this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
21 points (92.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

1186 readers
85 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Crudely:

  • religious westerners of any colour: those other countries deserve to be bombed because they are the wrong religion
  • athiest westerners of any colour: those other countries deserve to be bombed because they are they are backwards due to religion
  • western secularism came from Islam (Ibn Rushd) and then re-appropriated by the west as one of its many masks of the dictatorship of capital
  • religion will sow the seeds of its own destruction and our first global contradiction is imperialism, and it is in anti-imperialism we find solidarity
  • having said that any communist party cannot be religious but a dictatorship against capital may not necessarily be "athiest"
  • dialectical materialism will lead towards athiesm but if you are religious it may not be in your lifetime, depending on your material conditions, and that's OK. Dialectical materialists are a spectrum (see all the folks Marx learned from and criticised to help formulate his DM)
  • the reaction of religion is a fine needle to thread when attempting to build solidarity and a vanguard when fighting imperialists
[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Beautifully put imho.

I became an atheist before but i can see how the primary threat is and will always be imperialism and not religion. It is used by imperialists in all possible directions.

The more sinister point from an on the ground perspective is that religion can help people who struggle to survive but is also stripped of any anti imperialist sentiment, especially in the west.

I would like to learn more about its DM point of view. Do you have a recommendation what to read to get a good entrypoint to analyse the contradictions from a more theoretical point?

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Thank you, I am "re-learning" DM myself:

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9855623/7353553

Dialectical materialism = a way of analysis that focuses on contradictions as engines driving change in a given direction to produce a deeper science. Dialetics allows us to understand relationships and materialism grounds it in reality. It is teleological, not positivist and is the enemy of idealism.

^That’s the quickest summary of DM I can think of so far and I wonder what I will change from that definition years into the future.

(You highlighted an important need for marxists to deeply understand theory and therefore I am revisiting what I have learned about DM starting with Stalin’s famous essay then dashthered’s essay then Losurdo’s book on Hegel and Freedom of the Moderns. Previously I started with Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy and then a bunch of Redsails.org articles. The latter two are really good resources but I want to try a fresh approach here)

But to better answer your question the authors/topics that came top of my head was Roland Boer, Samir Amin and liberation theology, so I did mini-research to make a reading list which I will be also adding to my own pile:

  • Roland Boer - Red Theology, on the Communist Christian Tradition
  • Samir Amin - A life looking forward
  • Liberation Theology - Gustavo Gutierrez
  • Religious Factor - Jose Carlos

(Addendum - I am an athiest myself but wanted to read around the topic you mentioned. I can't pinpoint sources for the opinions I have so chances it will become hopefully more refined with time)

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

An absolute banger of an answer! This goes into my saved posts! Thank you very much, comrade! I always love to get educated by comrades. :)

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I completely forgot the Indian experience, so here's some more to my pile:

  • DD Kosambi (polymath marxist historian): (1) Intro to study of indian history, (2) Myth and Reality
  • EMS - Mahatma and the Ism
  • KN Pannikkar - Against Lord and State

Western Hemisphere:

  • Du Bois - Souls of Black folk
  • CLR James - Black Jacobins (this one detailing the Haitian Revolution is going to be even more relevant given recent events)
  • Claudia Jones - End to the Neglect (this list is a good/bad example of the lack of inclusion of women - we should include more but on a quick search this is all I could find on the cross section of marxism and religion. There will be undoubtedly be way more)

Pan-africanists:

  • Cabral - Return to Source, and Weapon of Theory (that last title is awesome)
  • Walter Rodney - How Europe Underdeveloped Africa
[–] Maeve1@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's complicated, but if I had to boil it down to a few crystals:

Religion makes a good person good and a bad person bad.

*All people have good and bad urges, and most people find themselves wrestling with whatever they view as "bad" sometimes. *Most people see the "bad" in everyone but ourselves and favorite people.

Believing in a literal deity isn't necessary to believe in the overarching message, good, bad, or indifference.

I can't go to any church within a reasonable distance because I'm not into people being unable to abide abortion or political assassination of our own corrupt leaders for any reason, but have no problem with genocide/invasion and regime change for commodities and real estate.

There are two UU churches in two different directions over an hour away. 😕

[–] fire86743@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Pill me on the politics of Unitarian Universalism. How bad/good are they?

[–] Maeve1@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 month ago

Like any place of gathering, it depends on individual congregations. Most are just very liberal liberals or social Democrats, I imagine. But I really liked the ones I've visited, some more, some less.

https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles

I might dare to imagine some congregants in locations farther away may be actual socialist, maybe in other nation-states, but who knows?

They're pretty accepting of any beliefs, from atheist to neo/pagan, including Buddhist, Taoist, satanism (I doubt Laveyan; I doubt anything involving blood sacrifice, but who knows). I don't recall ever having a Eucharist, but it's been a couple of decades.

[–] AlHouthi4President@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Palestine would have been completely gobbled up if not for the principled anti-imperialist revolutionary liberation theology of the Islamic Revolution.

Communists saying that religion is always backwards just shows these "anti-imperialist" dont see us as human.

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Communists saying that religion is always backwards just shows these “anti-imperialist” dont see us as human.

Hopefully that's not what you took from what I said and my subsequent messages. (I didn't downvote you)

You are right - a lot of people come from parts of the world that if it weren't for Muslims there would have been no formal liberation as we know it from colonisers.

On the other hand, what you said could be flipped. One could argue some of those who are religious see a non-believer as less than human because they (the non-believer) deserve not to enter their heaven, and lead a godless (in their eyes) life on earth. Indeed the purge of socialism in the Global South was partly using this metric of equating communism with anti-theism; the Jakharta Method with the killing of half a million Indonesians being a famous example.

So if both religious and non-religious folks could see each other less than human then the common denominator here is not the religiousness, or lack of it, but some other material condition in play that leads to that view?

What you need to decide for yourself is those who see you less than human is what material conditions lead them to that awful conclusion eg their western chauvinism vs their self-claimed marxism?

[–] AlHouthi4President@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hopefully that’s not what you took from what I said and my subsequent messages. (I didn’t downvote you)

No no. I replied because you're one of the few reasonable replies here.

I agree, the contradiction is imperialism and it will use whatever methods available to maintain itself.

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Apologies (and thank you)! I misunderstood what you said. I will leave my reply as is for those that are still lurking around.

[–] AlHouthi4President@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

No problem and thank you for the conversation.

Don't get me wrong, lots of times religions have been used as a weapon, like in Indonesia as you said but we could really talk about so many.

But to use that and say all types of Islam are equally reactionary and to blanket criticize religion generally is just xenophobic chauvanism. People in the Lemmy version of this thread are saying pretty heinous things and theres still a lot of questionable posts in this lemmygrad one too.

The development of Resistance Islam as part of Khomeinist revolution in Islamic politics and thought is objectively good for all people on earth, Muslims and not Muslims. One cannot be Pro-Palestine and think such things about religious people and faiths generally. Thats my only point here.

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

And to drive the point really home: the genocidal Israel is a secular project.