The Pope Hails Communism for Focus on 'Poor' and 'Marginalized'

“If anything, it is the communists who think like Christians.”


telesurtv.net/english/news/The-Pope-Hails-Communism-for-Focus-on-Poor-and-Marginalized-20161111-0017.html

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3hwaFifg7cU
discord.gg/HCyTh6z

ABSOLUTELY BASED

absolute madman

>>>Holla Forums

Beginning to rethink purging Christians tbh

...

I LOVE YOU JESUS CUH RIIIIIIIIIIIIST

L I B E R A T I O N T H E O L O G Y

He's probably distributist more than gommunist

At least rethink purging catholics.
Protestants can get wrecked.

I used to think protestants were the relative good guys but now I'm not so sure

What used to make you think that?

Kill

according to that guy what does he say about the almighty dollar?

I'm the US protestants are portrayed as brave visionaries yearning to breath free against papist tyranny.

No survivors.


One could reconsider purging Mennonites and Quakers, but that's it.

...

...

kek

no suprise here. Catholicism has always been corrupt and despotic.

We can't attract believers.
We can attract workers.

And mainstream religious organizations invariably prove to be enemy of the Revolution on par with Capitalists. It's not a question of "attracting", it's a question of not being delusional and identifying the enemy.

I have no intention of trying to be - literally - holier than the Pope. That's not what Marxism is about. Though, it's telling that it's Communists who are against the sin of usury, not actual Church.

...

The overlap is enormous, what are you saying

Sour grapes.

Are you actually retarded? It's about the approach.

Shall we embrace each and every variety of idpol in an attempt to avoid alienating people?

Practical example: in Germany overlap between Germans and workers was even bigger, should've Communists pandered to Nazism?

I don't see why believers and workers are mutually exclusive, in practice its often the opposite.
Christianity is easily compatible with Communism, its not like the understanding of Christ's teachings hasn't changed over time. Now, we simply need to emphasize the communistic elements, of which there are plenty.

That's impossible to say for certain, since we've never seen a mainstream religion turn communist.

Religion isn't idpol, Steve.

Not alienating doesn't mean embracing.

Your argument is non-sequitur. I don't see why each individual shouldn't be recognized. We're certainly workers and the oppressed first but we are all human beings. Your lack of individual recognition is anti-Marxist comrade.

If colonialism could have taken over ME maybe it would have turned into christian communist revolution instead of islamic facist.

Really sets the synapses ablaze doesn't it?

Anything you ever say doesn't make anyone think deeply.

I never claimed this, right?

DiaMat is Materialist. This is not about some simple "rejection of supernatural", but the general philosophical principles that reject "eternal truth" - which are the basis of any religion.

So - yeah. Christianity - as a religion - is not compatible with Communism. Ethical principles are obviously applicable, but not the religion itself.

Disregarding Materialism, any mainstream religion by definition is a superstructure that is affected by basis. It is built into the structure of current economic basis (Capitalism, in our case). I.e. it depends on Capitalism to function. This is why it will always come into conflict with new economic basis - Socialism.

Capitalism and religion is what weaponizes both. I'm sorry, I just cannot grasp how you can create a populist vision of the future by rejecting gigantic demographics of the population.

But capitalism hasn't been boding well for Catholics as a whole lately. It conflicts with their ideology. The base is influencing them, but not in a way that pushes them to embrace it.

Yes, it is. What do you think the whole ISIS is about?

Lines has to be drawn or the ideology will default to the lowest denominator.

If you will present "kill porky, seize means of production" and "pray to god, he'll fix things" as equally valid options, people will not be choosing the first option, because it is much more dangerous and demanding.

Nope. Capitalism only.

I don't reject "demographics". What are you suggesting here?

For Catholic workers.

They already adapted to it. They always adapt. That's a pre-requisite for becoming mainstream religion.

The Church is a business. A Capitalist firm. That earns money. By being Capitalist. It's not about "embracing". It's about survival.

What is so hard to understand?

