Letter: Socialism versus Religion (1957)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism versus Religion

To the Editorial Committee.

In the August issue Mr. John Wyatt, in answer to the criticism of the report of the debate on "Socialism versus Religion,” as reported in the June issue, writes: "If the New Testament is read right, one can find very much to support Socialism.” In so far as our understanding of Socialism is concerned, it arises out of capitalism through the class struggle. There is no "turn the other cheek” about it. Many of the teachings of Christ were devoted to telling the people (the slaves) to put up with the conditions in which they lived for treasure to come in heaven. We are determined to wage a struggle against labourites and alleged Socialists as well as avowedly capitalists—so different from the pacifism of the New Testament.

Mr, R. Smith writes—quoting the report of the debate above: “The existence of religion presupposes a belief in the existence of God.” Then he takes me to task because I asked my opponent for proof of the existence of God. What's wrong with this? Nobody will doubt that religious people believe in God, but because they believe in God this does not prove that He exists. Socialists believe in Socialism, but that does not prove that Socialism exists.

H. Jarvis.

Letters: Religion (1966)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Religion

Dear Sir,

I believe Socialists who attack religion are acting against the interests of the people and against the establishment of Socialism.

I am referring specifically to your article "Catholics In Confusion" in the April Socialist Standard. Of course there was much in that article which is true—where it describes the evil doings of some clergy— but evil doings are not religion they are just evil doings.

The point is that true religion is pro-Socialism and anti-capitalism. The Bible is very anti-usury which is the corner stone of capitalism.

Did not Jesus knock the rich money-lenders? He was in fact a Socialist as every decent religionist must be.

By all means knock bad religionists but praise the Socialist principles in true religion—such as brotherly love and compassion. There are many good Socialists who believe in God—for example the Rev. Hewlett Johnson, the Red Dean. Indeed I would go so far as to say that to be a sincere believer in God one has to be a Socialist.

To be an out-and-out materialist is getting a bit old-fashioned. Universities (even in Russia) are devoting part of their efforts to research into such things as telepathy and prediction and even survival of the human soul after bodily death. 1 have had cast iron proof of such things as telepathy, prediction, yes and even survival.

There is no irreconcilable conflict between Socialism and religion.

H. Horwood,

London, N.W.9.

Reply:

Mr. Horwood claims that his is the true religion but so do the clergy whose "evil doings’' he condemns.

Usury is not the cornerstone of capitalism; it is only one branch of capitalism's structure which derives its unearned income from the surplus value produced by the working class. The basis of the workers' exploitation is not usury; it is private ownership of the means of wealth production.

Even if we accept the Bible story of Jesus turning the money-lenders out of the temple it does not alter the fact that the basis of religion belief in the supernatural and a life after death is directly opposed to Socialism.

The religious person accepts the conditions in this life because he thinks that there is a better life coming. His philosophy explains society in terms of "good" and “evil"; the Socialist explains it in means of society's economic development.

Dr. Hewlett Johnson is a well-known supporter of capitalism in Russia, China and Eastern Europe. These countries are run by dictatorships which show little brotherly love and compassion to their political opponents.

Universities have been studying telepathy, life after death and so on for a very long time. Up to the present, despite all the investigations, there is no scientific proof whatever to support the claim that such things exist.

There is no reason to believe in the existence of a supernatural. This is the only life which we know of and Socialists work to make it the best possible, by establishing a humane world: In this, one of the barriers we meet is religion.

Editorial Committee.

Letter: Socialism & Religion (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism & Religion

It does not necessarily follow that a religious person cannot take an active part in the abolition of the capitalist system of society. The belief in any view of the immortality of the soul does not spring from any particular mode of production. Such beliefs can be used for the good or the ill of man, just as a razor can be used for shaving or cutting one’s throat (or some other one’s). It is sheer super-optimism to believe that in a reasonable given time the majority of the world’s workers will discard their religious beliefs in favour of a materialistic outlook on life and death.

It is in the manner in which religion is used that it becomes the opium of the people. So I cannot see what prevents a religious person advocating and working for the abolition of the exploitation of man by man in the economic field.

Please note: You can cut this short letter if you wish. If you do so, it will be interesting to see which parts you censor.

Ron Smith

Dundee

Reply:

That religion is “the opium of the people” is only part of the Socialist case against it. Underlying all religious belief is idealism — the assumption that ideas have an existence of their own and can be the operative force in changing society “for the good or the ill of man”, as you say.

Scientific materialism rejects this belief. The drive to Socialism is not a pursuit of ideas, but the expression of a class interest. Revolutionary social changes in the past have been brought about (and resisted) by classes seeking the fulfilment of their material interests. People holding religious or otherwise idealist views have, therefore, an obstruction to their understanding of society: contrary to what you say, it does necessarily follow “that a religious person cannot take an active part in the abolition of the capitalist system”.

You tell us it is mistaken to expect that the majority of the world’s workers will reject religion and see things materialistically. Look round. The capitalist system itself requires materialist thinking and is helping to effect the conversion. A poll reported in the Guardian on 14th October 1974 concluded that only 33 per cent, of young people today believe in God or an after-life.

As regards your ending: don’t be childish. Letters are shortened for space reasons, not censorship. If other letters on these pages had not been reduced in length yours might not appear, and vice versa.

Editors

Letter: Three questions (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Three questions

Since the late ’forties when I listened to Socialist policy and principles at Lincoln’s Inn Fields or at Hyde Park Corner, I have considered the propositions of the SPGB. I find myself in agreement with the political theory you set forth, but there are three points which I have never been able to resolve.

The hypothetical situation of a Socialist party coming in as an administration in any country in which you have a connection would mean that it would, as a Socialist entity, probably find itself alone in a capitalist world. Would not the maxim of Lenin that “socialism is impossible to sustain in one country alone” apply? (I agree that Lenin’s conception of Socialism was erroneous but the doctrine would, I think, just as truly apply to any of your sister parties.)

As I understand the Socialist position there would be no police or law-enforcement body in a Socialist society. It is agreed that most crime stems from existence in a capitalist society, but I cannot think that all crime would disappear under Socialism. Rape, for example, would probably exist in any society. How does one deal with violent anti-social acts which, so far as one can tell, are not the product of capitalism?

I cannot accept that Socialism and religion are incompatible. True, the way in which the capitalist establishment uses religion for its own ends obscures the issue and prolongs the coming of Socialism, but it seems to me that contemplation of the possibility or otherwise of a life after death is purely a matter for the individual, and to insist that one’s opinions in this matter should be declared before being considered as a member of the SPGB appears high-handed if not dictatorial. After all, if one were regularly to consult a psychiatrist (for which, for many people, religion is a substitute), would this too preclude membership?

E. Morley 

London S.E.5.

Reply

For convenience we have numbered our correspondent’s questions. The replies are:

1. Socialism will be world-wide because the system it will replace is itself world-wide. The establishment of Socialism in one country alone is impossible because the means of production are operated throughout the globe. You appear to assume that political ideas cannot cross political boundaries. This is not so. Even in the nineteenth century when communications were much slower and more laborious than today, ideas spread very quickly. Even repression and censorship by the ruling class could not prevent ideas spreading. Remember that 1848 was called “the year of revolutions” when uprisings occurred all over Europe. Indeed, there was an often-quoted saying which sums this up admirably — “When France sneezes, Europe catches a cold”.

