I think this picture perfectly describes our religious "allies"...

Well he did purge a fair few Local priests who refused to go along with it

OP here,in Italy the curch and religious political parties have always given their support to the fascist party through each single step it took in it's rise to power.

How does that invalidate the role liberation theology played in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Haiti, or Brazil?

I'm contesting the case of Chile, dummy.

I bet if I were to research I'd find they were collaborationists, however. It's always gonna end the same.

That was back in the 70-80s when we Latin Americans were mostly very religious, and religion is currently in sharp decadence not only here but in the whole planet.

Let's take the example of Chile. While many people identify themselves with some creed (pic 1 - about half are Catholic), over half of people in Chile do not participate actively in a church or religious organization (pic 2). The whole point of religious work was to utilize this social space, the church, for mass agitation and organization. Leftists in the whole of history have recognized this, not just us Latin Americans - for instance, a little told fact is that in 1903. the RSDLP approved, with Lenin's vote, the publication of a religious paper in Russia, Rassvet, directed especially at members of sects opposed to the Orthodox Church, since their values aligned well with the democratic demands: marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1975/lenin1/chap04.htm#s2

This trend is motivated one one hand by the individualization and alienation of people under neoliberalism, but also by the fact that people are recognizing the church for what it is: a corrupt organization whose purpose is to enforce a certain morality (that is functional to the dominant class) upon society. In 2014 a well-known Chilean jesuit, Luis García-Huidobro renounced to the Church over their handling of the Mapuche conflict:

theclinic.cl/2014/02/27/luis-garcia-huidobro-y-su-renuncia-a-la-iglesia-no-es-lo-mismo-un-luchsinger-muerto-que-un-catrileo-muerto/

Given this decline of religious activity (though perhaps not as much of religious thought) worldwide and the role currently held by most churches with respect to mantaining and justifying the bourgeois order, there's little sense in doing political work among the religious, unless you manage to do so without justifying (and in fact, discouraging) participation in the Church like García-Huidobro does.

Not at all: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicariate_of_Solidarity

But yes, collaborationism in the sense that they always sided with the bourgeois opposition that would later become the Concertación por la Democracia.

Christian is simply a defeatist slave morality religion run by rich people. It's utter trash and should be ignored

Sup Nietzsche

Pretty cool guy.

Ew.

Your picture is homosex

Shit.
I support gays but I don't support shit philosophy, what do?

yeah he's actually pretty based for someone who isn't a communist

Yeah religious "communists" will always be a thorn in the side of every movement. I think you just have to use and abuse them, get them to help you when it is in their interest, and then kick them to the curb. Even better if you are just such assholes that they go and try to form their own party. You could just purge them like Marx did with the feminists. Hopefully they would try some sort of serious resistance so they could be dealt with by force.

So just because someone believes in a certain religion they're to be exploited like you're the new elite? You're accusing the workers of the boss' actions and merely dividing up the proles even more. While it's true that the High Churches are normally conservative and have always been pro status-quo doesn't mean that the man who believes in God can no longer be considered anything but a lumpen. You sound like either a awful opportunist or are delusional to think that any collection of the proles can't be a staging point for agitation, recruitment, and expanded education even in first world countries.

What are you talking about?

Not what I said.
?
I agree wtf?
To you perhaps, I see myself as a realist.
No actually, and this is where I am a far more "awful opportunist" and more of a materialist than you.
I 100% believe that Christian Communists CAN be a staging point for agitation, recruitment, and to some degree even education. But, this is where the awfully opportunist and material analysis comes. Christian Communists are a paradox. They support a cause backed with materialist facts with idealistic reasoning. Idealism stands for nothing, it is literally just ideas. These people are USELESS for any theoretical affairs, and in the long run, are absolutely a negative effect on society. These are people that have world views that literally reject reason for faith, any support they give for us is luck, and that should totally be taken advantage of and used fully and absolutely. Anyone that stands with Socialist causes should be used for Socialist goals, but Christian "Communists" as a group are very, very flaky because there beliefs hinge on "This is right". Lastly, they are Christian Communists, not Communist who are Christians. This isn't simple wordplay, all of them are loyal to God over any sort of revolution. Rightfully so, if God was real They have little to no materialist character and can only exist as a revolutionary class in fickle, insubstantial ways when seen as a whole.