I hate to inform you but Christianity has been around longer than Capitalism. It has been around for almost every stage of history Marx describes. The nature of it has shifted and changed during each stage and you can see how each influenced each other.
Your arguments against Christianity seem to be two-fold. That DiaMat does not allow it as per its materialist base and that it is only the product of its structure.
I contend that it is certainly not simply defined by its current economics as it would necessarily be an Eastern despontic economic system that would continually attempt to turn the wheels of time backwards. This is obviously not true if you have any understanding of history. To put it briefly, the protestant reformation essentially inspired capitalism and capitalist thought.
Secondly, I personally, don't think that DiaMat and the sort of philosophical thought you put against it are necessarily incompatible but I'll leave that on one side for now. Religion, Christianity at least, is about revelation of eternal truth. The difference might seem slight but with the proper definition you can say it has the same goal as philosophy as a whole. Truth is the not goal, it is the pursuit. As such, it is a much more flexible system than you describe.

It can justify identity politics, and it can create reactionaries. Then again so can populism itself. But then again populism can create what we believe, which is in our interest going forward. It's relating things that aren't necessarily relatable.


Religion existed in culture before Capitalism even existed

which makes up a large swath of their base

They have been, but they're ailing. They've been losing members and money.

And not a very good one. Their profit margins rely on donations, and they've been reluctant to change to maximize those. In light of that, it would make sense that some might be bitter enough to reject the system as a whole while still doing what they can to survive. The Vatican is consider its own country, remember. It's a very peculiar case.

We are not talking about some abstract religious beliefs. We are talking about specifics. Organized religion, i.e. organizations. Specific relations that happen with and within them.

Are you trying to tell me, that medieval Christendom with religious orders, Inquisition, church taxes, and all the special laws - is the same Christendom of 21st century?

Because that's bullshit.

Nope. It's the other way round. Rise of Capitalist relations triggered changes in superstructure of medieval (Feudal) society. Which led to rise of Capitalist churches (that being initially Protestant, but Rome soon followed).

I repeat: Materialism of DiaMat explicitly rejects existence of eternal truths. Only relative truths (defined by their practical applicability) exist.

Existed before Capital, it won't stop existing after

It's great how even threads for good news turn into sectarian fighting

I love you leftypol

Yes the organization has changed but it has still kept an historical and theological continuity. They haven't stopped believing that Christ is the son of God because empirical capitalist thought has told them its silly. It is not solely defined by material conditions because if it were it would have gone the way of the pagans.

Can't you see that all these relative truths lead to a universal truth though? Even DiaMat supports the idea of intellectual evolution and the necessary conclusion is that there is some eternal truth being worked toward. Whether such a thing is intelligible or can even be reached by humans is debatable, but its existence is not. Otherwise, one could have no concept of growth, improvement, or even difference as all change is relativistic material conditions.

So they can adapt to communism as well, can't they?

Goddamn this Pope is an absolute madman

ohh shit

Protestants were originally about simpler churches (traditionally) that were cheap, people reading their own bibles, and an end to indulgences and other money-grubbing behavior

We are talking about Church persuading, organizing, and arming countless counter-revolutionaries. Both during Feudal-Bourgeois revolutions (because mainstream Church at the time was Feudal), and during Bourgeois-Socialist revolutions (because mainstream Church at the time was Bourgeois).

Why are you all constantly moving goalposts?


1) Capitalist institutions will resist Socialist revolutions
2) Mainstream organized religion is a Capitalist institution
Debate either of those.

IRRELEVANT

IRRELEVANT

IRRELEVANT

Yes. But it is IRRELEVANT. We are talking about existing Church, not about Communist Christian time-travellers from the future.

Do you expect Shell to support Revolution because it employs a lot of workers?

How many Capitalists joined Revolution because their business was suffering?

lol cuckpope. It figures Holla Forums would fall head over heels for a geriatric pedo who praises fags and kisses the feet of African migrants.

False equivalency.
They're much closer to consumers than workers for the church, but even that's kind of flawed.