2. See the reply to another correspondent on the “problem” of crime.

3. Socialism and religion are incompatible. The former explains man’s development and his social relations in material terms which we can verify. Religion on the other hand “explains” the world by reference to the existence of an unprovable entity, i.e. God. The belief in a possibility of life after death is a soporific which prevents the action that is urgently needed to solve present- day problems being taken now.

4. Undergoing psychiatric treatment is no more a bar to membership of the Socialist Party than is undergoing treatment for corns.

Editors.

Socialism V. Religion. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr H. M. Hyndman, having been badly mangled (by his brother Rothstein and others) on the German war scare issue which, in conjunction with brother Blatchford, he was good enough to offer the general Press as an excellent subject for a silly season discussion, has broken out in a fresh place. We have now to beware of the Roman Catholic Church. Protestantism has been played out “by the growth of popular science and freethought,” but apparently the same growth is playing in the power of the Pope, or the religious organisation the Pope is the figurehead of. Really, H. M. H. has mistaken his vocation. He should be where positive genius for “scare heads” would be appreciated. He is the silly season writer par excellence. He can provide an acceptable substitute for the great gooseberry every time.

Clericalism, high church, low church, Roman church, “Labour” church, and tin Bethelism of any calibre, are all in the ruck of reaction. Their power for evil depends, so far as we are concerned, upon the measure of working-class ignorance prevailing. Given that change in social conditions that will free men economically, the religious forms and influences which have been built up and maintained upon economic subjection, must go. Our business, therefore, is to direct the working-class mind toward that change of social conditions.

But does not the influence of the churches tell against our efforts ? It does where it can, of course, but its effect is not one to be troubled about, and very far indeed from being strong enough to warrant our departure from the course mapped out for us. The forces that affect the stomach are on our side. The armies of mankind move upon their stomachs. A starving man, offered the bread that perishes or the water of life, grabs at the bread every time—naturally.

The evolution of industry creates the starving man. We show him the way by which alone he may find the full satisfaction of his needs. The churches pretend to show him the way to heaven. The hollowness of the pretence may not appeal to him. The emptiness of the offer does. Hence the dilemma of the churches and their efforts to compromise on blankets and coal tickets. But it won’t do. The futility of charitable schemes and the offence of charitable schemes are alike too palpable. The Socialist alone holds the field. He alone can show the reason for the starving man. He alone can show the starving man the road to the ever full dinner pail.

Therefore we need not trouble about the churches. If they get too near our path we may give them a passing thump with the club of our argument. We can do that in our stride. As for concentrating upon the iniquity of “the Holy Catholic Church,” or turning out of our path to engage it, that is sheer Hyndmaniacal nonsense. The Holy Catholic Church may go hang. When we have nothing more important to do it might well be possible to amuse ourselves by crumpling it up. But we have a long way to go before we can afford the time.

Alegra.

Can a man be a Socialist and a Christian? (1908)

From the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Yes,” say the I.L.P., S.D.P., and the other quassi-Socialist parties who are after big mem­berships. Well, the Socialist says the only cure for poverty is in the intellectual awakening of the working class, preliminary to the ownership and control of the means of life. The Christian says the cure for poverty is in “believing prayer to our God.” One is absolutely dependent upon “God.” The other is absolutely indifferent to God. How, then, can a man be a Socialist and a Christian ?

Some Paddington activities. (1911)

Party News from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Paddington Branch have been busy in the work of expounding Socialism, to the dismay of those pusillanimous purveyors of capitalist platitudes that crowd the street corners nightly.

A somewhat protracted discussion has been, raging in the local paper on the “evils and perils of Socialism.” It originated in an enquiry from a correspondent as to whether Socialism was atheistic or not. This elicited the following from an I.L.P.’er : “As chairman of the Paddington I.L.P. I feel somewhat responsible for the opinions that are being circulated in the district concerning the philosophy we are organised to teach. Now I and all Socialists wish it to be clearly understood that Socialism has nothing whatever to do with atheism or religion ; in the Socialist movement we have every cult under the sun.” He also claimed that the I.L.P. had made Socialism a practical working theory by forcing local authorities to municipalise gas-works, trams, etc., and getting old-age pensions granted by the Government, and the Workmen’s Compensation Act put on the Statute Book. These things, they claim, are steps in the right direction.

A letter from our Branch was inserted, repudiating the right of this I.L.P. chairman to speak in the name of Socialism, since his letter made it clear that he was intent upon keeping the working class confused on this matter.

The discussion afforded opportunity for certain individuals priding themselves on their “Socialism,” to flatter their honesty at the expense of their intelligence. They attempted to deflect the discussion from its course with an outrageous mass of biblical quotations and hoary superstitious illusions that exposed their duplicity to those who recognise the irrepressible antagonism that exists between the master and his slave. The materialist conception of history was cited as showing that Socialism and religion are not synonymous terms, but are as incompatible as fire and water. The new pamphlet, “Socialism and Religion,” was forced upon their attention. Yet, when the Socialist seeks to dispel the rhetorical dust kicked up by these professional misleaders, he is met with mutterings of “materialism will not do” ; “Socialism is not based on science—only on a part of it” ; “Socialism has nothing to do with materialism,” and so on.

Of course, these frauds strenuously resist the light of science, for it is only because the workers are steeped in ignorance that the Labour crooks are able to climb over their backs into “jobs,”

The Anti-Socialist Union was also represented in the discussion by a person who held classes for anti-Socialist speakers in the district. The amount of preposterous piffle with which he sought to stifle the subject clearly proved that, being unable to refute the arguments for Socialism, he was compelled to resort to deliberate lying and misrepresentation in order to combat us.

Our forthcoming week’s mission will afford us the opportunity of exposing the utter cant and humbug of all these champions of confusion.

The Clarion Van has been in our midst doing its dirty work of spreading confusion and despair among the working class. The lecturer had the brazen effrontery to state, on a platform over which the word “Socialism” shone like a beacon, that at the last three elections he had voted Tory to further Socialism. He did this to balance both parties, to play off one against the other and so gain concessions for the Socialist !

We want all Paddington to come to our week’s mission (and also our regular meetings) and hear what we have to say on the matter. We guarantee they will hear Socialism explained in clear and cogent phraseology that will be understood by everybody.

Ben Carthurs

Catholic Democracy. (1914)

Book Review from the August 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

How significant the word democracy has be­come ! Kings, State and church ministers, politicians, and even employers say they are out for the benefit of the people. Now the Catholic Church, a remnant of feudal society, also toes the line in this respect.

How queer ! The same church that was responsible for the torture and murder of thousands of human beings who would not submit to her, and for the death of such pioneers of public speech as Servetus, Bruno, and Ferrer (see Professor Bury’s “History of Freedom of Thought”), is now attempting to capture the heart of democracy ! Why is this ?

In feudal society the Catholic Church was representative of that society. About a third of the land and stock, the giving of alms, and learning, were monopolised by her. But with the coming of the bourgeois revolution in Eng­land in the seventeenth century, its power de­clined. The capitalist class, who were in need of science and a free course in the productive processes, crippled her. No longer could the Church have the full sway she possessed in feudal times.

