I was listening to some writings on Marx by Lenin the other day and as far as I understood it: materialism is the idea that consciousness is a byproduct material interactions within reality as opposed to the idealist conception that reality only exists within and as a construct of consciousness. Marx extended the materialist conception in dialectical materialism to consider social interactions and structures as material conditions that are also required to produce consciousness. Lenin also writes of Marx’s belief that religion and theology is inherently idealist, and that ideas like agnosticism that tried reconcile religion and materialism were reactionary or a “shame-faced way of surreptitiously accepting materialism, while denying it before the world”.

the above paragraph is of course a gross oversimplification of idealism, materialism and dialectical materialism, and may be partially or entirely wrong. I found the original text to be quite difficult to comprehend and this is just how I understood it, so if I’m wrong about anything please correct me.

moving on, it seems to me that many Marxist-Leninists think that one of many contributing factors to the decline and collapse of the USSR was the suppression of religion, especially as it did not seem to be particularly effective given how quickly religion returned after the collapse. with all the aforementioned in mind, I have a few questions:

  • do you think that religion is antithetical to dialectical materialism?

  • was suppression of religion in the USSR enforced out of a belief by the party that it contradicted the principles of Marxism–Leninism?

  • would a socialist state with a party that strictly adhered to Marxism–Leninism but allowed religious freedom among its citizenship be stable?

  • would a hypothetical state be able to cultivate material conditions that lead people to willingly give up religion, if said state decided that religion was a threat to its sovereignty?

  • have you personally experienced any cognitive dissonance from simultaneously holding religious and Marxist-Leninist beliefs?

  • I haven’t read/listened to a whole lot of theory, what literature would you recommend to better understand dialectical materialism?

  • TimeTravel_0@hexbear.netOPEnglish
    5·
    10 months ago

    there’s a quote about this in the text I mentioned actually: “Marx decidedly rejected, not only idealism, which is always linked in one way or another with religion, but also the views—especially widespread in our day—of Hume and Kant, agnosticism, criticism, and positivism in their various forms; he considered that philosophy a ‘reactionary’ concession to idealism, and at best a ‘shame-faced way of surreptitiously accepting materialism, while denying it before the world.’”

    and from the notes:

    "Agnoticism—An idealist philosophical theory asserting that the world in unknowable, that the human mind is limited and cannot know anything beyond the realms of sensations. Agnosticism has various forms: some agnostics recognize the objective existence of the material world but deny the possibility of knowing it, others deny the existence of the material world on the plea that man cannot know whether anything exists beyond his sensations.

    Criticism—Kant gave this name to his idealist philosophy, considering the criticism of man’s cognitive ability to be the purpose of that philosophy. Kant’s criticism led him to the conviction that human reason cannot know the nature of things.

    Positivism—A widespread trend in bourgeois philosophy and sociology, founded by Comte (1798-1857), a French philosopher and sociologist. The positivists deny the possibility of knowing inner regularities and relations and deny the significance of philosophy as a method of knowing and changing the objective world. They reduce philosophy to a summary of the data provided by the various branches of science and to a superficial description of the results of direct observation—i.e., to ‘positive’ facts. Positivism considers itself to be ‘above’ both materialism and idealism but it is actually nothing more than a variety of subjective idealism.—Ed."

      • TimeTravel_0@hexbear.netOPEnglish
        2·
        10 months ago

        I only skimmed that thread, but it seems to me almost like the person you were arguing with seems to fall back on logic chain of not having a consistent argument and instead picking a specific part of your argument and playing offense:

        • you oversimplified x

        • well, you may have explained x, but y does that too!

        • you cant prove x is wrong

        • you also cant prove y is wrong

        • repeat the last 2 points ad infinitum until your opponent gives up

        this person was arguing in bad faith whether they realize it or not, and the real revealing part is their last comment at the end

        i mean the mfer is literally coming at me with ‘fascism is when solipsism and solipsism is when idealism and idealism is when philosophy, whereas communism is when materialism and materialism is when coal mine’, absolutely the silliest shit ive ever heard

        appealing to an observer like this is a clear indicator that they dont care what you think, they just wanted to win at that point. reminds me of this.

        • davel [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          3·
          10 months ago

          In their defense, in that final exchange where I called what they said to be solipsism, I may have been a bit off the mark. But at that point they had told me to stop harassing them, so I shut up.

          I can’t help but wonder if they had a deeply-held need to leave room for the immaterial, and they were working their logic back from there. I didn’t grow up with religion or even an amorphous “spirituality”, so I’ve never had to grapple with letting it go.