Can you guess who this is the back of?
What is his name?
Don't worry, the man on the right here is good, Mahavira is his name he is a great hero. Omm shanti Omm peace peace peace.
These are three of my latest drawings from my sketch book
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Sunday, 27 March 2011
The SWP and Religion
I have a lot of time for Marx, Engels,Lenin's and other classical Marxists, left views and writings on religion. But they do still have to be contextualized to their own epoch; even so there is much to be learned from them and their literature on the subject.
Applying the format in Lenin's time does not fit exactly with today. I would argue that since the huge anti war movement or the movement for peace (as it became known), the politics in many religiously minded and motivated people took a shift to the left, whether it still stands to this day though I am not sure, but certainly things like Jubilee 2000 and drop the debt campaigns were enthusiastically supported by huge numbers of ordinary church going people, many of whom provided the motor for those campaigns and were visible on the many demonstrations during that time including the massive two million strong anti war demonstration in 2003.
Religion for a time was not about right leaning social democratic middle class and poor oppressed believers in God and followers of the local priest. Things changed, from around 1995 to recently ( it is hard to put an actual date on when the peace movement of that time either died or morphed into something else). There was more dynamism among religious groups as many of these people took to the streets to demonstrate causes of justice and peace. Many people from different walks of life and from the whole spectrum of faiths, felt inspired in those years and the question of religion captured peoples imagination. The left, with its tired old 'religion is the opium of the masses', really had to return once again to the classic texts and re-read some of Marx's most beautiful and courageous prose on the subject.
As hard as this is for materialists to understand, and I am one, I am a materialist, not everything can be answered in the here and now; even if Marx said it can, he had to clear a path for materialism on the back of the period of time that came before the enlightenment. Alongside Marx's criticism of religion and atheism is also beautiful writings on philosophy, and that is where the debate needs to shift to, and it is in the process of doing just that. There doesn't need to be any departure from Marxism but by using Marx's theories and applying them to the situation today in the struggle for socialism, we still find that the basic concept of unity stands, it is all in the fight for socialism, unity of the poor, the oppressed, the workers, men, women, black, white, gay straight, and also the unity of the religious and non religious.
That is not to say there should be cross class alliances, those who generally hold the dominant ideology in religious institutions is the same ideology in any other institutions, it is the ideology by and large of the right and of privileged class. In religious institutions where the main work is moral and spiritual, there are means of enforcing compliance with the overall system of minority rule. For example debate is not encouraged in a formal sense, and people's general confidence in themselves is also not encouraged (something that goes hand in hand with all other institutions we live in).
There used to be a terribly patronizing notion in the SWP, a notion that may have fitted with the Bolsheviks in their time and allow as we must consideration to be given to the fact that the majority in the society in Russia at that time were peasants ( and therefore the influence of religion was more of a stupefying one on peoples mental ability), but really it is a questionable practice for today; that any religious party member needs to be convinced out of their religious belief.
Any convincing one way or the other is perhaps an interesting debate but no-one should take the high ground on it; believers or non believers.
Also, I don't believe it is right for today or for the necessity of unity, to convince someone out of their belief and honestly sometimes the euphoria displayed in SWP meetings on the subject of religion that I have witnessed, comrades ecstatic when someone declares their atheism, it really beggars belief and in fact shows them up to be sect like because of it, because of their shallow understanding of the subject.
Something which I do believe (and hope) has stopped and a more sober approach adopted by now. I will be testing this out at the Marxism 2011 event, and hoping for greater depth and direction than what I have seen on some previous occasions.
Applying the format in Lenin's time does not fit exactly with today. I would argue that since the huge anti war movement or the movement for peace (as it became known), the politics in many religiously minded and motivated people took a shift to the left, whether it still stands to this day though I am not sure, but certainly things like Jubilee 2000 and drop the debt campaigns were enthusiastically supported by huge numbers of ordinary church going people, many of whom provided the motor for those campaigns and were visible on the many demonstrations during that time including the massive two million strong anti war demonstration in 2003.
Religion for a time was not about right leaning social democratic middle class and poor oppressed believers in God and followers of the local priest. Things changed, from around 1995 to recently ( it is hard to put an actual date on when the peace movement of that time either died or morphed into something else). There was more dynamism among religious groups as many of these people took to the streets to demonstrate causes of justice and peace. Many people from different walks of life and from the whole spectrum of faiths, felt inspired in those years and the question of religion captured peoples imagination. The left, with its tired old 'religion is the opium of the masses', really had to return once again to the classic texts and re-read some of Marx's most beautiful and courageous prose on the subject.
