Talk:Marxist–Leninist atheism

Edit request on 7 January 2013

The intellectual atheism held by Feuerbach ad others of his time

This contains a typo. It should read:

The intellectual atheism held by Feuerbach and others of his time Sfarney (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Done thank you very much! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This article shows signs of heavy bias and prejudice in places

One example is the quote from marx on the jewish question this quote is taken out of context to imply violent means to ending religion when in fact it goes on to say that violent means would not remove religion and that it would return.

The quote as currentlly put : "Of course, in periods when the political state as such is born violently out of civil society, when political liberation is the form in which men strive to achieve their liberation, the state can and must go as far as the abolition of religion, the destruction of religion. But it can do so only in the same way that it proceeds to the abolition of private property, to the maximum, to confiscation, to progressive taxation, just as it goes as far as the abolition of life, the guillotine."

The full paragraph where it is lifted.: "The decomposition of man into Jew and citizen, Protestant and citizen, religious man and citizen, is neither a deception directed against citizenhood, nor is it a circumvention of political emancipation, it is political emancipation itself, the political method of emancipating oneself from religion. Of course, in periods when the political state as such is born violently out of civil society, when political liberation is the form in which men strive to achieve their liberation, the state can and must go as far as the abolition of religion, the destruction of religion. But it can do so only in the same way that it proceeds to the abolition of private property, to the maximum, to confiscation, to progressive taxation, just as it goes as far as the abolition of life, the guillotine. At times of special self-confidence, political life seeks to suppress its prerequisite, civil society and the elements composing this society, and to constitute itself as the real species-life of man, devoid of contradictions. But, it can achieve this only by coming into violent contradiction with its own conditions of life, only by declaring the revolution to be permanent, and, therefore, the political drama necessarily ends with the re-establishment of religion, private property, and all elements of civil society, just as war ends with peace."

I will change this at the moment superficially by adding by extending the quote and putting it in context as it then complements the next section which goes on to explain that marx realize society would need to change to remove religious thinking. This page is going to need a lot of work to get to up to an standard expected from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAB1990 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you fail to realize that Marxism and Marxism-Leninism are two different things. While Marx (Marxism) thought religion would fade away on its own, Lenin did advocated an aggressive antireligious struggle (Marxism-Leninism). Even an introductory article from the University of Cambridge will tell you this - http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html You should consider watching the following video by the Jones eGlobal Library on the atheism promoted by Marxist-Leninist ideology to learn more about it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKp5V8L5D2w Marxism-Leninism, as the official state doctrine of the USSR, promoted the suppression of religion, as this article correctly points out. Investigate these issues rather than claiming a bias that doesn’t exist. Knox490 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should re read that article and then read what the actual bolsheviks wrote about religion. Marxist-Leninism along with Marxism holds that religion will wither away with class society and the establishment of communism. The Bolsheviks conducted a campaign of atheist propaganda and included this in their party program for a number of reasons such as , the suppression of atheist material under the tzar and to combat the religious hold over many of the "backward" Russian people many of whom were illiterate, also and most importantly to combat the religious justification of tzarism and oppression. Despite the Bolshevik atheist campaign it was never an aim to eradicate religion by force, or forcefully suppress it but to make it a private affair and debate the religious ideology.

