Incidentally, capitalism has its religious elements too - the “invisible hand,” for instance and the belief that profits are the highest moral goals.
The “invisible hand” is to economics what “natural selection” is to biology. It’s simply a scientific explanation for how markets work. There is nothing inherently religious about it.
Profits are a measure of success in the market, not a measure of morality.
It’s useful, perhaps necessary, to create a mythos around it in order to implement it on a scale larger than a few people in a commune, but that’s where the Stalinisms of the world come in.
Yes there is. It’s a faith belief. There is no actual scientific evidence that “the invisible hand” exists. Capitalists just hope that it does,
Economic success is a measure of morality. It is considered immoral to prioritize any other ethical considration ahead of profits. If you can make more profit by laying people off, you do it. The only moral obligation is to the bottom line.
I think this distinction you keep trying to draw between “communism” as a pure economic theory, and the totalitarian states that use the word is not especially relevant to the conversation. This thread grew specifically out of the referencing of Stalinist/Maoist totalitarian states as examples of “atheist” despotism. Those states are what we are talking about. Economic theory, per se, is beside the point.
Did you *really *just “I know you are but what am I?” my post? Seriously?
I posted a serious response. If you don’t want an actual argument, what the hell are you doing in GD?
No, the mythos comes first. No Marx, no Lenin; no Lenin, no Stalin. Stalin might have played with it and molded it to suit his purposes, but he didn’t invent it.
I think RickJay meant “adherence to Communism” in an ideological sense. Of course the average Soviet citizen had to live within the Communist system. But he didn’t have to believe in it or say so.
You are seeing “the invisible hand” work virtually every time you buy a product that you couldn’t make yourself. The corporation that made the computer you’re using right now was only interested in making a profit, and yet you benefit greatly from that product.
No. A corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits, not a moral responsibility.
Then you should use the terms “Stalinism” or “Maoism”, and not communism. Don’t blame me for using the words correctly.
I didn’t write the OP or the thread title, and the word “communism” was used in the thread that spawned this one.
No I did not. Your response is incoherent and had nothing to do with my post except for your spurious claim that it was part of some other argument, which it was not. You have not offered any reason why communism is not a religion, if that is what your point is. If you can’t form a rational response then don’t criticize mine.
So, you agree that communism, as an economic system, is not a religion?
I know nothing about that, but I doubt very much it posits any general all-explanatory world-view.
You said that atheists “bristle” at the suggestion that atheism is a religion. I explained why this is.
I’m sorry you didn’t find my explanation easy to refute.
So, those who seriously think that Communism is a religion:
Let’s assume you’re assumed the mantle of leadership of a Communist party, and that you are convinced Communism qualifies as a religion.
Naturally, you apply for tax exempt status, using the arguments you have presented in this thread.
Do you find it likely that the IRS will agree with you?
Would any court?
Do you think any of the Founding Fathers would have agreed with you?
Would a bishop, a rabbi or a monk?
But I gotta get it off the ground in the first place! It took me forever to learn to fly a kite, you really want me to be the one trying to crash planes into buildings? Drive 'em into buildings, maybe.
This is a nonsensical question since communism is the worship of the state. The state doesn’t pay taxes.
No, it bloody well is not. Read State and Revolution sometime.
Wait, how is the legal definition of “religion” for tax-exemption purposes in the United States – or the opinion of the Founding Fathers, who died before Communism was even a word – in any way relevant to this debate?
And it is very nearly insulting even to suggest that the opinion of a bishop, etc., should have any weight here, and I’m sure I don’t need to tell you why.
This. Communism is the economic/political equivalent of Velikovskyism - nonsense wrapped in pseudo-science that has just enough basis in reality to fool laymen and give justification for the actions of true believers.
I don’t see it as a religion - Communists don’t believe they are acting on faith, or acting on behalf of a higher power. They think they’re scientific and rational. But like many ‘true believers’, they’re very good at ignoring evidence that contradicts their worldview and constructing narratives and arguments that they can resort to over and over again when necessary.
Try to pin a Communist down on the silliness of the labor theory of value, and he’ll pivot and start talking about class struggle. Try to pin him down on the nature of classes today, and he’ll start talking about something else. At no point will any ground be given or any points conceded, because the true Communist just knows what he knows, and he knows it’s correct, and therefore everything else is either a lie, a trick, or ‘bourgois thinking’.
This is really no different than hardcore objectivism, or hardcore libertarianism or anarchism. It starts from a set of axioms that have already been determined to logically lead to the desired conclusion, so the case is closed and all arguments to the contrary are null and void.
That doesn’t make it a religion - it makes it a dogma. There’s no real element of faith (not explicit, anyway). no appeal to a higher power. It may share some superficial elements of religion, though - ceremony, brainwashing through repetition of key phrases, propagandizing through music and art, etc. But lots of human organizations do that.
Hardcore porn, OTOH, displays a refreshing and inspiring standard of intellectual honesty.
I apologize for not realizing you were attempting to explain something.
The only explanation I can gather you are making is that Atheists are irrational and believe that the only people who think Atheism is a religion are irrational theists who engage only in outrageously fallacious argument. I disagree with that opinion.
If you wish to continue this discussion, we should do it in the other thread about Atheism and non-belief since you don’t seem to be addressing Communism and religion.