I always believed religion was incompatible with a society rooted in addressing material reality, although I know we have have religious users and wanted to hear people’s takes.

  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    3·
    8 months ago

    I’m an atheist, one that was even kicked out and abused by the church and has no desire to ever join a religion again, so my answer will be surprising given that context: all of them. However, there is a catch. I’ll attempt to explain.

    As Samir Amin says:

    Religions are not only metaphysics. They are major expressions of social reality as well. Metaphysics and social functions mix and determine each other in a continuing historical dialectic. The possible specificities of their metaphysical expression are, hence, difficult to separate from those connected to the major features of the social systems of which they are a part and which they influence.

    Religions are a part of our social reality in most societies, and the key is to have religion adapt to and be influenced by the social systems in a socialist society, and not have it the other way round, where fundamentalist religious interpretations are influencing and controlling societal norms. Such a thing is obviously incompatible with communism, or any form of societal advancement. This train of thought was even incompatible with the transition from feudalism to capitalism, which is why the major religions of the time had to adapt to the changing societal norms brought about by capitalism, and not the other way around.

    Modernization, secularism, and democracy are not the products of an evolution (or revolution) of religious interpretations. On the contrary, these [religious] interpretations have adjusted more or less happily to the necessities of the former… it created a new religious spirit freed from dogmas.

    However it should be noted that:

    There were not only “positive” adjustments, with the renovated religious interpretation opening up prospects for social transformation. There were also involutions, the religious interpretation becoming in its turn an obstacle to social progress. I will give as an example some forms of North American Protestantism.

    And obviously these positive or negative adjustments towards the needs of society can apply to any religion, not just Christianity or American protestant sects of it.

    Finally:

    The fact that these adjustments can be positive or negative argues in favor of an interpretation of historical materialism based on the concept of “under-determination.” I mean by this that each of the various levels of reality (economic, political, ideological) contains its own internal logic, and because of this the complementary nature of their evolution, which is necessary to ensure the overall coherence of a system, does not define in advance a given direction for a particular evolution.

    In conclusion, as long as religious interpretations are adapting positively to the social needs and realities of socialism/communism, that religious belief is compatible with communism. However, if interpretations of a religion fail to adapt to the needs of a socialist society, or even adapt negatively towards them, such a religious belief is incompatible with socialism.

    • junebug2 [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      1·
      8 months ago

      I have not read Samir Amin. My understanding of the passage you’re quoting is as follows:

      1. Religious interpretation, like many other social relations, is shaped by the structures of the society it is in.
      2. Religious interpretation has adapted to the rise of modernization, secularism, and democracy.
      3. Religious interpretation could adapt to the social forces that arise from a socialist society, potentially molding into something more compatible. That seems fine, and we can see shades of that in, for instance, how liberation theology emerged from the milieu of the Catholic Church and the material conditions of Latin America.

      Speaking of the Catholic Church, I think it’s worth pointing out that the material reality of most religions is not their interpretations, but their institutional power. I am not Catholic, but I have completed the relevant sacraments and education because of my family and where I live. In the transition from feudalism to capitalism, I think we can see the religious interpretation of Catholicism liberalize, while the institutions don’t unless forced to. Just as the Catholics conceded that maybe lay people can have bread and wine at the same time without heresy, they maintained and reinforced social relics like the total exclusion of women from religious and political authority; strict hierarchies of seniority, both priest over laypeople, within the priesthood, and within the family; and the use of capital on gilded vanity projects.

      I am by no means saying the Catholic Church is the reason any of those social forces exist, or even the sole reason they are maintained. They exist as an institution to uphold them. Even if doctrinal interpretation might shift to match socialism, the institutional power will act conservatively (working only to maintain itself in stasis). The vast majority of religious institutions are reactionary organizations, and I am skeptical that they would change of their own accord. I agree with your point about the eventual compatibility between religious beliefs and communism. I don’t think any religions proper can be.