This is why i have included a section on Bolsheviks, i apolagise if this doesn't fit with your misconstrued presentation of the atheism of marxist -leninists. Whether or not under the soviet union their was an attempt to destroy or eradicate religion forcibly is only a side note to this article. What is primary is the ideology and theory of marxist-leninism's atheism.RedsaidFred (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• We must use reliable secondary sources (per Wikipedia policy) because this is a controversial subject. Main problem here: Bolsheviks claimed a lot of things for propaganda purposes, but actually did something opposite. Lenin declared the right of nations to self-determination, but Red Army took over almost all Imperial Russia republics which declared independence; Lenin promised "land to peasants" but confiscated their grain leading to hunger; he promised "factories to workers", but ordered to shoot workers who decided to strike, and so on. Therefore, we must use good books by professional historians who put this in a proper perspective. We can not indiscriminately quote primary propaganda sources, like here.My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is irrelevant whether or not Lenin and bolsheviks said one thing and did the other. This is not an article on the policies of the bolskeviks. Ill remind that this is an article on the atheism of the political theory and philosophy of marxist Leninism. Marxist-leninism is not equal to what the bolsheviks did, it is mostly a conclusive theory that was constructed after lenins death by a range of different factions (most notably stalinism and trotskyism). Therefore whether what is said contradicts what they did is not the point it is whether what they said constitutes apart of the ideology and theory that is Marxist-Leninism. Therefore Primary "propaganda" sources or the theoretical texts of Marxist Leninists are wholly relevant and necessary.RedsaidFred (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• • You tell this "is not an article on the policies of the bolskeviks", however if to look at your changes, they tell "Bolsheviks" in the title, and more important, it includes large quotes of something what Bolshevik Bukharin said. How come? In addition, all this information (except quotes) is already included, as noted by another editor. My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Its fairly simple. The bolsheviks ideology and theoretical positon was marxism (marxist-leninism was not yet a term). It is leading members of the bolsheviks i.e. Lenin, Bukharin, Trotsky, and even Stalin (esp.on the national question) etc. regrading their theoretical contributions which accumulates into "Marxism-Leninism". This can become complicated with such issues as the permanent revolution which lenin first criticized and later excepted, you have a debate within marxism-lennism as whether the permenant revolution is a trotskyist feature foreign and apart from marxism -leninism or if it is a part. And this takes a form of stalinist vs trotskyist (both are "marxist leninist" to varying degrees. Another way to understand it is the term "marxism", which is not exclusive to the ideas of marx, but also; engles, Luxemburg, kautsky, lenin, trotsky, luckas, gramsci, and so on and so on. Another thing to take in to consideration is this: Marxism-Leninism is still a living political ideology and theory although post-1989 significantly diminished. What this article represents as the position of marxist-leninists atheism and attitudes towards religion is false and distorted. Ill give an example http://www.marxist.com/religion-and-secularism.htm

Again i will remind all editors that this page is on Marxist- Leninist Atheism not atheism in the soviet union or what the policies of the soviet union. These issues have their place within the article but it a much broader issue and focus should be on the theoretical and ideological themes of marxist-leninism.RedsaidFred (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This article should have a historical aspect to it -- it should say list the consequences of this stance by examining the persecutions of the regimes against the religious, etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.3.29 (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That is already mentioned here, and covered at length in other articles. This article is about the philosophical ideas of Marxist-Leninist atheism, not about the historical policies of any particular state (although those policies should be - and are - mentioned). Ohff (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps one should also mention another school of Communist thought known as God-Building. My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been kind and have accommodated your requests to find exactly where in A History of Marxist-Leninist Atheism and Soviet Antireligious Policies the claims were being made. However, this really is your job. Rather than expecting others to add inline citations, why don't you purchase the book and do it yourself? In case you haven't realized it, all of the text in this Wikipedia article is based on the books that are listed at the bottom of the article. It's not appropriate for you to remove chunks of text from this article because you're too lazy to purchase the books yourself. Familiarize yourself with the policies of editing here rather than causing unneeded havoc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.171.62.97 (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Bolsheviks

Reasons for removal of Bolshevik section are unrelated to the article i.e the atheism of Marxist Leninism - reason given was that there was repression of religion in the soviet union- please elaborate before erroneously deleting sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAB1990 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a coatrack, nor can you use your own original research to further your own perspective on this topic, which is evident by your cherry picking of quotes.Knox490 (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This article by and large is already a Coatrack, no original research is conducted, and if i am cherry picking quotes please provide the evidence that refutes this or stand aside.RedsaidFred (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No, this article about Marxist-Leninist atheism reflects the scholarship from Dimitry Pospielovsky's book A History of Marxist-Leninist Atheism and Soviet Antireligious Policies. You're trying to use primary sources (against Wikipedia rules) to write your own essay on what you think Marxist-Leninist atheism is, and this needs to cease immediately. Knox490 (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think current version reflects only scholarship from Pospelovsky. There are many other sources currently quoted in article. However, I agree that PAB1990 is trying to write his own essay by excessively quoting primary sources. Let's not make it a coatrack. Hence, we both agree: these large quotations of Bolsheviks Bukharin and Voronsky are not needed. The views of Bolsheviks are already described in this article. My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced sentence about Marx and the relevance of religion.

This sentence is unsourced, and I fear it is utterly false:

In his rejection of all religious thought, Marx considered the contributions of religion over the centuries to be unimportant and irrelevant to the future of humanity.