This is the hardcore rightist faction that sided with Franco years earlier asking years after the fact for more leniency for Pinochet. This is hardly smoking gun evidence for the Vatican having been involved with the coup against Allende.

I've more or less spent my entire time on this board explaining Marx and general historical materialism to anons from a purely secular stance save when I have to discuss religion or related metaphysical philosophy. And save for when ethics are involved, I have refused to use "this is right" as an argument to explain my reasonings for communism, even going so far as arguing against moralist viewpoints and instead opting for the more apt conclusion that certain actions are merely historically necessary and that all revolutionary decisions are based and should be based on necessity and inevitability lest they turn reactionary. I swear at this point I've explained Marx and other leftist writers/philosophers more then I've explained the bible, and I've only really done that when someone who obviously hasn't read it comes in with an offhand quote about "Render unto Caesar". The only reason I don't have a flag at this point is because I don't feel like proclaiming my ideology out for everyone, not only because I see it as unnecessary but because faggots like you would point it out every time I have to explain historical materialism to you.

fuck off back to hell

ya OP is basically this lol

I feel like a lot of so-called "leftists" on here (and elsewhere) would rather LARP as 18th century enlightenment revolutionaries than actually work against contemporary capitalism.

i meant people who make those arguments can fuck off to hell ???

I know one of us here is a hardcore ☭TANKIE☭ who worships Stalin. Let me ask him this: after reading this thread where people like this:

Openly admit to just using you and are actively hostile to the faith, how can you still side with these deceitful marxists? Answer honestly.

I think that particular user is Orthodox, so in some manner it makes a degree of sense given Stalin's resurrection of the Orthodox church.

I've talked about this in the past on how some anons, even on a purely materialist basis, fail to analyze religion or ideology on such a basis and instead simply treat their position as a socialist as some kind declaratory obelisk to hang colors on. I think its important to analyze and observe capitalism while studying the implications of certain observations, but even more so how to directly apply and act on them while understanding those conclusions. For example, even the most strict and literal interpretation of Marx would yield that religion is merely the catalyst in which people express their conditions and whose choices in belief and religious activity act as a "cover" for that expression. If so, then religion is a non-issue because all it solely amounts to is a coping mechanism which will fade away post-capitalism without needed address. Now lets for a second assume that Marx is wrong in this and religion is instead some kind of inescapable human concept which has merely been commodified and transformed by the market forces and structure of capitalism and then given economic power. If so, then with capitalism's abolishment so to goes such economic framework and power leaving whatever religious expression is left both authentic and economically powerless (as all things should be in communism). It should also be observed that since the present state of thing hasn't yet been abolished, we don't really know what religion in communism would look like.

Tbh, I don't think such arguments on ideology or other such things will disappear suddenly in communism either and given the removal of the economic framework which allows capitalist enforcement of ideology, were probably still going to see people bickering about ideological differences a lot. I'm not utopian at all especially in the sense the disagreement will cease.

This is stupid, religion is an extremely complicated subject that has been on both the side of oppressor and oppressed. It was used as a justification by the peasant rebellions of the 16th century as well as by the Church when it crushed those rebellions. The church refused to denounce the right wing regimes of Latin American while its clergy formed a key part of resistance to these regimes. A blanket statement either way is retarded.

Loool.
Since most of you post is you jacking off to yourself about how you act like a normal person, and not like a Christfag, I don't know what to say to you. I get it's "not all Christians". I still maintain that Christian Communists should only be sided with based on the situation, and that the thinking is toxic to any materialist vision of the world. It is a real shame that Jesus ever had to open his stupid fucking mouth and ruin so much shit.