As hard as this is for materialists to understand, and I am one, I am a materialist, not everything can be answered in the here and now; even if Marx said it can, he had to clear a path for materialism on the back of the period of time that came before the enlightenment. Alongside Marx's criticism of religion and atheism is also beautiful writings on philosophy, and that is where the debate needs to shift to, and it is in the process of doing just that. There doesn't need to be any departure from Marxism but by using Marx's theories and applying them to the situation today in the struggle for socialism, we still find that the basic concept of unity stands, it is all in the fight for socialism, unity of the poor, the oppressed, the workers, men, women, black, white, gay straight, and also the unity of the religious and non religious.
That is not to say there should be cross class alliances, those who generally hold the dominant ideology in religious institutions is the same ideology in any other institutions, it is the ideology by and large of the right and of privileged class. In religious institutions where the main work is moral and spiritual, there are means of enforcing compliance with the overall system of minority rule. For example debate is not encouraged in a formal sense, and people's general confidence in themselves is also not encouraged (something that goes hand in hand with all other institutions we live in).
There used to be a terribly patronizing notion in the SWP, a notion that may have fitted with the Bolsheviks in their time and allow as we must consideration to be given to the fact that the majority in the society in Russia at that time were peasants ( and therefore the influence of religion was more of a stupefying one on peoples mental ability), but really it is a questionable practice for today; that any religious party member needs to be convinced out of their religious belief.
Any convincing one way or the other is perhaps an interesting debate but no-one should take the high ground on it; believers or non believers.
Also, I don't believe it is right for today or for the necessity of unity, to convince someone out of their belief and honestly sometimes the euphoria displayed in SWP meetings on the subject of religion that I have witnessed, comrades ecstatic when someone declares their atheism, it really beggars belief and in fact shows them up to be sect like because of it, because of their shallow understanding of the subject.
Something which I do believe (and hope) has stopped and a more sober approach adopted by now. I will be testing this out at the Marxism 2011 event, and hoping for greater depth and direction than what I have seen on some previous occasions.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Is The Pope Catholic?
The Popes visit to Britain seems to have caused some vitriol from certain circles. some like Peter Tatchell, take a position against the Pope because of the relatively large cases of child sex abuses that have occurred under the gaze of the established catholic church to which, the Pope has not given the kind of apology to those abused as should be. Also, among these people is the criticism of subjugation of women and gay men and women within the church.
There are others opposed to the Popes visit because they suffer from bigotry and have beef with catholicism and those who follow the catholic religion (although I have not seen them give a coherent reason why, they just display some ugly superior disdain without giving reason).
There is no way I am going to defend or make allowances for the above average numbers of cases of child abuse in the catholic church, or the sexism or the homophobia. But I will say the obvious which is there are pressures on priests to have all the answers, to be a bit above the masses and the pressures from celibacy. Often catholic priests go into the profession at a young age and are inexperienced, not mature emotionally and may have no or limited sexual experience.
That they vow celibacy means they might find sexual gratification from children as they are disallowed and disallow themselves a relationship with someone who is an equal. That is out of the question, so they find that children are not only eager to please but also easily manipulated. It is a combination of the sheltered lives that the priests lead and that they are emotionally underdeveloped and insecure.
It is the link between the catholic church and the state that causes this problem. It is not the fault of the people who practise this religion, and the priests themselves need a lot more understanding.
When Marx says that religion is the opium of the masses and the heart in a heartless world, it is true and for a religion to be practiced it requires some level of ritual and ceremony, however bizarre it looks and might be to others on the outside looking in. In no way is this a justification for the vast wealth that places like the Vatican have, it does not cost much to practice rituals and ceremonies, let alone accumulate vast sums.
Due to the unequal society we are born into, every institution will reflect this inequality, and there will be and is struggle within them for something better, for something that has freedom and equality at its heart.
All institutions contain this struggle, from the family, hospitals, schools, leisure, sports industries and also religious institutions. These institutions are here when we are born, we can choose to shape them and / or get rid of them as adults... However this must always be done with the interests of the majority of people. What they (the majority) understand and are prepared collectively to do.