I would like to know on what such statement is based; it definitely requires a source - and as it something being attributed to Marx, it should be sourced to some text by Marx himself. Ninguém (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

For Marx religion is a reflection- an idealistic general theory of the world- abstracted and distorted from real social conditions. Marx wrote little on religion however Engels and kautsky wrote more regarding Christianity. Regards Christianity they saw it had little role in their day of advancing socialist theory but would have been aware that it had a socialist tendency among it (their were many socialist christian groups in England which they were aware of). In terms of socialism and establishing socialism Marx or Marxism did not look to religion. Rather they saw it as limited, firstly because it led people away from real the real social conditions and secondly (in the case of Christianity and relating to the first point) it had only developed communist ideas to a limited point , mostly communism of goods but not of production.

To Sum up- "contributions of religion over the centuries to be unimportant" - not really true. Marx saw religious manifestations as the "opium" of the people i.e. it has a specific social role regarding consoling the suffering of the human condition. "irrelevant to the future of humanity" - this is questionable. If it is an opium of the people and disillusioned people with the promise of happiness after death rather than a struggle on earth then religion where it was fanatically upheld and prevented revolutionary consciousness would need to be tackled with atheist ideas (consequently this was the position and practice of the Bolsheviks- patiently explain and debate- along with atheist propaganda that had previously been banned).

I support the claim that the original sentence needs to be sourced sufficiently and evidenced, or failing this should be deleted. RedsaidFred (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Feuerbach

• "Feuerbach wanted to destroy all religious commitments and to encourage an intensive hatred towards the old God. All religious institutions needed to be eradicated from the earth and from the memory of coming generations, so that they would never again find power over people’s minds through their deception and promotion of fear from the mystical forces of God."

the above statement firstly needs evidence.

• Secondly "It was this thinking that the young Karl Marx was deeply attracted by, and Marx adopted much of Feuerbach’s thought into his own philosophical worldview. Marx considered that the higher goals of humanity would justify any radicalism, both intellectual as well as social/political radicalism in order to achieve its ends."

This needs evidence too. Marx as well as being inspired and influenced was critical of Feuerbach. The way this section is written is an original interpretation which implies that it was Feuerbach radical ideas of abolishing religion and eradication that attracted max rather than the materialist critique of religion.

That Marx "considered that the higher goals of humanity would justify any radicalism" is also an unjustified claim, to suggest marx was for violence against religion, when this was not the case. RedsaidFred (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Marx section

• "However, it had deteriorated from its original goals into a kind of false consolation for people who accepted their subjection. This degeneration was viewed negatively in the later Marxist-Leninist tradition, as a kind of perversion of the original noble goals of religion by the social and cultural elite. This view that Christianity had been perverted by the elite partly justified revolutionary action in order to abolish it and replace it with atheism."

The above claim from the article is non sourced and unsupported. It is furthermore incorrect. Marx by the very mention of religion as being the opium of the people saw religion as consolation of suffering and was viewed negatively by Marx. "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions." – Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right” ,Introduction. Also the talk of some "cultural elite" is plucked from no where.RedsaidFred (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Marx’s hostility towards religion lessened in his later career when he wrote less about the subject and showed less enthusiasm about combating religious belief. He came to consider later in his life that religion would disappear naturally through the richness of ideas that would emerge from a rationalized order of communistic social life. This idea, however, would later be attacked by Lenin and the succeeding Soviet establishment even to the point of violence and purges directed at proponents of this ‘rightist’ or ‘mechanicist’ idea of religion disappearing on its own."

The above section of the article is not sufficiently supported. A Quote from the source may suffice if accurate. Failing this it should be removed.RedsaidFred (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Engels

• "Engels, in his lifelong contacts with leaders of Social Democratic and Communist parties in Europe as well as the founders of the First International (the 19th century political union of communist movements), urged them to disseminate and cultivate atheism as the only admissible worldview."

The above section is vague and confusing regarding atheism as being the only admissible worldview. Admissible to what the party, the country the society ? Quote from source may suffice, if not consider deleting "as the only admissible worldview." if unsupported.RedsaidFred (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Soviet Union section

• "The policy that began with Lenin and continued for the course of Soviet history was that religion was to be tolerated, but the state was to do whatever it deemed necessary in order to eliminate it."

