx simply borrowed the concept. It was popular amongst Socialists because it made a moral case that as the workers had in fact created the products, they were entitled to own them.

This is crucial to understanding Marxism because it is the basis for ideas about Workers being "alienated" from the means of production because they do not own or control the production process, and are "exploited" by the Private extraction of Surplus Value.

That being said Marx did not reduce the Capitalist Class to mere "parasites" but said that the division between Capitalists and Workers reflected a Division of Mental and Physical Labour and that Capitalists still contribute to production by "mental" labour in organising and managing production. These tasks would necessarily have to be taken over by the workers themselves under Socialism/Communism.

The Labour Theory of Value has fallen out of usage amongst Mainstream Economics since the Late 19th century because they wanted to undermine Socialism and it wasn't very good in fitting in mathematical models. I think it was Alfred Marshall who came up with the Theory of Marginal Utility that said the value of a good or service comes from consumers. So giving people what they want becomes the measure of value.

Its significant for another reason in that the Labour Theory of Value means that "Labour" creates value regardless of which system of ownership it is under. If someone works under public or private ownership- they are still creating value. Most Anti-Communists would reject this view insisting that only private ownership produces wealth, but that public ownership (funded by taxation) doesn't create anything.

From The Fall "something" doesn't add up. That is the experience of us all.

But I hope you will keep posting...your honesty is a breath of fresh air.

I hope so too. Merry Christmas btw.

 

[Silmarien]

It is definitely true that Atheism is based on Enlightenment ideas of progress in science and of making discoveries about the natural world, and it is difficult to know if these are prejudices or are actually "true" in a sense outside of that context.

I was actually thinking of some of the exceptionalism that shows up in Enlightenment thought as well. There were sharp dichotomies between the civilized Western man and the unenlightened "savage," between science and superstition, between rational masculinity and irrational femininity, and so forth. Many social theories from the time period are built around these types of assumptions, and I think elements of this thinking has persisted into the modern age. There's a tendency sometimes amongst skeptics to congratulate themselves on their own intelligence, since they're not among the benighted masses still clinging to premodern ideas.

It actually goes deeper than that, though--one could easily question whether Enlightenment prejudices are valid even in the scientific context. This was when Cartesian dualism showed up, and people divided the world starkly into the mechanical material world and a superior spiritual reality, which is a paradigm that we have largely inherited, except that atheists reject spiritual realities and thus only have this clockwork universe to work with, even though it doesn't really work with what we know about modern science.

The big question is whether or not Enlightenment thinkers were correct to reject Aristotelian metaphysics, specifically teleology. Do modern concepts like emergence make sense if we don't think there is any directionality built into the laws of nature whatsoever? This is largely an overlooked area in apologetics, since you really need a philosophical background for Thomism to be penetrable at all, but if you want to examine the strongest case for theism, look to the Neo-Aristotelians.

Books that I've read that I can recommend:

The Mind of the Universe, by the late Mariano Artigas, a Spanish physicist, philosopher, and Catholic priest. It's not terribly apologetic in nature, but is rather a rundown on the modern state of philosophy of science and why he believes it supports theological reasoning.

Aquinas, by Edward Feser, is a great tour of Thomas Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God, which are all poorly understood these days. In my experience, much of the benefit of studying these arguments is that they really changes the way you approach the question of God at all. They're training exercises.

A third book I really would like to get my hands on eventually is Nigel Cundy's What is physics?: A defence of classical theism. He's an Oxford quantum physicist who defends classical and medieval philosophy against Enlightenment thought.

This is a fairly obscure area of apologetics, since you really need to have mastered both modern science and classical philosophy to be qualified to present these types of arguments at all. It's pretty much vintage Catholicism, cleric-scientists and all, and in my opinion, the most powerful defense of theism out there. If you want fullblown intellectualism, this is it.

Yeah, I am going to try and get to understand Christian Theology if I can. I don't actually know much of the deatils of it and really am not in a position to criticise it effectively, so it is hard to know how secure my beliefs are in the face of new knowledge or experience. Time will tell.

Mmm, the problem with Christian theology is that it's a huge topic, and most people only have a caricaturized understanding of it. If you want to treat it fairly, I would suggest making sure you understand Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant theology.

