I’ve been going through Crit’s absolute beginner reading list and I keep putting down “Elementary principles of philosophy” and skipping ahead to the other books because I just fail to see the value in a deep dive to philosophy in order to learn about history and economy and so on. I would like to skip it completely but don’t want to miss important fundamentals.

It’s such a hard read for me because it keeps rubbing me the wrong way with stuff like

Then there are the scholars, unknowingly materialistic and inconsequential. They are materialists in the laboratory, then, when they come out of their work, they are idealists, believers, religious.

In fact, [the shameful materialists] did not know or did not want to put their ideas in order. They are in perpetual contradiction with themselves. They separate their work, necessarily materialistic, from their philosophical conceptions. They are “scientists”, and yet, if they do not expressly deny the existence of matter, they think, which is unscientific, that it is useless to know the real nature of things. They are “scientists” and yet they believe without any proof in impossible things. (See the case of Pasteur, Branly and others who were believers, whereas the scientist, if he is consistent, must abandon his religious belief).

so I cant be a christian and marxist? Even worse I’m also a mathematician, I formulate ideas and theories and proofs with absolutely zero regard for any material reality. None. I will take an infinite number of unprovable, non-material statements as true, and to top it all off, unable to show that my axiomatic set theory is at least internally consistent, just believe it to be free of contradiction. Thus if someone proves how some seemingly obvious statement leads to a contradiction in my system I will thank them for proving that the statement must be false. In fact the proof of such nonsensical statements is often the highlight of a math course (I mean this kind of shit is awesome). The poor physicists then have to deal with the fallout of our complete disregard for material reality. But they’re the scientist so what do I (speaking as an idealist mathematician) care, they’re the materialists.

As a christian I at least double check if what I believe in contradicts scientific statements and amend my belief system, not deny the scientific statement (oh the earth wasn’t created in 6 days? Guess I will have to revise what I assumed to be true). But why should the scientist care if I believe in a reality outside of the material one, they won’t be able to study it anyway.

Now if I want to understand history or economy or anything else within material reality, I obviously have to use my senses or rely on the senses of others and study the state of the matter at some point in time that would have existed even if I didn’t. Then formulate thought based on those observations. But why is it so important to literally always do that?

And what am I supposed to be getting out of this whole mess in order to better understand marxist/leninist/anarchist/whatever else theory???

  • Alaskaball [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    7 months ago

    Marxism has a tendency that is anti-religious and strictly materialist but plenty of Marxists are religious while being materialists.

    I am an atheist and I used to hold the idea that Marxism required atheism as well, but I’ve long since dropped that idea and now I actually think believing Marxism requires atheism is itself anti-materialist since what actually matters isn’t the ideas in a persons head but what they do and how they behave in reality.

    What Marxism does require is an empirical and scientific mindset. Meaning a materialist process in understanding the world and its history but I don’t think it requires specific beliefs beyond that mindset, which it sounds like you already have in terms of balancing empiricism with your religious beliefs.

    Accurate and succinct statement. A mistake that’s been noticed through out the international communist movement in AES states that existed and still exist is that pursuing militant atheism is moving well ahead of where their respective people’s are and attempting to drag them well ahead from where they’d be comfortably willing to move into reaction.

    In this regard I would note that the PRC has a more correct stance on religion than the Soviets did but only due to the fact that they could learn from the lessons and mistakes made by the home of the revolution.

    • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      In this regard I would note that the PRC has a more correct stance on religion than the Soviets did but only due to the fact that they could learn from the lessons and mistakes made by the home of the revolution.

      I think the religious landscape in China is far too different from Tsarist Russia which would explain their different stances on religion. There’s no Chinese equivalent of the Russian Orthodox Church. China didn’t even have a state religion for the vast majority of its existence, the closest being Buddhism during the Tang dynasty, which abruptly ended when one of the Tang emperor decided Buddhism had to go and embark on a massive persecution campaign against Buddhism to purge Buddhism out of Tang civil and social life.

    • bbnh69420 [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      due to the fact that they could learn from the lessons and mistakes made by the home of the revolution

      This is also an accurate and succinct statement that illuminates the PRC’s choices along the road to socialism. All decisions (positive or negative) made have been in the shadow of the successes and ultimate failure of the world’s first socialist state.

    • buckykat [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Part of the PRC’s correct stance on religion according to Document No. 19 The Basic Viewpoint and Policy on the Religious Question during Our Country’s Socialist Period posted recently on hexbear is that:

      The policy of freedom of religious belief is directed toward the citizens of our country; it is not applicable to Party members. Unlike the average citizen, the Party member belongs to a Marxist political party, and there can be no doubt at all that s/he must be an atheist and not a theist.