In England, though, the week-kneed capitalists had not the necessary courage to uproot society and destroy it root and branch. They made a compromise with the aristocratic or land-owning class, and through this the Catholic Church was allowed to remain.

With the development of capitalist conditions, however, the capitalist class saw clearly that if they wished to keep the workers in subjection they must instil into their minds religion, i.e., belief in an eternal future. Since the inaugu­ration of capitalism we find ever so many reli­gious sects springing up by the side of the old Church in all capitalist countries.

The Catholic Church, then, since it is exist­ing in capitalist society, must have some special use for the capitalist class, and right well do the heads of this Church see that this is so.

The Church does not say, according to Father Day (who has written a book called “Catholic Democracy, Individualism, and Socialism”), that the capitalist revolution has not had its good qualities—it is the awful reign of terror and its consequences that the Church condemns.

Father Day says (p. 4) : “for though the revolutionary movement [French revolution] contained elements of good and eventually resulted in good, bringing about, amongst other things, the overthrow of a corrupt and oppressive aristocracy, and the emancipation of suffering and down-trodden people, it was, in reality, the outcome of a blind, popular passion rather than a rationally controlled emotion.”

Of course, it would not do to say that the capitalist revolution was “against the will of Gcd,” for look at the good positions these Catholic priests hold.

Again, the Catholic Church is serving the ruling class by preaching to the workers that Catholic democracy alone will save them from the abominable conditions of their slave state. And what, pray, is this Catholic democracy ? Anything that will help the workers ? Well, let Pope Leo XII., as quoted by Father Day, answer this question.

“What social democracy means and what Christian democracy ought to mean does not admit of doubt. The former, more or less extreme as the caee may be, is by many carried to such wicked extravagance as to reckon on humane satisfaction supreme, and to acknowledge nothing higher ; to pursue bodily and natural goods only, and to make the whole happiness of man consist in attaining and enjoying them. Such persons would place the supreme power of the State indiscriminately in the hands of the masses of the people. Moreover, they would abolish all distinctions of rank, and make all citizens equal, in order that all might equally have access to the good things of life. They would likewise do away with ownership, confiscate private fortunes, and socialise the instruments of labour. But Christian democracy ought to have as its foundation the principles laid down by divine faith, having regard, indeed, to the temporal advantage of the poorer and less educated, but designing therewith to fit their minds for the enjoyment of the things eternal. Accordingly, to Christian democracy let there be nothing more sacred than law and right ; let it bid the right of having and holding inviolate ; let it maintain the diversity of ranks which properly belongs to a well-ordered State.” (Pages 13-14.)

To show the Church’s respect for the capitalist class the Pope is quoted as follows by Father Day:

“God forbid that under the name of Christian democracy should lie the surreptitious aim of throwing off all obedience and turning away from those in lawful authority. The law of nature no less than that of Christ, enjoins respect for all such as in their several degrees hold office in the State, and further enjoins obedience to their lawful commands.”

It will be seen from the foregoing that there is no attempt to conceal the nature of Catholic democracy. The Church is on the side of the masters, it must therefore, be antagonistic to the workers, because the master class and the woking class are in conflict.

But do not think that Father Day is without his reasons for opposing Socialism. He meets all the arguments of Socialists, not excepting Karl Marx.

The pity of it all is, however, that our rever­end Father gets so hopelessly mixed up. At one time he will say that such an one is no Socialist, and will next proceed to quote him as a Social­ist. For instance, on page 112 he says :

“As far as it is a constructive system at all Bernstein’s revisionism is not Socialism, but a system of social reform on the basis of modern Liberalism. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald is its present exponent in England.”

He afterwards quotes MacDonald and his clique as representing Socialist opinion in this country.

In proceeding to attack Karl Marx’s theories. Father Day tackles him firstly on “equality.” He (the priest) cannot understand how class distinctions arise from the economic conditions existing at a given period. No, he says, “class distinctions in most cases spring directly from ‘unequal talents and capacities,’ and are, like them, ‘privileges of nature.’ ” True, as soon as society is rid of its parasites, the class who to­-day is not equal to the task of working will cease to exist.

He next goes on to criticise Marx’s theory of surplus-value, and attacks it, one must suppose, from the social labour-time theory. Says the priest (p. 134) :

“People buy objects on account of their usefulness, their worth or fitness to afford them pleasure. These qualities accordingly are the chief factors in determining the prices or the commercial value of the goods. The labour force expended in making them is a matter of quite secondary consideration. At the same time, inasmuch as it forms a part of the cost of production, it must, of course, be paid for by the purchaser. Also good workmanship, as far as it results in better qualities in articles produced, has the effect of enhancing prices. But mere embodied labour is no real measure of worth. Were it a real measure we should have to judge artificial jewelry as being more valuable than real jewelry, and bad art as often superior to good. The theory of ‘surplus value’; is therefore baseless, and falls to the ground.”

It is clear from the preceding, as well as subsequent extracts from his effusions, e.g., his definition of capital on page 260, that he has never understood capitalist wealth.

In capitalist society wealth takes on the commodity form. Undoubtedly a commodity must have a use value, but its use value can only be realised when it falls out of circulation, when, in a word, it is consumed and functions no more. In the process of exchange, therefore, it in only exchange value that can be taken into account. It is the average social labour time that is necessary to be expended on the production of commodities that determines their value. Nothing else can be attributed as a basis of value. Even if we could measure the value of a commodity by its utility—which we cannot do, for it in impossible to say how many times more useful is an umbrella than a pair of braces, for example—it would not apply at the point of exchange, for we cannot know the usefulness of an article until we have used it. Again, the question of rare art does not apply to the average wealth of society ; and that there is more average socially necessary labour time in what Father Day calls “artificial” jewelry than in his so-called “real” jewelry is an assertion he should condescend to prove before he claims it as a fact.

Thus it will be seen the priestly champion of capitalism does not in any way touch Marx’s position, whilst his own case is fallacious.

Next Father Day treats with Marx’s theory of the materialist conception of history in a rather humorous fashion, at least, from the Socialist standpoint. He says (p. 139) :

“A further general basis of the Socialist theory, not altogether relinquished, is the material conception of history which Marx had developed from the doctrine of Comte and Herbert Spencer [elsewhere Marx and Spencer are said to have borrowed from Comte. Rather funny that the moralist ideas of Comte should have shaped the materialism of Marx, whilst Spencer’s evolutionary works came out rather too late in the day for the Socialist philosopher to borrow from]. According to this conception, the production and exchange of wealth are held to be the sole determining factors of the evolution of social life and of the growth of the whole of civilisation. Society, laws, politics, morals, and religion, are simply the outgrowth of economic conditions. The doctrine is flagrantly untrue, and clearly has no value except from the standpoint of downright materialism. If man has a purely material being, and is without any spiritual faculty, it might then be claimed that civilization depended on material causes. But granted that man is endowed with spiritual soul, then it at once becomes evident that economic conditions, which are the chance circumstances of barter and exchange, cannot be the ultimate cause of all social development. Religion and moral ideas are an immensely more powerful cause in shaping social development than all the forces of industrial and economic conditions.”