Not sufficiently supported. Quote from source may suffice. Religion was to be tolerated to a degree, it was to be relegated to the private sphere and debated and attacked in a non-physical but ideological manner. But this suggests that it was from Lenin and onwards that any action was admissible to remove religious ideas- this claim should be supported by evidence.

The quote which follows this claim , Lenin says: "The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion" - this is not equatable to "to do whatever it deemed necessary in order to eliminate [religion]" it is quote clear the elimination of social roots refers to the abolition of capitalism and the classes thereof and the establishment of socialism.

• "Communism required a conscious rejection of religion or else it could not be established."

This Claim needs support. It is in direct conflict with evidence of leading Bolsheviks who did not believe that communism required the rejection of religion but that communism (classless stateless society) would eradicate religion. RedsaidFred (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Douglas Arnold Hyde. Communism Today, University of Notre Dame Press, South Bend (1973) pg 74 "The conscious rejection of religion is necessary in order for communism to be established." - This Source does not sufficiently support the claim, and infact this claim contradicts previous positions in the article. Does this quote mean that the author thought this was a necessary thing or the Bolsheviks via marxism-leninism? If the former it is irrelevant, the latter incorrect. To support this claim it is necessary to source evidence of a differing attitude towards religion from marx to lenin. I.e. that with Marxism Leninism thought you must eradicate religion first whereas marx thought the inverse. All evidence points to the fact that marxism-leninism is consistent with Marxism on religion.RedsaidFred (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Once again, the problem here is that Bolsheviks claimed certain things for propaganda purposes, but did something different. What they did (as a matter of fact) were mass arrests and executions of priests and believers, physical destruction of Church buildings, confiscation of Church property, etc. That was practice of Leninst atheism. So, not only the wording "to do whatever it deemed necessary in order to eliminate [religion]" is appropriate, but it is actually insufficient and should be further developed using additional RS.My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Im sure you are aware that the reason for these facts of violence towards the religious are not clear as to the motivations. Here you imply and in the article present the case that it stemmed from "marxism-Leninism" regarding their policy on religion and that they were atheists however their is historical debate as to how much of the violence was a product of political persecution i.e. the orthodox church and Tzarism. The problem is this -marxism leninism - is an ideology and political philosophy/theory and is not simply = to what happened in the 90 decades of the soviet union. If Marxism Leninism is responsible for the policies that after lenin set out more persecution directly on religion under stalinism it requires sources that evidence this.

"Bolsheviks claimed certain things for propaganda purposes" regarding the topic of religious persecution this criticism is only your subjective opinion, and is almost irrelevant to the point that that the ideology (whether it was manipulation or not) did not set out to do whatever was necessary to eliminate religion, it saw its goal as spreading atheism peacefully and establishing socialism which would eradicate religious ideas.

1. was their a policy from lenin as premier of the soviet union that allowed or encouraged the state to do whatever it deemed necessary in order to eliminate religion. 2. this would also need a policy that aimed to eliminate religion itself with practice (thereby proving that previous "words" were pure propoganda and lies)

The problem is that the sources provided do not support the claim, please by all means find additional sources because they are needed.RedsaidFred (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninist Atheism is not a science theory

Again i will remind all editors that this page is on Marxist- Leninist Atheism not atheism in the soviet union or what the policies of the soviet union. These issues have their place within the article but it a much broader issue and focus should be on the theoretical and ideological themes of marxist-leninism.RedsaidFred (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, Marxizm-Leninizm is not a philosophical theory, it is an ideology, which is quite different from a science, and we cannot look at it separately of political practice. The reason is simple - Marxizm-Leninizm as well, as Marxist-Leninist Atheism is political practice itself and serves political needs only, not scientific. And even little more. Preserving original "theory" of so called Marxist-Leninist Atheism is not more reasonable than write original Hitlers theories like "Mein Kampf" only in the articles about nazism, or write about Windows Vista from Microsoft's press releases only. Sounds crazy doesn't?