There are others opposed to the Popes visit because they suffer from bigotry and have beef with catholicism and those who follow the catholic religion (although I have not seen them give a coherent reason why, they just display some ugly superior disdain without giving reason).
There is no way I am going to defend or make allowances for the above average numbers of cases of child abuse in the catholic church, or the sexism or the homophobia. But I will say the obvious which is there are pressures on priests to have all the answers, to be a bit above the masses and the pressures from celibacy. Often catholic priests go into the profession at a young age and are inexperienced, not mature emotionally and may have no or limited sexual experience.
That they vow celibacy means they might find sexual gratification from children as they are disallowed and disallow themselves a relationship with someone who is an equal. That is out of the question, so they find that children are not only eager to please but also easily manipulated. It is a combination of the sheltered lives that the priests lead and that they are emotionally underdeveloped and insecure.
It is the link between the catholic church and the state that causes this problem. It is not the fault of the people who practise this religion, and the priests themselves need a lot more understanding.
When Marx says that religion is the opium of the masses and the heart in a heartless world, it is true and for a religion to be practiced it requires some level of ritual and ceremony, however bizarre it looks and might be to others on the outside looking in. In no way is this a justification for the vast wealth that places like the Vatican have, it does not cost much to practice rituals and ceremonies, let alone accumulate vast sums.
Due to the unequal society we are born into, every institution will reflect this inequality, and there will be and is struggle within them for something better, for something that has freedom and equality at its heart.
All institutions contain this struggle, from the family, hospitals, schools, leisure, sports industries and also religious institutions. These institutions are here when we are born, we can choose to shape them and / or get rid of them as adults... However this must always be done with the interests of the majority of people. What they (the majority) understand and are prepared collectively to do.
Monday, 29 March 2010
Its all in the Struggle
Today in Britain's secular society, those on the left of the political spectrum are mainly atheists, and they sometimes claim that this is their tradition. Some of the founders of socialist and revolutionary thought like Lenin and Trotsky were die hard atheists, and I can understand where they are coming from. Maybe they and their contemporary thinkers believed that the act of praying is not only a waste of time, but sowing false reformist illusions that God will change the world rather than human beings themselves.
Reformism (the idea that change comes about through deferment to another, rather than starting with activity that can be done yourself) is the dominant political persuasion and is encouraged by all major institutions from the media to the education system to religious institutions. The idea is that someone else will change things for you. A most influential proponent of this philosophy is the political establishment itself, particularly the Labour Party whose roots belong to ordinary poor and working class families (the ones who need change the most) and who are persuaded out of taking action directly.
There are some very committed and good people in the Labour Party, these days they are in a tiny and perhaps decreasing minority. In fact, parliament itself is a diversion from the real centres of power i.e leaders and bosses of major industries. Although parliament is the official political body, power struggles and structures more often take place outside of it and the outcomes of these struggles are the things that influence government policy most.
So reformism dominates peoples ideas, and so for religion too. The dominant ideas in religious establishment and among religiously minded people are a reflection of those that dominate in society, and just in any aspect of today's society, there room for a good debate ...
One of the wisest things you can do in debates, verbal interactions and philosophical positioning is to not take things too seriously. Especially true when it comes to religion. I might for the sake of debate assume a position of believing in God and all that results in assuming that position. But maybe I don't believe. Although I did had a 'religious moment' whilst at a conference in India in 1999. I believe it was politically necessary to make a stand of portraying myself as religiously minded whether I actually believed or not.
It was to do with the understanding that as one world, the vast majority of people believe in God, this does not stop them from struggling for better lives for themselves and their communities.
Isn't it better to forge political relationships with people that won't involve any attempt to talk a person out of having a belief system, and as comrades you are still prepared to take them seriously? When I was convinced that there is no scientific evidence one way or another, I believed that the philosophy associated with a belief system made the case for Socialism easier to project and defend, and gave you even more strength in your convictions.
Just because a group of people who identify with each other, are politically left wing and don't believe in God does not mean that God will go away. He is here and part of life, whether we like it or believe in it or not. It is futile to fight against something that no human being on earth fully understands or has evidence of its actual existence.
So for those who think there is some sort of fight against religion; I say get a life and get real, there are things far more pressing to be engaging in and things that will have a positive and practical outcome if victorious. In other words the so called fight against religion is surely just barking up the wrong tree...