It need hardly be mentioned that this is merely burking the question. Father Day must prove before we grant it that there is a spiritual being. He had a chance of doing that when he quoted our pamphlet “Socialism and Religion” on pages 177-181 of his own book, but he seemed to wish to get out of the conflict.

For us religion has no meaning, except as an instrument used by the master class to keep the workers in ignorance. People living in a savage state, where scientific knowledge is unknown, can be excused for being religious; but to-day, when the forces of nature are so largely understood and controlled by man, and when fresh discoveries are the daily fruits of scientific research, there can be little or no excuse for such ignorance and superstition.

Father Day has the cheek —or the blindness—to attempt to defend the “anarchy of production” as Engels called it, obtaining in the present capitalist mode of production. On page 151 he says :

“Thus workmen and manufacturers offer their services and commodities when and where a rise in wages or prices indicates an understocked market and the chance of a favourable bargain ; and when these circumstances are reversed, they withhold them. Purchasers and employers, on the contrary, look out for an overstocked market in order to obtain for themselves the most favourable terms. By this process of individual choice and effort social supply and demand are automatically determined, whilst at the same time labour and distribution are naturally adjusted and organised.”

How beautiful ! In the first place, can the workers, even combined, withhold their labour force for any great length of time, until the labour market demands a big supply of workers ? We know very well that the workers, possessing practically nothing but their power to labour, must sell this as soon as possible, or else they will perish of starvation.

Again, do the workers always find a master ? We know that through the system of production which Father Day eulogises, there appears after a mad run of production, the crisis. By a system in which each individual producer seeks to get rich as quickly as he can there is produced such an abundance of commodities that a crash occurs. The market is choked with goods and no more are needed ; production ceases and workmen are thrown out idle ; manufacturers who have not enough to tide over the crisis are ruined, and help to swell the ranks of the unemployed. Because warehouses and storerooms are crammed with the things the workers have produced and are in need of, they must go without them.

Capitalism, then, suffers from over-production, and not from under-production, as R. B. Suthers of Tariff Reform “Clarion” fame would have it in criticising Father Day upon this point.

Under Socialism, according to our reverend Father, the people would not have the brains to carry on production. Presumably not, since all the wizards of society, including Catholic priests, would be no more.

From amongst a whole mish-mash of wild assertions occur such glaring errors as the attribution to Arkwright of the spinning jenny invented by Hargreaves ; and in one place Marx is spoken of as a State Socialist, then Engels, the co-worker of Marx, in another place shows the State to be superfluous in a Socialist regime.

The best pages of Father Day’s book are those which refer to our pamphlet “Socialism and Religion,” and to our Declaration of Principles.

When the workers get to understand those principles they will no longer uphold the capitalist system and the horrible conditions of life it means for them ; but by organising themselves “consciously and politically,” they will usher in the Socialist regime, when the workers will come to their own.

L. M.

Letter: Ever-interesting topics (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ever-interesting topics

I read with interest your publication this month, and I find that you seem to contradict yourself or the aspect of religion. One of the main themes of your publication is that one should not equate Socialism with the Labour Movement. I ask, then, why is it not possible not to equate Christianity with the Church of today?

Secondly, in reply to N. Fox’s letter in this month’s edition, you state that many people are deserting their religious beliefs “which palpably stand against their material well-being”, and yet in the preceding paragraph you condemn religious institutions “for their role in upholding property and exploitation”. Isn’t there a contradiction in terms here?

Finally, I wish to point out that ever since Adam, man has been interested in three things: politics, religion and sex. Whatever your efforts, you are not going to change that. Far from religion being “an obstacle to understanding” for man, it is the explanation of his being.

G. J. Rajakarier

Sheffield

Reply

To re-state your first point as we understand it, you are saying that Christianity need not be identified with the established churches, and you attempt an analogy with Socialism for Christianity and the Labour Party as the Church. It does not answer our case that Socialism is both valid and desirable, and Christianity (in or out of churches) is neither. We see religious beliefs as an obstacle to understanding that man makes his own history out of material conditions.

An example of people abandoning religious beliefs which conflict with their interests is the Catholic Church’s teaching on birth control. It is founded on the doctrine that the soul is infused by God at the moment of conception : therefore, birth control thwarts the divine intention. Despite that awesome thought, fewer and fewer Catholics adhere to this teaching and the numbers of the Catholic Church are falling. Why? Because, for the working class today, outsize families mean an unacceptable degree of poverty and discomfort.

You apparently have in mind that the capitalist class, who obtain their well-being from property and exploitation, would approve of religion’s upholding rôle. As individuals a good many of them do, of course. But for the capitalist system as a whole, materialism is the necessary basis for scientific and technical development to keep large-scale production profitable in the modern world.

Your final paragraph is mistaken, even overlooking “ever since Adam ’. Politics means participation in the powers of government, and until recently in history it concerned small sections of society. Only since the appearance of capitalism have increasing numbers of the population been widely interested in politics, being required to approve rulers of their nation-states—“dragged into the political arena”, as Marx and Engels put it. The forms taken by man’s interest in sex are closely bound up with changes in society; it has become a subject by itself to the extent that it has become separated from reproduction. As for religion being "the explanation for man’s being”, what religion we are talking about? Voodooism, sun-worship, the Aztec blood-sacrifice?

Editors.

Socialism, Religion and Education. (1907)

From the December 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, as a party, stands steadily aloof from “religious” discussions. Why? Because it is a Socialist party.

As Marx says,

“The religious world is but the reflex of the real world. For a society based upon the production of commodities, in which the producers in general enter into social relations with one another by reducing their individual private labour to the standard of homogeneous human labour, Christianity, with its cultus of abstract man, more especially in its bourgeois developments, Protestantism, Deism, etc., is the most fitting form of religion.”

In brief, Christianity, like all religions, is but an expression of material conditions, a direct outcome of social relations, the unsubstantial image of a world reflected in the muddy pool of human intellect. Cannibal savagery, blood-smeared Mumbo-Jumbo ; patriarchal tyranny, “jealous” Jehovah—Jesus varies with the ages. “Redeemer” of Roman slave ; War-God of Crusader ; General Overseer of Manufacturing Capitalist; Harp and Crown Dispenser of Hot Gospeller in a Charity-Organisation-ridden phase of Society.

To the Socialist, Marx has said the last word that need be said on the subject of the relation of Socialism and religion.

“The religious reflex of the real world can only finally vanish, when the practical relations of everyday life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellow men.”

Material conditions rule. “The English Established Church will more readily pardon an attack on 38 of its 39 articles than on one-thirty-ninth of its income.” This is as true to-day as when written in 1867.

The position, therefore, of the Revolutionary Socialist, the attitude of The Socialist Party of Great Britain on the question of “Religion” is clear. “Take care of the pennies, the pounds will take care of themselves” says the old tag, which being interpreted for the present occasion means “Seek essentials. You may safely ignore results.” The essential to-day for the worker is a grasp of the fact that, while he has nothing to sell but his labour-power, while he is reduced to the rank of a

MERE COMMODITY,

under no conditions whatever can his class be anything but an ignoble conglomeration of wage-slaves, swinked and sweated by capitalist, preyed on by “leaders,” one of the sorriest spectacles which the “all-beholding Sun” has witnessed through the ages.

