Ask an Anarchist

[Traitorfish]

Pretty hard atheist myself, and I'd tend to agree with Marx about the "opium of the masses". But I think it's worth remembering that Marx's original extract was more complex, and more sympathetic, than the oft-quoted fragment might suggest.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

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. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

There are two important points here. The first is that while Marx is absolutely critical towards religious belief, he is also very sympathetic towards believers. His understand of religion rests upon his awareness of human suffering, physical but also emotional and psychological. The second, related point is that the sole value of the criticism of religion is as part of an emancipatory politics. For Marx, the scientistic atheism of Dawkins et al. is in many respects worse than religion, because whatever its technical accuracy, it has nothing to say about the human condition.

I think there's a lot in Marx's discussion of religion which parallels Nietzsche, at least for a certain reading of each. Both are vocally atheistic, but both are also intensely convinced that religion is something that should be taken seriously, that God is an important idea, whether or not it's a truthful one.

 

[Gary Childress]

Great post Traitorfish! In what work are you quoting Marx from. I'd like to see if I have it in my Karl Marx Reader.

I'm sure that the "opium of the masses" quote has probably been used as much by theists to berate Marx to their followers as it has been used to any other end. I remember reading or maybe seeing a Ronald Reagan interview or something where Reagan was feeling all indignant on behalf of ordinary folks being called "the masses" by Marx. It's sort of interesting how Marx's ideas have often been deliberately twisted against him in various disingenuous ways. Unfortunately it seems like an infliction that many philosophers have suffered from. Such criticisms are usually not very sophisticated, at least not as sophisticated as those who actually engage great thinkers and read them sympathetically.

EDIT: You also bring up Dawkins. Dawkins is quite the attack dog. I think as far as atheism goes I've always been more an admirer of Carl Sagan. Sagan was more inclined to use reasonable arguments in his favor. I also think there is a good point to be made that social Darwinism, while antithetic to religion has also been antithetic to socialism and communism. It's sort of interesting that A.R. Wallace, a kind of cofounder of evolution by natural selection, was also a socialist. Where Darwin clearly had all the upper class connections, Wallace had much more humble beginnings. I believe Wallace's disapproval of social Darwinism as he saw it led him a little to eventually revolt against his own ideas about natural selection if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Traitorfish]

Great post Traitorfish! In what work are you quoting Marx from. I'd like to see if I have it in my Karl Marx Reader.

It's from the "Introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right". If it's not in your reader, it's on Marxists.org.

I'm sure that the "opium of the masses" quote has probably been used as much by theists to berate Marx to their followers as it has been used to any other end. I remember reading or maybe seeing a Ronald Reagan interview or something where Reagan was feeling all indignant on behalf of ordinary folks being called "the masses" by Marx. It's sort of interesting how Marx's ideas have often been deliberately twisted against him in various disingenuous ways. Unfortunately it seems like an infliction that many philosophers have suffered from. Such criticisms are usually not very sophisticated, at least not as sophisticated as those who actually engage great thinkers and read them sympathetically.

Unfortunately, a lot of this stuff begins with actual Marxists, who had a bad habit of trading in a vulgarised, reductionist reading of Marx that was politically convenient, but intellectually very limited. It's a reading that lends itself very easily to caricature, not least because in many respects it already is one.

 

[Berzerker]

religion is an important idea he wants to abolish?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

TF, if I may:

On the question of Psychiatric/ psychology -- my understanding of a classless society would be that psychiatrists would deal with psychiatric questions, as MDs would deal with medical questions... you would be surprised how well people get without the profit motive in medicine.

In Cuba, which is not yet a classless society, doctors make community analyses of areas of health concern, and the health problems are dealt with socially.

I hope this is consistent with your thread, TF.

 

[AvalancheMaster]

[...] you would be surprised how well people get without the profit motive in medicine.

Which brings another question - why do so many modern anarchists claim that anarchism and a classless society/non-profit society are mutually inclusive things?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Does it? I'm not sure that it does.

 

[AvalancheMaster]

Does it? I'm not sure that it does.

Not anarchism as a whole (Anarcho-Capitalism and Christian Anarchism definitely oppose such societies), but mainstream, self-described anarchists of today do. Just look at most Occupiers and Anonymous supporters.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I was questioning whether his comment actually suggests your question.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

So to get this straight: If I want to to be an Anarchist, then I need to believe in the following axiom: That people actively prevent the accumulation of power, rather than getting trapped in its vortex.

 

[Takhisis]

If you're an Anarchist, you don't have to do anything.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Then TF should have just posted in the OP: "The answer is whatever you want it to be"

 

[timtofly]

Then TF should have just posted in the OP: "The answer is whatever you want it to be"

As long as it does not involve a governmental structure.

 

[Flying Pig]

Not anarchism as a whole (Anarcho-Capitalism and Christian Anarchism definitely oppose such societies), but mainstream, self-described anarchists of today do. Just look at most Occupiers and Anonymous supporters.

I suppose a decent question for any of these threads would be 'how far does calling oneself an anarchist make one an anarchist?'

 

[Terxpahseyton]

If you're an Anarchist, you don't have to do anything.

To on a whim come back to this:

TF once said he did a lot of work on Hobbs. And Hobbs' imagined Anarchism as a "state of nature" where mutual universal warfare reigned and cooperation did not exist (not sure he put it quit that one-dimensional, but that's the essence of it).
The other end of this extremist thinking was then the state. The oppressive power of the individuals was given up to this state so it could apply this oppressive power in a manner which actually enables the individuals to cooperate. The rule of law (though Hobbs stressed the sovereign more than law as his tool as I understand - but that is really besides the point).