How many business do you know that would knowingly sabotage their profits by appealing to an archaic belief system? Also, you're still neglecting that they are their own country at this point. This sets them apart from the traditional business model since they have other things to consider than merely profit, which is only as useful as it keeps their ideology going. There are externalities that they are forced to take into account. If the Vatican felt capitalism was a threat to them, I see no reason they wouldn't retaliate.

Okay. If most of Shell customers were workers, would you expect it to go Socialist?

Archaic belief system is the system that creates profits.

Catholic Church is not Vatican. Every nation is running their own semi-independent Church. Which is still irrelevant. They are not running autarkic Planned economy, do they?

Every Capitalist has something he cares beyond profit. That doesn't change anything, because they need to turn in profit to exist. The same applies to Church. They can't exist without money.

Marxism. Familiarize yourself with it, FFS.

They already retaliated and lost. Almost half of Europe went Protestant because of it.

How is the pope a cuck if he's celibate

Irrelevant to the revolution, probably, but not irrelevant to me as a catholic.

There is no moving goalpost, you've still refused to accept my first and only one. There is an element to the Catholic Church and most religions organizations that transcend the contemporary material conditions. I might call it historical continuity, just as humankind has gradually advanced in knowledge, empathy, and politics so too have these institutions. They are not solely defined by Capitalism just because they've continued to exist in a capitalist world. If it were such, we would have new religions within each stage of development.
As I've said before, your ahistorical outlook is anit-Marxist and limits revolutionary possibilities.

Depends on how much power they have as customers.

Except it's not.
Clinging to dogma has not benefited them at all.
People have been steadily leaving the church for a while now

But it is the head of it. They dictate a lot.

Not autarkic, but you might be able to argue it's planned.

But not to the point that it's put above the business itself. The business is only secondary in the case of the church.

Which is why I've been saying to you that this economic model is failing them. Any other country would be looking for an alternative, too.

Same could be said for communism.
Why wouldn't they try again?

I couldn't have come up with a better definition of Catholicism.

Liberation theology came into existence solely because there is a semblance of leftism going on in South America countries.

Liberation theology is nothing but advertising for the equivalent Church product of your capitalist mass produced Che Guevara t-shirts.

By doing what? Excommunicating Communists? Never excommunicating nazis and fascists in the laity or even the clergy? Telling people to submit to Porky and forgive his porkeries? Covering themselves in gold and gemstones?

When is the Catholic Church going to redesign my country like Sankara did by taking the power away from tribal and religious leaders? When will all the land they stole be given back to the people?

It is the Catholic Church that is going to be redesigned.

This is hardly an irrelevant point.

We're not in feudalism anymore. In liberalism, religion's political authority and power has seriously diminished. Attacking religion however would backfire incredibly as the believers get triggered and then side away from the socialist cause and fight for the liberals.

Have you changed your mind? I remember you saying that a "purge" may not be necessary.

Fascinating. Why are you even posting then?

Yes. I am not accepting this voodoo bullshit. Either way, I don't see how it is relevant to mainstream religion going counter-revolutionary.

Neither Capitalists - as real people, not socio-economic role - are solely defined by Capitalism. That doesn't change the fact that they - as a class - will try to murder you for an attempt to seize the MoP. Similarly enough, some priests might remain neutral or even join Revolution, but organized religion as a whole will be counter-revolutionary, because it Capitalist and is part of the Capitalist system.

You did get it. Some areas went Protestant, some went New Catholic: I already pointed out how Church changed, both organization-wise and dogma-wise (usury is no longer a sin, for example).

How the fuck is it anti-Marxist? You invent some idealist concepts that "transcend material conditions", and claim that economic basis does not influence superstructure. This is anti-Marxist.

Cult of Invisible Hand is not science, you know that, right?

Implying they will not get triggered by their own priests anyway.

When I'm talking about anti-Church actions I don't actually suggest ensuring martyrdom for priests, okay?

Other than that, there was only this post:

No, you only make it harder for the movement. Workers also survive because of capitalism, so why shouldn't they rebel against the socialist movement.?

But, what exactly do you mean by "purging religion"? Be specific.

Because "they have nothing to lose, except their chains; they have the whole world to gain".