In so far as, and when, Religion allies itself directly with capitalism, the S.P. of G.B., being hostile to every other political organisation, is obviously in opposition to Religion. The greater includes the less. Similarly, when “Rationalism” allies itself with the exploiting class, we are compelled to fight that “ism,” especially when such “Rationalism” fantastically tricks itself out in a ludicrous, garb which it fondly imagines is Socialism.

F.J. Gould, "honorary associate” of the R.P.A., asserts that he is a “Socialist.” His fervid faith in positivist moonshine would be of itself sufficient evidence to the contrary, but a perusal of his article, “The Educational Future,” in the “R.P.A. Annual” is sufficient to dispel any doubts upon the point. He peddles in trifles. He is much exercised upon such momentous issues as “co-option” in educational bodies; he “cherishes hopes”—sure mark of the pseudo-Socialist, who is invariably a

“HOPE CHERISHER”

—that the present system under which the worker groans will be made somewhat more bearable ; he “demands” (another infallible sign of the soi-disant Socialist, this “demanding”) that “the school shall be deliberately directed to the evolution of willing and happy citizens equipped for devotion to the common welfare,”—in short, while mouthing the word “evolution” he shows his utter lack of the appreciation of the practical lesson which evolution has to teach, namely, that under given conditions, only given results can follow. The spectacle of this “Socialist” “demanding” that the school shall diligently apply itself to the better manufacture of “willing” and “happy” wage-slaves, who, in the huge majority of cases must enter the ranks of the exploited, must increase the ever-increasing army of unemployed, is one which is calculated to strengthen us in the opinion that the

MOST SERIOUS ENEMY

to the emancipation of the working class to-day is that curious freak of nature, that vertebrate animal without a backbone, the “Socialist” whose knowledge of Socialism extends as far as the knowledge of the name, who would “reform” the chrysalis into a butterfly, place an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, and generally understudy David, who confessed that he had “erred and played the fool exceedingly.”

We are called upon to admire the “half mystical fervour” of Miss Margaret McMillan, who has “urged the necessity of communal baths, medical inspection, etc. for the children of the proletariat.” Does it ever occur to this brand of “reformer” that, while they may claim the latter title, they are no more entitled to the term “Socialist” than is the cattle-owner who believes in the virtues of a horse-pond and regularly engages a veterinary surgeon. In short, Miss Margaret McMillan,—who has never concealed her contempt for the “elementary” teacher of the children of the proletariat,—is simply energetically doing work for the capitalist class.

But our chief quarrel with F. J. Gould is his pushing of his pet palliative “Moral Instruction.” In schools run for, and in the interests of, the capitalist class, there can be no really “moral instruction.” The omission of “Religious Education,” and the substitution of the precious syllabus of the ”Moral Instruction League” is simply substituting one form of dogmatism for another. It is monstrous to suppose that a fervent belief in miracles on the part of a teacher precludes supervision as to personal cleanliness. It is a disputable matter whether, from the point of view of a Socialist, less harm may not accrue to the child mind from the teaching of mythological Jewish History than from the handling of a lesson on “Patriotism,” “Thrift,” etc. from the ordinary teacher who has never learned to think beyond the ordinary formulas which a bourgeois society has drilled into him, and who in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, consciously or unconsciously, looks upon his pupils as so much material to be exploited in the unspeakably dirty struggle for “promotion.” (Has F. J. Gould

FORGOTTEN HIS TEACHING DAYS ?

Does distance lend enchantment to the view ?) We heartily endorse the following from his article, and beg him to apply the precepts therein contained to himself : “What we need is the cultivation of the scientific habit, the capacity for seizing significant things, for neglecting unnecessary things, for reducing chaotic things to order.”

Augustus Snellgrove

Letter: Religion (2001)

Letter to the Editors from the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Religion

Dear Editors,

We feel compelled to write regarding a recent and heated debate in the letters page of our local newspaper between an exponent of World Socialism and a Christian.

We became interested in the SPGB after attending last year’s May Day anti-capitalist protest in Manchester. After reading SPGB literature and several copies of the Socialist Standard, we have come to agree with the basis of the World Socialist viewpoint. However, we do not agree with the movement’s stance regarding religion. We are not Christian, indeed we do not identify totally with any faith. Although we understand that religion can be destructive and used for social control, this does not, in our opinion, validate your intolerance towards people’s faith.

Speaking personally, our acceptance of socialism grew from the application of our spiritual beliefs derived from both Eastern and Western religious traditions. Without this we would be resigned to the ubiquitous apathy we see in our peers.

We find it insulting to suggest that those who develop a sense of righteousness and compassion through religious belief are not more than puppets. We feel that by over-emphasising Marx’s attitudes towards religion the SPGB is failing to address the issue: the abolition of capitalism. It can hardly be argued that institutionalised religion in the UK continues to provide “pie in the sky when you die” for the average worker. Instead, we find solace in the millions of Ecstasy tablets taken and innumerable pints downed in our life-for-the-weekend mentality.

Surely then, the SPGB should be tackling social apathy and capitalist ideologies rather than distracting and belittling itself with slanging matches. Many people contacting our local paper confused World Socialism with state capitalism. This major misunderstanding went largely uncorrected, lost in a puerile and futile argument over religion.

The rejection of religion does not feature in the SPGB’s declaration of principles, and therefore we consider it to be beside the point. Only when World Socialism focuses all its energy in educating the people of the world in viable alternatives to capitalism will it be fulfilling its objectives.

Tony Curry & Rachel Pass, 

Morecambe, Lancs.

Reply: 

Actually, we are not mere God-killers and religion-bashers. We leave that to the National Secular Society. Our main aim is to propagate socialist ideas in place of existing authoritarian and irrational ideas that help maintain capitalism. This involves us combating those ideas such as racism, nationalism, the idea that we need leaders, must have armies, need money, and also religion.

The position we take up on religion is rather well summed up in the summary of Marx’s views that the Christian Alistair MacIntyre gives in his book Marxism and Christianity:

“According to Marx, religion has a dual role to play. Throughout the history of class society religion performs two essential functions: it buttresses the established order by sanctifying it and by suggesting that the political order is somehow ordained by divine authority, and it consoles the oppressed exploited by offering them in heaven what they are denied upon earth. At the same time, by holding before them a vision of what they are denied, religion plays at least partly a progressive role in that it gives the common people some idea of what a better order would be. But when it becomes possible to realize that better order upon earth in the form of communism, then religion becomes wholly reactionary, for it distracts men from establishing a now possible good society on earth by still turning their eyes towards heaven. Its sanctification of the existing social order makes it a counter-revolutionary force. Thus in the course of building a communist society, the Marxist must fight religion because it will, inevitably stand in his path. But in a communist society there will be no need to persecute religion, for its essential functions will have disappeared. There will, no longer be an exploiting class, nor will the common people stand in need of religious consolations,. Religion itself will disappear of its own accord without persecution” (Chapter 7).

Editors.