For Catholicism, well... I pretty much have already recommended some starting places with Thomism. A couple of other writers I would recommend for introductory material are the Anglican bishop N.T. Wright and Orthodox Metropolitan Kallistos Ware.

Also... given your Marxist background, you might be interested in South American liberation theology. This stuff is super controversial, but it does exist.

 

[Shadow]

I was actually thinking of some of the exceptionalism that shows up in Enlightenment thought as well. There were sharp dichotomies between the civilized Western man and the unenlightened "savage," between science and superstition, between rational masculinity and irrational femininity, and so forth. Many social theories from the time period are built around these types of assumptions, and I think elements of this thinking has persisted into the modern age. There's a tendency sometimes amongst skeptics to congratulate themselves on their own intelligence, since they're not among the benighted masses still clinging to premodern ideas.

...And how anyone who doesn't agree with them is mentally deficient; i.e. crazy, dellusion, stupid, ignorant, emotional, etc. Its so irritating. So Yeah. I'm with you on this.

It actually goes deeper than that, though--one could easily question whether Enlightenment prejudices are valid even in the scientific context. This was when Cartesian dualism showed up, and people divided the world starkly into the mechanical material world and a superior spiritual reality, which is a paradigm that we have largely inherited, except that atheists reject spiritual realities and thus only have this clockwork universe to work with, even though it doesn't really work with what we know about modern science.

The big question is whether or not Enlightenment thinkers were correct to reject Aristotelian metaphysics, specifically teleology. Do modern concepts like emergence make sense if we don't think there is any directionality built into the laws of nature whatsoever? This is largely an overlooked area in apologetics, since you really need a philosophical background for Thomism to be penetrable at all, but if you want to examine the strongest case for theism, look to the Neo-Aristotelians.

A Version of this comes up in Marxism. As it is a worldview, the Soviets tried to apply "dialectical materialism" to everything including Science. So they had immense difficulty with Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Indeterminism and the Big Bang because it conflicted heavily with the underlying assumptions behind materialism as a basis for science. They weren't able to solve it and the philosophical arguments that a solution is possible aren't readily available and look that they could be quite far-fetched. Its still a fascinating and very relevant area though and a summary of the nature of the dispute in Soviet Physics can be found here. If I wanted to defend their view, I'd be in the same position as a Christian defending Genesis from Evolution and its a situation that I am not comfortable with even if there may be decent philosophical arguments against it. I hold science in too high esteem to openly argue against scientists or scientific theories and the accusation that I would be behaving like the Catholic Church telling Galileo that the world does not revolve around the Sun still have quite a sting.

Plus, you would get a heap of abuse for doing so and people aren't willing to accept that any criticisms of Science that suggest it may be a "faith" or have some philosophical underpinning that depend on the time, place and people who make the discoveries. Basically, I would feel embraced and ashamed to openly express my opposition to many of these ideas, particularly as I am not really well-informed enough to criticise them effectively.

Books that I've read that I can recommend:

The Mind of the Universe, by the late Mariano Artigas, a Spanish physicist, philosopher, and Catholic priest. It's not terribly apologetic in nature, but is rather a rundown on the modern state of philosophy of science and why he believes it supports theological reasoning.

Aquinas, by Edward Feser, is a great tour of Thomas Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God, which are all poorly understood these days. In my experience, much of the benefit of studying these arguments is that they really changes the way you approach the question of God at all. They're training exercises.

A third book I really would like to get my hands on eventually is Nigel Cundy's What is physics?: A defence of classical theism. He's an Oxford quantum physicist who defends classical and medieval philosophy against Enlightenment thought.

This is a fairly obscure area of apologetics, since you really need to have mastered both modern science and classical philosophy to be qualified to present these types of arguments at all. It's pretty much vintage Catholicism, cleric-scientists and all, and in my opinion, the most powerful defense of theism out there. If you want fullblown intellectualism, this is it.

I can do that.

If you want the Marxist response, type "philosophical problems in physical science pdf" in to google search and click on the first link "[pdf]IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE" and it will prompt you to download it. Its a copy of an East German Textbook translated into English that was part of a module on Marxist-Leninist philosophy of science that all physics graduates had to pass. It must have been very boring for them, but I do have a copy and have yet to sit down and read it from cover to cover until my inner nerd is satisfied.