It seems that an agreement has been made not to remove the paragraphs because My very best wishes has also reverted User:PAB1990/RedsaidFred last edits.SvinayaGolova (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Great explanation. I completely agree, this has nothing to do with science. This is a political ideology and practice, just like Nazism. If we only talked about Marx, that could be only ideology, but since "Leninism" is included, we can not avoid the practice in the Soviet Union. Now, speaking about ideologies, should we describe Nazism (for example) by indiscriminately quoting Joseph Goebbels? No, we can quote Goebbels, but only as much as in reliable secondary sources about specific subject (e.g. Nazi mysticism). Yes, I think we have consensus about this. My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Lenin said himself:

    I am not a philosopher, I am badly prepared in this domain (Letter to Gorky, 7 February 1908). Lenin said: I know that my formulations and definitions are vague, unpolished; I know that philosophers are going to accuse my materialism of being ‘metaphysical’. But he adds: that is not the question. Not only do I not ‘philosophize’ with their philosophy, I do not ‘philosophize’ like them at all. Their way of ‘philosophizing’ is to expend fortunes of intelligence and subtlety for no other purpose than to ruminate in philosophy. Whereas I treat philosophy differently, I practise it

We cannot treat ideology as science for another reason - ideology is a matter of believing, not the scientific analysis: any discussion of marxizm was a state crime in SSSR. The only discussions allowed for the Politburo members were about effectiveness of practicing that "theory", without anything that looks like questioning of any marxist-leninist dogma. SvinayaGolova (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is all very quaint but it has nothing to do with the issues that i have raised. Secondly this contradicts the consensus already agreed upon on of what marxism leninism is : "Marxism–Leninism is a communist ideology and political philosophy, officially based upon the theories of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin, ". Being an ideology and philosophy is not mutually exclusive in fact some may argue they are fundamentally always both at once. Thirdly what this page currently does in abundance is present only a biased political view of marxist leninist atheism which is summed up with your response here. And what has happened is anythng which is presented from marxist leninists which doesnt fit this biased paridigm is apparently "false words of propoganda" ...how convienient. I have not re submitted primary sources because technically you are correct and a secondary source to support the primary is needed.

Some of the edits i have made if you care to look are representing your own secondary sources more accurately rather then making exaggerations from them which the source does not support.RedsaidFred (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ill also point out that nowhere have i proposed anything regrading "science theory" either on the talk page or in the article itself. Also im not proposing only having primary sources either, but that the primary sources themselves contradict some views in this article. Not simply one or two but the overwhelming majority of what Lenin and other Bolsheviks actually wrote which is the base material of marxism-leninism is contradictory to some views expressed here which is yet to be properly sourced.RedsaidFred (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• PAB, why are you removing information on Lenin's view of how to combat religion along with Marx's decreased hostility to it in later life. The statements are supported by the citations that are placed after the text you removed.

Your arguments seem very vague, emotional and based on your preferences only. Your statement "Being an ideology and philosophy is not mutually exclusive in fact some may argue they are fundamentally always both at once" - contradicts definitions of both ideology and philosophy.

I think that this needs to stop, and you have crossed 3RR too, which is grounds for a block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.189.5 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please site the source and the content you refer to RedsaidFred (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The content that you, the OP, keep on deleting, despite the attempts of multiple users on this page reverting you, is supported by references, specifically A History of Marxist-Leninist Atheism and Soviet Antireligious Policies by Dimitry Pospielovsky. Have you even purchased this book yourself? If not, rather than requesting others to due your homework for you and look up where in the book things are written, do it yourself. The large blocks of text you write and your constant requests (which can easily be done yourself) are taxing on the other editors and can be viewed as disruptive. Knox490 (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it is time for RedsaidFred to drop the stick and read books on Marxizm-Leninizm, as we've all suggested repeatedly. SvinayaGolova (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think we actually discuss here only two things. First, let's use good secondary sources that provide quotations of Marx, Lenin or whoever, instead of indiscriminate citation of primary sources. I think we all agreed about this. Second, this edit by User:PAB1990|RedsaidFred should not be made because it removes appropriate content sourced to scholarly books. Everyone except RedsaidFred agree about that. Perhaps the paragraph that begins from "The Christian religion had begun as spiritual protests against the conditions of life" could be removed, but I am neutral about this. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing temporarily suspended

Please develop a consensus here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the consensus has been developed and article should be unprotected. My very best wishes (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Em dash in the title

A user asked in #wikipedia whether we could move it from the em dash to the en dash to match the main article. Indeed, it seemed unusual to me for it to have an em dash, and it originally did not and was only relatively recently moved to the current title. I've taken the liberty to move it to an en dash, hope that nobody minds. Do let me know if there are any issues and/or if my move was in error. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)