Church has a lot to lose and not much to gain.

We don't have a specific situation, do we? Or do you want me to unspecifically specific?

The initial question was who should not be treated as a (potential) enemy of the Revolution. I presented my opinion that no special consideration should be given to Catholics and then elaborated that every mainstream religion will be inherently counter-revolutionary.

The world it goes
And all awaits
The day we are awaiting
DEEEE DEE DEE DEEE DEEE DEE DEE DEE DEE DEE DE DE DEEEEEEEEE DEEEEE DE DE DE DE DE DEEEE DEDEDEDEDEEEE

Tripfag should watch link related tbh
youtube.com/watch?v=3hwaFifg7cU

Yes. What do you mean by "purging religion".


Okay, that's fair, but, though established churches rely on capitalism (like every man or organization, including yours) why can it not be pushed to support socialism as a system better suited for the Christian?

more like the catholic curch sucked the cock of the nazis

look at him. does it looks like he enjoys it? He had freindly relationships with the vatican out of convenience not because he liked them

maximum wew, the revolution will never succeed

Not really. The whole point of Vanguard is that it doesn't rely on Capitalist system to exist (as much as possible) and (which is more important) is "interested" in Revolution due to being made out of people interested in Revolution.

Why can't Shell be pushed to support Socialism as a system better suited for both its workers and customers?

It's not designed to.

What is the pontiff saying then? Also, it's disingenuous to say that. How is the church not designed to?

There was religion since slave economies. It can adapt. Though, you cannot expect the church to openly opposite capitalism and prohibit capitalist employment etc, because that would mean its destruction by bourgeois institutions.

Do not evade the question. What did you mean by "purging religion"?

The vanguard will still be dependent on the capitalist system and material relations of society. That just includes its physical existence. You also have the question of ideology. All ideologies conceived within a system and its material conditions will be tainted by it.

What.

Yes. Revolution first, then adaptation (or replacement). But the question is what is going on during Revolution.

Precisely.

I'm not evading the question. I never used those words.

How?

Within class. Only people can have ideology. Marxism is ideology of Proletariat, for example. It was explicitly "tainted" by material conditions of Proletariat.

Anarchism is tainted by Petit-Bourgeois mindset. And then we have Liberalism - ideology of ruling Capitalist class.

Its not voodoo bullshit, its a quasi-metaphysical outlook on culture and long standing institutions. My point is that there is something more than the contemporary material conditions that define how these types of organizations function or what they believe. The reason I called your outlook ahistorical because, from what I understand of your outlook is that, it happens in distinct stages and each thing within each stage is defined by forces within it rather than a single entity being continually defined and changed by contemporary conditions.
The key difference here is the continuity where new ideas are at play with older ones. The ideas influenced by older periods change and morph as they synthesis with the newer ones. A similar thing is happening in general within humanity, of course. All our ideas are based off of older knowledge and conventions but it seems foolish to completely discard Christianity as more of the same, especially considering how it has risen and fell in influence. I think your historical outlook might be based on an overly strict progression and obviously distinct segments. History is much more organic than that and the church is a good example of it.
Also just in case you might think I'm some sort crazy Theocratic communist. I personally, believe that the communards method of depriving the church of property and leaving the priests to live off goodwill to be the best so far. Beautiful religious centers should also be maintained for cultural and historical heritage.

You are just messing with me at this point, right?

My point is that it's irrelevant in the context of our discussion: that being reaction of organized religion to change of economic basis. Historically, only marginals supported this change.

Former does not contradict the latter. It doesn't matter if it's "metaphysically" the same thing. If it looks and functions differently, you can treat it as a different thing - in this context. Therefore, it is acceptable to say that medieval Church is a different

You are being too hung up on names. We call it idealism. Modern-day word is cargo-cultism.

I am not talking about Church as a single entity, because it makes no sense in the context of our discussion, not because I have deep belief in "segments".

If we are talking about Bourgeois revolutions, we should be talking about Church contemporary to those revolutions, not modern Church.