Mmm, the problem with Christian theology is that it's a huge topic, and most people only have a caricaturized understanding of it. If you want to treat it fairly, I would suggest making sure you understand Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant theology.

For Catholicism, well... I pretty much have already recommended some starting places with Thomism. A couple of other writers I would recommend for introductory material are the Anglican bishop N.T. Wright and Orthodox Metropolitan Kallistos Ware.

Also... given your Marxist background, you might be interested in South American liberation theology. This stuff is super controversial, but it does exist.

I will probably stick with the mainstream theology as that is going to be more useful in the long run. I may end up getting a copy of "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" or "The Fundamentals:Testimony to the the Truth" for protestents, but they are large and expensive, so I want to feel more comfortable debating Christians before I shell out money. I have a bad habit of buying good books I don't read (although my dad usually ends up reading them anyway ). The problem is obviously that you can read theology but that isn't the same as understanding it. Its a living breathing experience and so you have to open yourself up to it rather than walk in to it with preconceptions. Its the same experience I've had reading Marxist "Theology" if you will- what you think it says can mean many different things because ideas aren't in isolation; they are expressed in relation to other elements of "scripture" and historical interpretations of different ideas within specific traditions. i.e. Trotskyists and Stalinists read Lenin differently as the "source" of their authority and beliefs, the same way Protestants and Christians read the New Testament differently.

So yeah. my nerdiness is showing.

p.s. thanks for the link btw. they look interesting.

 

[Chesterton]

The problem is obviously that you can read theology but that isn't the same as understanding it. Its a living breathing experience and so you have to open yourself up to it rather than walk in to it with preconceptions.

QFT

 

[Erik Nelson]

...This is crucial to understanding Marxism because it is the basis for ideas about Workers being "alienated" from the means of production because they do not own or control the production process, and are "exploited" by the Private extraction of Surplus Value.

That being said Marx did not reduce the Capitalist Class to mere "parasites" but said that the division between Capitalists and Workers reflected a Division of Mental and Physical Labour and that Capitalists still contribute to production by "mental" labour in organising and managing production. These tasks would necessarily have to be taken over by the workers themselves under Socialism/Communism...

well, one thing at a time, first things first...

why are workers "alienated" from the means of production that they use but don't own?

workers don't own the means of transportation, either... They don't own the planes, trains and buses many of them use to get to work and go on vacation... But nobody ever claims that they are alienated by TWA or exploited by Amtrak and Greyhound

 

[Shadow]

well, one thing at a time, first things first...

why are workers "alienated" from the means of production that they use but don't own?

workers don't own the means of transportation, either... They don't own the planes, trains and buses many of them use to get to work and go on vacation... But nobody ever claims that they are alienated by TWA or exploited by Amtrak and Greyhound

Work offers the source of meaning in life. If "Creation" is the essence God, Production is the essence of Man. This includes the "Production" of ideas, whether they are philosophical, scientific and religious, because materialism treats the development ideas as a form of production rather than a pure or wholly independent product of the mind. So even works of art, literature, culture and pieces of music are forms of production in Marxism. There was a BBC series, on Beethoven's Third Symphony Eroica and when asked "Are you a land owner?" Beethoven replies, "landowner? do I look like a landowner? No, I'm a brain owner!" points at his head and says "there fertile soil up here". It sort of captures how Marxists as materialists might view it.

Private Ownership means that workers lose control over the means by which they can create value in their lives and so are "alienated" from production as a source of material (and spiritual) values. There are other aspects to it such as "self-alienation" and "alienation" from other people, but the core meaning of alienation in Marxism is losing control over work as a source of meaning and value. In a very literal sense, the human hand is a means of production for physical labour and the brain is a means of production for "mental labour". When this is all the means of production everyone has, and tools are easy to produce and reproduce, everything can be owned in common. But then when you get more permanent tools existing on a larger scale (e.g. cultivated fields, horse-drawn ploughs, etc) you have to organise ownership of them. Under Capitalism, the "workers" lose control of what they do with their labour, their hands and their brains because they have to sell them to a Capitalist in order to buy the stuff necessary to live. Hence, they lose control over themselves and their own activity whilst they are at work.