Editorial: God and the Labour Party. (1907)

Editorial from the December 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

“One above sees all” is only a variation of the saying, “onlookers see most of the game.” Whether or no the truth of either can be demonstrated, it is certain that those not immediately concerned can get plenty of amusement out of the antics of all sections of politicians who are now claiming God as their “guide, philosopher, and friend.” Mr. G. H. Roberts, Labour M.P. for Norwich, visited the Burton Town Hall on October 21st and “in language rich in proverbial philosophy advanced the aims and objects of the Labour Party.” He had long claimed, he said, that, given an equal opportunity, there was no reason why the workman should not take his place by the side of the wealthy representative in the House of Commons ! He did not explain how the workmen could possibly have an equal opportunity with the wealthy. It would have been difficult, of course. Neither did he suggest that the workers should supplant all the wealthy representatives with a view to depriving them of their power to exploit ? No ! his “rich proverbial philosophy” finds expression in a desire for a “fair representation of all classes” in the House of Commons. He contended that the Labour movement was not only a sound political movement but it was “the greatest religious factor they had at the present time.” The Labour Party believed in the love of God and the brotherhood of man. They wanted the word of God to live in their industrial and human activities. And much more to the same effect. The only inference to be drawn from all this is that during all these years of working-class exploitation, Almighty God has been asleep or has been “winking the other eye” while those who believe in him and his “Love” and his “Word” have been fighting and maiming, and killing and enslaving each other. In the year 50 A.D., it is said, James, the Brother of Jesus, called upon the rich men to weep and howl for the miseries that were to come upon them ! “Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days . . . Behold, the hire of the labourers, who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth.” . . “And the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord.” Despite this denunciation, the exploiters have continued to carry on business at the old stand, improving their methods, securing more power, and appropriating more wealth. So that it would seem that the Lord has been on their side. And now that the workers are slowly beginning to see the justice of Socialism, the masters who have “made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field,” finding they cannot argue, that they cannot oppose Socialism by other means, are endeavouring to play upon the ignorant passions, prejudices and fears of the people. They know how true were the words that Louis XIV. wrote to the King of Tonquin on January 10th, 1681: “For this God is … above all, the most useful in giving to Kings unlimited power over peoples.” And the “Socialist” members of the House of Commons should know it also. But instead of boldly and honestly facing the position, instead of avowing on the platform the opinions they hold in private, instead of standing by the scientific position that neither capitalism nor Socialism, as such, has anything to do with speculative opinions as to the existence or non-existence of a god or of gods, good or devilish ; they are, for vote-catching purposes, mouthing such twaddle as that which fell from their lips during the Kirkdale election and is quoted above. Let the people, instead of wasting time claiming God for their side, in answer to the exploiters who claim him for theirs, “leave tears and praying,” gird up their loins, harden their hearts, and strengthen their hands preparatory to engaging in the final struggle for the overthrow of class supremacy, a struggle that can only succeed when undertaken by a determined and intelligent proletariat.

J.K.

Halo Halo! (2024)

The Halo Halo! column from the November 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists are wrong! Who says so? Apart from everyone who shills for the capitalist class, the pope, that’s who. In particular, pope Leo XIII. You may have missed his papal encyclical Rerum Novarum.

Well, it was over one hundred and thirty years ago.

Leo writes of a ‘great mistake’ embraced by the socialist-leaning labor movements, which is the notion that ‘class is naturally hostile to class’ and ‘wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict.’ This view, he asserts, is ‘so false … that the direct contrary is the truth.’ ‘It [is] ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic,’ Leo claims. ‘Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital.’

By ‘nature’ did he mean the sky deity? Which one, Zeus, Ra, Varuna, Yahweh? Apologies to all of the sky deities who didn’t get a mention here but the list is too long to include them all. Early priests had discovered that propagating the myth that unpleasant fictional beings could be mean enough to ruin the lives of the populace unless sacrifices were made through wealth accruing to their self-styled intermediaries, the priest class. Popes continue to deceive the gullible in similar ways.

Leo must have spat out his wafer and choked on the altar wine when The Communist Manifesto came out in 1848. Pope of the day Pius IX wasted no time in composing a retort.

Pius’s 1849 Nostis et nobiscum calls socialism and communism an ‘iniquitous plot’ and ‘perverted teachings’: ‘The special goal of their proponents is to introduce to the people the pernicious fictions by misapplying the terms “liberty” and “equality.” The final goal teachings, whether of Communism or Socialism, is to excite by continuous disturbances workers and others, especially those of the lower class, whom they have deceived by their lies and deluded by the promise of a happier condition. They are preparing them for plundering, stealing, and usurping first the Church’s and then everyone’s property. After this they will profane all law, human and divine, to destroy divine worship and to subvert the entire ordering of civil societies.’

As Jimmy Cricket used to say, and there’s more. ‘The crafty enemies of the Church and human society attempt to seduce the people in many ways. One of their chief methods is the misuse of the new technique of book-production. They are wholly absorbed in the ceaseless daily publication and proliferation of impious pamphlets, newspapers and leaflets which are full of lies, calumnies and seduction.’ Keep the masses in ignorance! Guess Pius IX would have hated social media.

From 1560 to 1966 the Catholic Church had an Index of Forbidden Books, Index Librorum Prohibitorum. The sheep who allowed the church to regulate even their sex lives were forbidden to print or read publications from this list.

Other totalitarian regimes who thought likewise spring to mind.

DC

Letter: Spiritual needs (1982)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Spiritual needs

Dear Editors.

Reference your recent article “Socialists Against Religion" and the letter from Ms Garwood. Your reply did not adequately cover the point raised about the spiritual uses of religion. Perhaps socialists do not understand what spiritual needs mean to a religious person. Perhaps socialists do not even realise that spiritual needs are, in fact, catered for within socialism.

Without being religious it is still obvious that "man cannot live by bread alone". With a little sunshine, food and water the tomato plant will thrive in its little pot on the window sill, it will even bear fruit and reproduce. But man is not a vegetable. To be human, in the generally accepted way, is to have feelings and thoughts. Man has emotional and moral needs as well as physical ones.

Socialism, along with all other political factions, has concentrated on man's physical needs and largely ignored his others. All religions, on the other hand, have concentrated on man’s emotional and moral needs and largely ignored his physical ones. This is why politics and religion can usually work side by side, because they concentrate on different aspects of man's needs.

When religious people refer to "spiritual" needs, they merely mean emotional needs. When religious people refer to the “soul", they are referring to the state of mind, the way a person thinks, in short, his morality. His "soul" will be saved if his thoughts mirror those of his religious dictators. There is nothing magical or mysterious about the spirit or soul, they are only terms used by religious people who have avoided serious thinking about emotions, minds and thoughts.

In my opinion socialism satisfies physical needs better than capitalism, it also satisfies "spiritual" needs far better than any religion.

Under capitalism man competes with man for everything — fame, success, property, the "right" to work, he even competes for love and affection. Man regards his neighbour as an enemy, he cannot trust him. Man is totally insecure. he lives in perpetual fear, fear of violence, fear of losing his assets, fear of failure, fear of being considered useless and worthless. Capitalist man cannot protect himself from this fear, he cannot rely on his fellow man for protection because he is a potential enemy. Man is alienated not only from his work, but far more important, he is alienated from his fellow man. His only hope of protection comes from outside the real world — he appeals to religion. God will protect, God will provide, God will consider him equal, God will relieve his fear and offer some emotional comfort in times of conflict.

