tell me, do you think we can get rid of religion? like maybe we can abolish the church or have some sort of state sponsored atheism, but some people will gravitate towards religion, they will form cults, no amount of education will change some peoples minds, if anything education will just make them more reactionary. i dont know where reactionary thought comes from, maybe its from birth, maybe its from environment, probably a little of both. either way it just seems like something that will always come about in humanity, some people are just naturally contrarian. we already dont understand where sexual orientation comes from, ive heard that it comes from birth, or that it comes from environment, or that its a bit of both. it would be absurd to think we can just get rid of gay people through better education nor should we since being gay is not a character flaw unlike reactionary political leanings. not to say sexual orientation and politics are one in the same but they both seem to not be by choice, and rather an innate part of someone. i did not choose to be a communist, communism chose me. i did not choose to be asexual, again, that’s sort of innate. and you know, beliefs change over time, my sexual orientation has changed over time, but what im really just trying to say here, beliefs isnt really a choice. you either gravitate towards one set of beliefs or the other. i have a rather fatalistic view on these things.
The USSR tried to forcefully abolish religion. It was a terrible move. That doesn’t mean that people will form reactionary cults for all time. Religion as you know it emerges from material conditions. When we change material conditions, religion as we know it will cease being maintained by material conditions. Religious reaction emerges from this as reactionaries attempt to change material conditions to maintain the religion as it was. All we need to do is prevent that regression and the reactionary aspect of religion will whither over several generations.
Reactionary thought is not innate. That’s ridiculous. There is no such thing as contentless reactionary thought, that’s idealism. Reaction is context-specific and it does exist in the absence of specific changes.
You are making an argument from human nature, something you, as a communist, should know is completely unfounded.
I cannot believe you are comparing being a reactionary to being queer.
all im saying is even if you got rid of the money, the reactionary institutions, did as much education as possible, and most importantly abolished private property. there will always be people who will threaten progress with their beliefs. sure we can certainly reduce their numbers through nonviolent means, but just given enough time, reactionary outbursts are going to happen, and that is when the use of force is necessary, and it would be best to use it proactively before they can. and thats why i think nonviolence is incompatible with communism. we are always gonna need a guillotine on standby.
I know what you’re saying, you don’t have to repeat yourself.
You clearly don’t understand what reactionary means nor what causes reaction. You’re using “reactionary” as a stand in for “evil” and positing a moral realism wherein there are good “progressives” and evil “reactionaries”. This is idealist.
Non-violence is incompatible with physics, let alone communism. But not because we’re constantly going to be fighting against would be warlords. Warlordism will become untenable as a strategy for accumulation under communism. That is one of the ways we know that we have achieved sustainable communism, when it is more effective for anyone to collaborate for resources than it is to compete for resources. So long as we have scarcity we will have the risk of warlordism and therefore we will have the state and therefore we will not have achieved communism yet.
But all of that is based on a material analysis of the system. It does not need appeals to human nature, it has a historically materialist analysis of reaction and reactionaries, and it does not rely on utopianism nor idealism.
Your position is not merely a difference of opinion, it is uninformed.
tell me, do you think we can get rid of religion? like maybe we can abolish the church or have some sort of state sponsored atheism, but some people will gravitate towards religion, they will form cults, no amount of education will change some peoples minds, if anything education will just make them more reactionary. i dont know where reactionary thought comes from, maybe its from birth, maybe its from environment, probably a little of both. either way it just seems like something that will always come about in humanity, some people are just naturally contrarian. we already dont understand where sexual orientation comes from, ive heard that it comes from birth, or that it comes from environment, or that its a bit of both. it would be absurd to think we can just get rid of gay people through better education nor should we since being gay is not a character flaw unlike reactionary political leanings. not to say sexual orientation and politics are one in the same but they both seem to not be by choice, and rather an innate part of someone. i did not choose to be a communist, communism chose me. i did not choose to be asexual, again, that’s sort of innate. and you know, beliefs change over time, my sexual orientation has changed over time, but what im really just trying to say here, beliefs isnt really a choice. you either gravitate towards one set of beliefs or the other. i have a rather fatalistic view on these things.
The USSR tried to forcefully abolish religion. It was a terrible move. That doesn’t mean that people will form reactionary cults for all time. Religion as you know it emerges from material conditions. When we change material conditions, religion as we know it will cease being maintained by material conditions. Religious reaction emerges from this as reactionaries attempt to change material conditions to maintain the religion as it was. All we need to do is prevent that regression and the reactionary aspect of religion will whither over several generations.
Reactionary thought is not innate. That’s ridiculous. There is no such thing as contentless reactionary thought, that’s idealism. Reaction is context-specific and it does exist in the absence of specific changes.
You are making an argument from human nature, something you, as a communist, should know is completely unfounded.
I cannot believe you are comparing being a reactionary to being queer.
all im saying is even if you got rid of the money, the reactionary institutions, did as much education as possible, and most importantly abolished private property. there will always be people who will threaten progress with their beliefs. sure we can certainly reduce their numbers through nonviolent means, but just given enough time, reactionary outbursts are going to happen, and that is when the use of force is necessary, and it would be best to use it proactively before they can. and thats why i think nonviolence is incompatible with communism. we are always gonna need a guillotine on standby.
I know what you’re saying, you don’t have to repeat yourself.
You clearly don’t understand what reactionary means nor what causes reaction. You’re using “reactionary” as a stand in for “evil” and positing a moral realism wherein there are good “progressives” and evil “reactionaries”. This is idealist.
Non-violence is incompatible with physics, let alone communism. But not because we’re constantly going to be fighting against would be warlords. Warlordism will become untenable as a strategy for accumulation under communism. That is one of the ways we know that we have achieved sustainable communism, when it is more effective for anyone to collaborate for resources than it is to compete for resources. So long as we have scarcity we will have the risk of warlordism and therefore we will have the state and therefore we will not have achieved communism yet.
But all of that is based on a material analysis of the system. It does not need appeals to human nature, it has a historically materialist analysis of reaction and reactionaries, and it does not rely on utopianism nor idealism.
Your position is not merely a difference of opinion, it is uninformed.