You sound like a Hegelian with your bullshit dialectics.
Excellent comment
Yes, because Marxists want to empower the poor. Marx openly calls for the extermination of what he calls “parasites,” i.e., the poor, weak, and stupid (Polish, Serbs, Gypsies), along side the “rentiers” and arbitragers.
The “liberals” (socialists) hatred of religion predates American conservatism, the neocons/paleocons, supply-siders, ect. So this explanation has to be dismissed.
There’s a reason why Liberals hold onto abstract philosophy and/or philosophies which deny the possibility of absolute truth, be it post-modernism, relativism, pragmatism, Hegel/Marx, or whatever is in fashion. They attack reason and truth (natural law and deduction) because the facts explode their arguments.
That is interesting, where did you pick that up? I am intrigued
The clash between socialism and religion varies from time to time. Communism started off being post-millennial Christians. You also have English socialists using references of God and even one who tries to deduce socialism from natural rights. It is pretty interest. His name was Thomas Spence and he wanted parish run socialism according to God’s natural law. I think with Marx, the use of Christianity within Socialism died out. There are still Christian Socialists out there though I’m sure.
I don’t think Marx is any better, mind you. This is simply their reasoning.
And I’m speaking about today’s liberals. Or at least some of them. There really is no continuous meaning of “liberal”; so rooting it in historicism seems to be misguided. The further you go back, perhaps the more the term “liberal” agrees with us. And at the same time “libertarian” or “anarchist” may not be an agreeable term. Such is not just the nature of political thinking, but language itself.
Engels was the biggest culprit: http://jonjayray.tripod.com/engels.html
Thank you for the information, this will help me develop my knowledge of Marxism.
To answer the original question : marxists and other lefties hate revealed religion because marxism and similar creeds are revealed religions in competition with established revealed religions.
Marxism, christianity, judaism, islam, etc are all totalitarian worldviews striving for mental slavery.
can a non-proselytizing religion be considered a totalitarian world-view striving for mental slavery?
I still say that you all need to PRAISE BOB or burn in slacklessness trying not to. For it is only through J.R. “Bob” Dobbs that the True Slack is revealed–which is why liberals and Marxists hate it.
I say that you should live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy
Is this the Bob you speak of?
A non-proselytizing revealed religion can’t exist, by definition. Revealed religion is just lies that some people use to deceive other people. If the deceivers stopped lying, the sect would die out.
FALSE PROPHET.
Death therapy is a proven method!
No! I speak of the Most High Epopt, J.R. “Bob” Dobbs:
[size=5](Bob’s image is a trademark or registered trademark or something like that of the Chuch of the Subgenius) PRABOB[/size]
To be fair Engels while uncharacteristically enthusiastic about it is largely simply chanelling the widespread attitudes of Germans/Westerners of the time. Von Mises too was not beneath beneath talking about “the hordes of Russian barbarians”.
I don’t know why a number of you are saying that socialism is opposed to religion, true if you are going by the Marxist/Leninist creed. But the vast majority of communal orders in history have been organized by religious groups and orders. Name one sect or branch of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoisim, etc. etc. that hasn’t at one time approved of or stood by the economic principles of socialism (Public ownership of the means of production, goods held in common, and so on)
I also would like to say that if you need arbitrary morality concepts such as “natural law” to justify your actions then you might have, at least what I think of as a weak personal foundation. You are responsible for your thoughts/morals, and actions. I wouldn’t appeal to god to back me up just as I wouldn’t appeal to “other people do it” as a justification. I want to be free, and I want others to be free too. In addition, I want the highest satisfaction I can think of in my material possessions without harming others. Those are the ends I seek, the question is what are the means? I think Austrian theory has the means correct. That doesn’t make me superior in any objective sense than a person who wants to kill everyone else on the planet. I deplore that person, but how can I fault them for doing what they feel like, isn’t that what I do? Laws only matter if you have people willing to abide by them.
I really do wonder what is with the oft observed correlation between preference based morality and feeling of superiority.