Under socialism man co-operates with man, they work together for a common cause. Man regards his neighbour as a friend, he trusts him, he can turn to him for help. Regardless of abilities and potentials each man is considered equal to the next, so there are no failures. Surrounded by friends, man has no fear of his fellow man. he feels totally secure. Instead of going outside the real world to satisfy his spiritual needs, he can find emotional comfort and security from within his civilised socialist society and from his many friends.

Even the "soul" or moral needs are better catered for under socialism. Thousands die of starvation while capitalist Christians burn their surplus food. Is this right? If I were a Christian my soul would not rest watching people starve while food was being deliberately destroyed. Socialists have the best answer to this problem — produce for people's need, not profit and greed is it not the right thing to do?

Capitalism produces conflict, which inevitably leads to war, with millions of lives needlessly lost. Each side prays that "God" is on their side. Is this right? Does this not cause conflicts in the Christian soul or mind? The socialist mind is at peace, he does not want to fight his fellow man, he wants to work with him.

Under socialism your spiritual needs will be well catered for. you will feel emotionally secure and your mind will be at peace, knowing society has made the best use of its resources. You do not need to go outside socialism for "spiritual" guidance.

J. P. White 

High Wycombe

Reply:

It is no mere quibble on our part when we have misgivings about the use of the word "spiritual" in connection with socialism. We are concerned to communicate the socialist case to workers and in this struggle words are vital: there must be a consistent clarity in their use. The case for socialism is a materialist — not a moral — one. based on a materialist conception of human history, it is confusing and diverting to introduce incorrect terms like "spiritual" when there are perfectly clear and accurate ways of expressing our case without it. We also take issue with J. P. White’s persistent use of the masculine description of the human race; socialism will bring the emancipation of all humanity without distinction of sex and the way we state our case must reflect this.

Editors.

Communism, Religion and the USSR (1976)

From the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lord Donald Soper, the Methodist leader, has acquired the reputation of being a great orator. Those of us who have heard him speaking at Tower Hill and Hyde Park are always impressed by the flow of fine phrases, but on closer examination these turn out to mean precisely nothing. There is no doubt whatever as to his great entertainment value. However his virtues else, be they as pure as grace, when it comes to making a contribution to political thought Lord Donald has been decidedly unsuccessful. Good Labourite that he is, he has been a regular contributor to Tribune, the left-wing journal of utopian reformers who want to retain capitalism on working-class terms. Consequently his writings, tailored as they must be to the needs of this clearing house for malcontents, have little to offer by way of a solution to the problems of the real world of capitalism. How could they, when the ultimate authority which lies behind all Lord Soper’s prognostications on the state of the world is God and religion?

It is this type of religious rubbish which gives the name “Christian Socialist” to religious critics of capitalism, and encourages them to make the nonsensical claim that Socialism and religion are quite compatible, and that Jesus Christ was a Socialist. The Labour Party and the Trade Union movement is full of these “Christian Socialists”, Baptists, Methodists, lay preachers, Salvationists, lesson-readers, and all the other dreary joyless characters who provide religion on the cheap for the godless industrial masses. As long as there are votes to be had from those workers who hold religious ideas no capitalist party, and here we include the Communist Party, will repudiate religion, the churches and other forms of religious organization. Most workers are easy-going on the subject of religion and its social importance has receded but has not yet vanished. The capitalist class can still find a role for religion to play in support of the system when the occasion arises.

True to form, Lord Soper has just made a fresh statement which is as stupid as it is incorrect. Addressing the Annual Methodist Conference at Preston during a discussion on religious education in schools, he claimed that Communism is a religion:

It is unquestionably a religious faith. We shall get into trouble if we try and distinguish between what we call religion and ideology.

(Daily Telegraph, 1st July 1976)

We certainly shall if we don’t. Religion deals with fiction and Communism, or Socialism, deals with facts. All religions are united on the principle of supernatural phenomena and life after death in a spiritual world — Hell or Heaven, as the case merits. Socialism, or Communism, is based on materialism, which means that we can know nothing outside of the senses, and that all natural and social phenomena must be interpreted through the human agency without divine intervention. Materialism also means that men are in command of society and science, and “acts of God” are nothing more than a term used on insurance policies for material reasons.

Perhaps Lord Soper was getting a bit confused over the term “Communism”. He obviously meant the system prevailing in the Soviet Union, but which bears no resemblance to communism. There, undoubtedly, religious attitudes are indoctrinated but with the difference that the state and the leadership replace the God and saints of the old Russian Orthodox Church — but not quite. There is certainly very little to choose between the religion of the old world and its uncritical adulation of God, and the claim of infallibility of the Communist Party leadership, based as it is on the exploitation of superstition and ignorance of the Russian masses. That type of communist superstition, coupled with the myth that common ownership exists and the worship of the god of productivity, is certainly taught in the Russian schools, but this is the worship of capital, albeit state capital. The Soviet Union has proved that you can have religion with or without God — a belief in the supernatural has various applications. It is not subject to any laws of logic, reason or science — the world of fantasy is a great place for those who can live on dreams for the future which never arrives, or has not arrived after sixty years.

Officially the Soviet Union is godless, but millions of people still have religious views and take part in the ceremonies and ritual of the Russian Orthodox Church. The main religious festival is Easter; Good Friday and Saturday being the big market days. “At Moscow Yelokhovsky Cathedral, Pimen, Patriarch of all the Russians, officiated . . . the packed congregation included a sizeable number of foreign diplomats admitted through a side door to avoid the crush. Others drove 40 miles to the Sergei Trinity Abbey, one of Russia’s holiest places. All day there were long lines, mostly of women, outside churches each with Easter cake slung in a napkin waiting to have it blessed”. (The Times, 26th April 1976.)

Lenin and the old Bolsheviks denounced religious institutions because the Russian Orthodox Church was a pillar of the Czarist regime. They claimed they would abolish religious influences by separating the church and the state, and making religious societies and institutions dependent on those who adhered to the faith. However, Lenin was astute enough to realize that you cannot abolish religion by decree, as was attempted in the French Revolution. He knew that he was dealing with masses of superstitious and ignorant peasants, and he wanted their support. Consequently, the “socialist atheism” of the Bolsheviks was played down in favour of “religious freedom”. “Everyone must be absolutely free to profess whatever religion he likes, or to profess no religion; i.e. be an atheist as every socialist usually is.” (p. 12, Lenin on Religion, Martin Lawrence.) This was not opposition to religion but pandering to it.

One thing is certain and that is that Socialism is not compatible with religious ideas. The Communist Parties of Europe, including the British party, have faithfully taken up a high-sounding attitude of religious freedom. Consider how much support the Communist parties in Italy and France would get were they to attack religion. In any case, the Soviet Union are no longer interested in abolishing religion, particularly as the church is now under the thumb of the Communist Party. When it suits them they will use religion in its customary rôle to maintain their position by befuddling the workers.