Most people will never know, not my fault they won't let go of their ghosts. I'm not saying anything bad has to be done to them, but I am saying they are fickle and easily oppositional.
Truth.
This is the level of Christfag thought.
Literally "If the people that believe this are mean to you, why believe it?". This is the EXACT problem with religion. It is a social club, and although some of its members may be communist and are useful there of, most won't be. As a group, they are just people committed to ritually hanging out with each other over a shared topic.

I'm not trying to jack myself to myself, I'm just trying to give context to myself so I can refute the overarching claims you made. I hate actually talking about myself on boards cause that misses the point and this is the first time on this board I've talked about myself directly. My point was that if I didn't out myself as a christfag, I would just be another indistinguishable fag on this board like you. Yet, somehow you think were all one person with some agreed upon and definite set of methodology and praxis who also act a certain way. Some of us aren't even the same sect and a lot of the time when we do talk to each other its in disagreement. I'm not pretending we'll ever agree with each other in communism anyway, at this point I'm just responding in clarification. With any hope we'll get to communism so we can fuck off from each other if you want.

There is no reasoning with people like him. His idea of communism is for all religious people to get lined up against a wall and shot. It's astonishingly naive of you to pretend like we can all get along.

I feel like the western "new atheist" are dipping their toe back into communism. For a long time the Atheist movement, especially in the U.S had to detach itself from communism to gain any influence or legitimacy. Fundamentalism is on the rise and those that wish for secularism are running out of places to hide. As an Atheist I don't believe in outlawing religion or even allying with it. I rather see it politically defanged but allow it's institutions to exist. Banning religion is as fruitless a task as trying to ban trekkies and harry potter book clubs. Eventually our material conditions will change and evolve religion. Also I think theologians can be very dialectical. Sometimes you have to make people understand your ideas in the context of their relationship of their perceived reality and self-frame work of their own existence. Personally I don't care where we came from, I'm working with my existing conditions and understanding of those conditions.

Just religious fundamentalists and clergy.

Clarified in both spoilers that I actually don't think we can all get along. I am especially not utopian in that aspect.

The fact that mainstream organized religion is a scam to control the plebs is legit babies first redpill. I would even go as far as to say know this is a prerequisite to understanding everything else about the world.

nah, babies first redpill is santa claus

check you privilege

kek. the catholic church funded the bolsheviks you inbred.

[citation needed]

...

Pretty shocked to see how many liberals crawl out of their apologist caves to defend the opium of the people.

The writing is on the wall. Clutch dem pearls and try to sneak past as a turd positionist.

Depends if you try to push your religous spooks on me

t. Didn't read quote

I said at least three times that there are indiduals in groups.
Anyways

Hmmmmm. Too hard, wouldn't have enough people left. Basically impossible without some superhuman abilities, and if I could do that I'd just click my "Install Communism" button.
I think I'm pretty reasonable, I've just reasoned myself out of Christfag panic. I suppose you couldn't hope to reason with me, because I've rejected your whole world view and there just isn't an argument you could make that I couldn't just look up "Top 10 Christian arguments" and post a response. Sad life.
Lol, if we ever get to Communism, idealism is going to take center stage. When people no longer need to work for items, and scarcity no longer exists, it is ALL going to be idealism/politics. As in, if we evwr get to a ppint where we a re seriously just handing out lambos and cake, all struggle is going to be idealistic in nature. Maybe "politics would dissapear", but I sincerely doubt it. I honestly believe that Communism could be the bloodiest time in all of history, not because of amy inherent flaws, but more because of how simply successful it will be. When people aren't divided by class, who knows what the fuck they will do. Probably doesn't matter though, I suspect we will always be Socialist states with no classes, yet still having scarcity and such.

read your Nietzsche man
the church loves power most of all
jesus came to destroy the church because "every person is a church"
and nobody fucking gets it