Reformism (the idea that change comes about through deferment to another, rather than starting with activity that can be done yourself) is the dominant political persuasion and is encouraged by all major institutions from the media to the education system to religious institutions. The idea is that someone else will change things for you. A most influential proponent of this philosophy is the political establishment itself, particularly the Labour Party whose roots belong to ordinary poor and working class families (the ones who need change the most) and who are persuaded out of taking action directly.
There are some very committed and good people in the Labour Party, these days they are in a tiny and perhaps decreasing minority. In fact, parliament itself is a diversion from the real centres of power i.e leaders and bosses of major industries. Although parliament is the official political body, power struggles and structures more often take place outside of it and the outcomes of these struggles are the things that influence government policy most.
So reformism dominates peoples ideas, and so for religion too. The dominant ideas in religious establishment and among religiously minded people are a reflection of those that dominate in society, and just in any aspect of today's society, there room for a good debate ...
One of the wisest things you can do in debates, verbal interactions and philosophical positioning is to not take things too seriously. Especially true when it comes to religion. I might for the sake of debate assume a position of believing in God and all that results in assuming that position. But maybe I don't believe. Although I did had a 'religious moment' whilst at a conference in India in 1999. I believe it was politically necessary to make a stand of portraying myself as religiously minded whether I actually believed or not.
It was to do with the understanding that as one world, the vast majority of people believe in God, this does not stop them from struggling for better lives for themselves and their communities.
Isn't it better to forge political relationships with people that won't involve any attempt to talk a person out of having a belief system, and as comrades you are still prepared to take them seriously? When I was convinced that there is no scientific evidence one way or another, I believed that the philosophy associated with a belief system made the case for Socialism easier to project and defend, and gave you even more strength in your convictions.
Just because a group of people who identify with each other, are politically left wing and don't believe in God does not mean that God will go away. He is here and part of life, whether we like it or believe in it or not. It is futile to fight against something that no human being on earth fully understands or has evidence of its actual existence.
So for those who think there is some sort of fight against religion; I say get a life and get real, there are things far more pressing to be engaging in and things that will have a positive and practical outcome if victorious. In other words the so called fight against religion is surely just barking up the wrong tree...
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
'cos you gotta have faith
In my view, having faith can make life much easier, we cannot live on bread alone, as human beings, we need spiritual sustenance. Especially considering the madness of the system we are born into. Such gross inequalities, poverty in the midst of colossal wealth, the wasting of lives through unnecessary wars, and of course the terrible, needless and careless slow destruction of the planet due to an insane desire and lust the ruling rich minority class has for fiscal profiteering.
The reality and truth of the situation can appear 'hidden' from us either because it is too much for us to think about and / or we are fed pettiness and pap to anaesthetise us. Examples such as some media like the Sun, the daily Mail, advertising, competition - starts at school, oneupmanship, these sorts of things all help mask the rotten reality of our daily lives and divert our thoughts away from the injustices of it.
There will be times when reality comes to light, all of us will experience these moments but maybe at different times and different places, some people may feel so incensed that they are driven to campaign and fight against the system. A revolutionary party such as the SWP is useful; it will enable those individuals to keep that fight going and will alert and educate people in other cases of injustices, not to mention an overall time tested theory about the most efficient and effective way to make fundamental changes in society, but that might be the subject of a future post.
For now, I want to look at the question of faith; whether it acts as a masking of the real conditions we are in, therefore duping us into accepting an unjust world and keep quiet, or whether faith or religion even can be useful to help set us free.
The reality and truth of the situation can appear 'hidden' from us either because it is too much for us to think about and / or we are fed pettiness and pap to anaesthetise us. Examples such as some media like the Sun, the daily Mail, advertising, competition - starts at school, oneupmanship, these sorts of things all help mask the rotten reality of our daily lives and divert our thoughts away from the injustices of it.
There will be times when reality comes to light, all of us will experience these moments but maybe at different times and different places, some people may feel so incensed that they are driven to campaign and fight against the system. A revolutionary party such as the SWP is useful; it will enable those individuals to keep that fight going and will alert and educate people in other cases of injustices, not to mention an overall time tested theory about the most efficient and effective way to make fundamental changes in society, but that might be the subject of a future post.
For now, I want to look at the question of faith; whether it acts as a masking of the real conditions we are in, therefore duping us into accepting an unjust world and keep quiet, or whether faith or religion even can be useful to help set us free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)