The Sunday Times of 27th April 1975 reported that Russia was using priests as emissaries to Israel to discuss certain property questions. “Two Moscow churchmen visited Israel at the end of last month officially for talks on a legal dispute over Russian Church property . . . Further talks are expected in May when Metropolitan Nicodemus, foreign relations secretary of the Moscow Patriarchate visits Jerusalem as a pilgrim to the Orthodox Churches Easter ceremonies. The Patriarch of Soviet Armenia is also due . . .”. No doubt the Russian capitalist class wants the priests and bishops to work for their keep, and for that very reason they will keep the religious institutions going by recognizing their use value. The fact that Church property still exists contradicts the claim made repeatedly that the communists would confiscate the property.

The Communist Party in Russia is a capitalist party and has the responsibility of running capitalism in that country. Fundamentally there is little difference between Russian capitalism and Western capitalism. The dominant relations of production are wage-labour and capital, and the prevailing ideology is one of support for the institution of private property, with all the trimmings of religion, mock-morality and hypocrisy. A Communist society cannot exist where one section of the population is exploited by another, and the term “Russian Communism” is the ignorant man’s way of describing state capitalism.

Jim D'Arcy

Letter: Ownership and Arms (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ownership and Arms

Your party supports common ownership of the means of production and distribution, but opposes nationalization, calling it state capitalism. How, therefore does your party propose to bring about common ownership and does it wish to do this for all industries?

Your party opposes religion, why? Is this because your party is based on Marxism?

Finally, why does your party oppose and wish to abolish the armed forces? In a socialist state surely they could be used to defend freedom and democracy. If this country were to be invaded by hostile forces what would your attitude be to resistance?

Michael Newton,

Cambridgeshire

Reply:

Nationalization is a means of running capitalism under the auspices of the state. It has nothing whatever to do with Socialism and bears no resemblance to common ownership. Look at the coal mines, the railways, electricity and steel: the same capitalist economics of money, wages, and profits and competition for markets hold sway as in the “private sector”. Common ownership means that the whole world and all its industry and resources will be held in common by all mankind. Goods and services, being produced solely for use, will be freely available according to need. How? A democratic majority on a world basis will first come to understand the need to change and then vote for it. This presupposes their readiness to co-operate in bringing it into being and running it.

Yes, Marx has supplied the scientific basis for opposing religion. The crude and primitive mumbo- jumbo of religion has served successive ruling classes through centuries. When the working class develop class-consciousness they will have no further need for pie in the sky. There is no rational or scientific basis for religious ideas; clinging to them anchors the workers to capitalism.

Your final question assumes “this country” will go Socialist first and be on its own. You must be on your guard against nationalistic habits of thought. The workers of the world are confronted by the same social problems, all arising from the same cause—capitalism. Socialist ideas will not spread in isolated pockets here and there. Millions of workers in this country must become Socialists before the system here can change. Can your really imagine this happening while in the rest of the world ideas stand still? As Socialism involves working together and organized co-operation, then as the movement for Socialism grows the liaison and unity of workers will grow and will necessarily be world-wide. Hostile forces are a product of capitalism. They are represented in the military machines of rival capitalists struggling for markets and profits. Workers have no country to defend, and armed forces only exist to conserve the property of the capitalists. Workers have a common interest wherever they are, and no reason to be hostile to each other. For further expansion of the above arguments you will find our pamphlets War and Questions of the Day well worth reading.

Editorial Committee.

Halo, Halo! (2024)

The Halo Halo Column from the July 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Actor Brian Cox: ‘the Bible is one of the worst books ever’ (MailOnline 30 April).

*****

’Right’, said Om. ‘Now…listen. Do you know how gods get power?’ ‘By people believing in them’, said Brutha. ‘Millions of people believe in you’.

‘People said there had to be a Supreme Being because otherwise how could the universe exist, eh?… But since the universe was a bit of a mess, it was obvious that the Supreme Being hadn’t in fact made it. If he had made it he would, being Supreme, have made a better job of it… Or, to put it another way, the existence of a badly put-together watch proved the existence of a blind watchmaker. You only had to look around to see that there was room for improvement practically everywhere. This suggested that the Universe had probably been put together in a bit of a rush by an underling while the Supreme Being wasn’t looking in the same way that Boy Scouts’ Association minutes are done on office photocopiers all over the country’ (Small Gods, Terry Pratchett).

*****

A website going under the name of Islamic Socialism (Marxist Leninist) offers the following oxymoron positing that religion and socialism go hand in hand:

‘We are Islamic Socialists because we are Muslims first and socialists second. Our main beliefs are Allah is one and that Muhammad (PBUH) is his messenger. Second to that is opposition to capitalism. To oppose capitalism is no less than to fight in the cause of Allah… the only answer is an Islamic Socialist society following Sharia. A state for the Muslims that follows in accordance to Sharia and opposes a financial minority growing off the backs of the majority through social revolution and the regulation by a religious vanguard’. Straight from the Lenin playbook, with a twist.

*****

Joe.co.uk. 14 May, carries an article quoting research from an American University which posits that, ‘children raised without religion were “less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian. And more tolerant, on average, than religious adults.”’ More confirmation of the socialist view that religion has a negative effect on humans.

*****

Praise the Lord and pass the loot! Yet another American Evangelist making a very nice living thank you by selling the buy-into-religion-and-win-the-lottery falsehood. He’s correct however that poverty is a misery suffered by many across the world. That, however, is down to the present social system. The solution isn’t to make preachers rich, it’s the abolition of capitalism. ‘Televangelist and prosperity gospel preacher Jesse Duplantis, who has an estimated wealth of twenty million dollars, has called poverty a “curse” and said his wealth – which includes a private jet and a 40,000 square foot mansion – comes from being “blessed” by God’ (The Christian Post, 29 April).

*****

News from the National Secular Society, 21 May, that the 2022 census showed that results from the 2022 Scottish Census found that ‘51.1% of people in Scotland have no religion. In 2011 the figure was 36.7%.’ Slàinte Mhath!

DC

50 Years Ago: Bishop who made our pamphlet his Bible (2024)

The 50 Years Ago column from the June 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

In 1920 William Montgomery Brown, Bishop of Arkansas, published a book called Communism and Christianism. It was caused by his reading the Socialist Party of Great Britain pamphlet Socialism and Religion; not only did it quote our pamphlet extensively, but offered prizes for essays based upon it.

As Socialism and Religion “took apart” Christianity, what happened to Bishop Brown? He was tried by a court of the Protestant Episcopal Church to which he belonged, and expelled for heresy. He described himself thereafter as “Episcopus in partibus Bolshevikium et Infidelium”, and published more books — My Heresy and The Bankruptcy of Christian Supernaturalism.

Promising as his case might sound, unfortunately the Bishop understood little of what he had read. He was carried away by the Russian Revolution; though his book was largely about “Marxism and Darwinism”, he had no idea of either. He joined the Rationalist Press Association, but fought against his expulsion from the Church. In fact he never gave up Christianity. His claim was that Jesus (for whom he continued to use a capital H: “Him”, etc.) was dedicated “to the truth and to the proletariat”.

The Labour and Communist press in America was bitter towards the Church over Bishop Brown’s expulsion. That is in character: they supported religion, or said it was ‘‘a private affair”. The Socialist Party’s only regret was at its work being borrowed for a muddled and sterile non-purpose. We thought the Bishop was a blithering idiot.

(From the 70th anniversary issue of Socialist Standard, June 1974)