Now, it is easy to ciritizes this POV. Because this version of Anarchism does not actually exist and it is IMO very safe to assume it also will never exist. People do cooperate, under virtually any conditions.

However - and this leads me to a criticism of Anarchism I find actually relevant and interesting; in deed this is IMO the main criticism of Anarchism - the question is: do people also oppress each other under virtually any conditions?

A state is nothing but a special way to structure the power to oppress. If we accept that people will oppress each other eventually, our best course of action is to try to tame this oppression by structuring it in the best way possible. I.e.: Creating, preserving and developing a state which serves its people the best way it can. For instance by giving them unconditional and irrevocable rights, or by emancipating the people through democracy.
The effort to abolish the state - Anarchism - would hence most of all serve to worsen the structure of oppression.

If on the other hand we do not accept this premise and assume people do not need to eventually oppress each other - the premise of Anarchism - it seems only to make sense to me that we can not expect this to happen "magically" or by pure chance.
Rather, people will have to do something to achieve that.

So yes I'd say - if people don't want to be told what to do they will have to be told what to do to not be told what to do.
Nevermind what that then would be. Nevermind how Anarchism would actually work.

 

[Takhisis]

I suppose a decent question for any of these threads would be 'how far does calling oneself an anarchist make one an anarchist?'

Behaviour is essential. I think.

 

[Alassius]

Pretty hard atheist myself, and I'd tend to agree with Marx about the "opium of the masses". But I think it's worth remembering that Marx's original extract was more complex, and more sympathetic, than the oft-quoted fragment might suggest.



There are two important points here. The first is that while Marx is absolutely critical towards religious belief, he is also very sympathetic towards believers. His understand of religion rests upon his awareness of human suffering, physical but also emotional and psychological. The second, related point is that the sole value of the criticism of religion is as part of an emancipatory politics. For Marx, the scientistic atheism of Dawkins et al. is in many respects worse than religion, because whatever its technical accuracy, it has nothing to say about the human condition.

I think there's a lot in Marx's discussion of religion which parallels Nietzsche, at least for a certain reading of each. Both are vocally atheistic, but both are also intensely convinced that religion is something that should be taken seriously, that God is an important idea, whether or not it's a truthful one.

"Complex" as in it can be summarized as "real happiness can only be achieved by a super-abundance of everything, meaning you don't have to work if you don't want to, you don't have to beg anyone to get what you want - but super-abundance is only achievable under communism." Right?

 

[Smellincoffee]

What are your thoughts on Distributism?

 

[Mouthwash]

This, like the topic of hand to hand combat, is something I've thought about a great deal actually, and haven't been able to come to a concrete example of. Obviously, there is theoretical situations when altering the information a person's computer receives stretches any reasonable definition of non-coersion, so I am not happy with a categorical "it's on a computer, therefor it's kosher."

On the other hand, there is an inarguable total lack of physical coercion involved.

However, forum moderation represents a every day example of one of the most powerful tools of non-coercive organization: peer condemnation.

I'd say therefor that they are probably compatible, and any incompatibility is trivial. This is also an excellent example of why, as I said, I don't like discussing "anarchist society". Anarchism, at a social level, is a goal rather than a binary switch. Praxis is complicated and necessarily messy, with any ideology.

I find that smaller, much less formal forums are way better than Civfanatics in this department. It also helps that such forums are generally permissive in regards to language and explicit material (I suppose that's more like "real" life).

Although if we're going to talk about coercion, then moderators still have the power to delete or alter posts, and ban members as they see fit. That doesn't seem very in line with anarchism to me.

There are two important points here. The first is that while Marx is absolutely critical towards religious belief, he is also very sympathetic towards believers. His understand of religion rests upon his awareness of human suffering, physical but also emotional and psychological. The second, related point is that the sole value of the criticism of religion is as part of an emancipatory politics. For Marx, the scientistic atheism of Dawkins et al. is in many respects worse than religion, because whatever its technical accuracy, it has nothing to say about the human condition.

I think there's a lot in Marx's discussion of religion which parallels Nietzsche, at least for a certain reading of each. Both are vocally atheistic, but both are also intensely convinced that religion is something that should be taken seriously, that God is an important idea, whether or not it's a truthful one.

Are anarchists/communists today very militant about religion? Or has it been dismissed as less important than Marx believed?

 

[timtofly]

I find that smaller, much less formal forums are way better than Civfanatics in this department. It also helps that such forums are generally permissive in regards to language and explicit material (I suppose that's more like "real" life).

Although if we're going to talk about coercion, then moderators still have the power to delete or alter posts, and ban members as they see fit. That doesn't seem very in line with anarchism to me.

Are anarchists/communists today very militant about religion? Or has it been dismissed as less important than Marx believed?

Western forms of government may still be too tied to a religious belief that morals have to be a controlling factor. I do not think that Anarchy is throwing off such moral constraint. It is throwing off the shadow belief that such constraint is needed. It would go hand in hand with atheism seeing as how secular people can get along just fine with each other. Of course the onus is trusting your fellow man to keep up his end of the bargain that there will be peace. Religion would be just another form of government that is not necessary. That would not effect personal belief, as long as such opinions did not stir up uncontrollable conflict. Anarchist would not force their opinion on others, nor would it seem, take offense to another person opinions.

So if one can discuss ideas in this forum without needing to bring out the boxing gloves and post did not disappear, then we would be posting in an anarchist society with or without the mods.