Voodoo wish magic bullshit is still voodoo wish magic bullshit whatever you try to dress it up as

The Catholic Church is the least of our problems. It would be a mistake to alienate Catholics. The Catholic Church is popular in regions where communism is also popular, which is why the Church is now taking a conciliatory stance toward communism. The Church has taken this stance because it is losing members in the Western world and has to appeal more strongly to the impoverished proletariat in the Third World. There is a correlation between poverty and religiosity, as Marx noted. The Church has noticed this as well and that is why they are softening their approach to communism. The Church does not wish any longer to alienate communists and we must not alienate Catholics. We need not love each other, but it would be fruitless for us to attack each other. The Church has always adapted itself to suit the prevailing order of the day. Let it. If it is adapting itself to us, that's good news. It means we are making progress. But by attacking the Church, you are potentially alienating masses of workers, who are statistically more likely to be religious. Maybe you hate religion and you can't stomach this approach. If so, there's some hope for you: there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and standard of living. That means that if the destruction of religion is your goal, it is far more prudent for you to establish socialism first and allow religion to wither away second. But if you attempt to destroy religion first, you may only succeed in impeding the progress of socialism. You will neither gain socialism nor destroy religion. Stupid!

The Catholic Church can either relinquish all secular power and authority and their stolen wealth or they can join the rest of feudalism in the dustbin of history.

Just the same as all those American super churches.

Go to bed, Papa.

Stupid!

This historical baggage still influences them and will influence their decision. There was no reason for the church to go along with slave society, feudalism, or capitalism but it was pushed along all the same. Communism on the other hand can be seen as intrinsically linked to the church. With that in mind, it should be easy to communicate our shared value to Christians and have them on our side of the revolution instead of writing them off from the start.

Then we all believe in voodoo wish magic bullshit you jackass. Where's this class consciousness I keep hearing about, can you materially point it out to me? What about the superstructure where is it hiding? I read all about history in books but have never seen it myself could you show me friend?

This. It's no different than liberals saying that we need to focus on idpol first before achieving socialism.

Yes. But you pretend that this time it will not be pushed and will go willingly.

Except, at each and every occasion Church went ballistic when actual real Communists were involved - because it was materially compelled to do so, just like any Capitalist.

But we were talking about organized religion, Church, not average Christians.


Yes, we do. The point is to stop believing in voodoo magic bullshit once it stops correspond to reality (i.e. is no longer practically applicable) and change to a different voodoo magic that works in those conditions.

Your problem is that you take one kind of voodoo magic and stick to it forever. That's idealism (or should I call it idolatry?).

Papa if you keep acting up I won't let you watch Matlock any more.

Stupid!

How religious were people in the Eastern bloc and the Soviet Union with the Orthodox Church?

I don't pretend to know what will happen when the revolution comes but according to what I said after, it is not unlikely for the church to join the cause due to their overlapping beliefs and I would be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt especially with Pope Francis at the helm.
They certainly have went ballistic over Communists but we have also gone ballistic over them. We can both learn from history and in solidarity overthrow this oppressive system like Christ fucked up those money lenders.
Even priests, bishops, or whatever in organized religion are part of the religion and can be talked to.
There's nothing in Christianity that doesn't work in contemporary conditions or in possible future ones.
Theism hasn't been disproved, though many would like to think so. Atheism is still contentious on the material level and simply on the dogmatic psychological level.

Do you want another active persecution like that which happened in the USSR?

Catherine de medici did nothing wrong

...

Foolish, you cannot be both a Marxist and a Buddhist.
Feel sorrow, now.

A Chinese Marxist, you say?

LMAO Tibet BTFO! How will they ever recover?

Yeah, okay.

checked
more angel's egg

popes a faggot, wizards are where its at.
discord.gg/HCyTh6z
come join the wizard side at /fringe/

t. riggered

hey I don't even care about your politics your a wiz your ok.

Nothing new here, being a dogmatic atheist is practically required for someone to be a Stalinist

Anyways Protestantism is better than the reactionary teachings of Catholicism

CALVINISM BTFO YET AGAIN

I bet Christian Communism happens before the turn of the century. Pic related.