the more i read about history the more convinced i become that ‘fascism’ (merger of economic and political power for bourgeois ends) is the default state of capitalism

Carrying on the legacy of Deng Xiaoping

Marx isn’t anti-religion because “lol man in the sky silly”. Marx is anti-religion because it is the product of an inverted world, a class society. Marx believes that, if class society is abolished, if the topsy-turvy (this is the word he uses in e.g. “On ‘The Jewish Question’” or the rest of “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law”) world is turned upright, religion will wither away into nothing. Marx believes this is only possible when all the social relations that underlie society are laid bare in an understandable form (i.e. with communism), and that it will not disappear until the topsy-turvy material world disappears.

As Marx states in the former essay, Marx doesn’t believe religion can be abolished by decree (and he points out that state secularism is often just reskinned Christianity). In both essays, Marx actually details how the state itself, money itself, are religions; for Marx religion is the work of human mind alienated from humans and dominating them.

In the full quote (which emizeko posted) Marx outright refers to religion as the general theory of this world (i.e. the topsy-turvy world), as an encyclopaedic compendium. Elsewhere (either in Contribution to the Critique or in On the Jewish Question) Marx refers to religion as a register of the theoretical struggles of mankind. Based on Marx’s usage of various bible quotes and themes in his work (even Capital), it seems likely that he treated religion as he would e.g. liberal economists or members of parliament (i.e. with critical analysis and an eye towards useful stuff for his own critique)

is the root cause of a great deal of all the world’s problems

Idealism. Claiming that ideas are the root cause of a great deal of the world’s problems is the opposite of materialism.

Materialist analysis has never treated religion very kindly.

It has actually treated religion very kindly and respectfully. Like Marx read the bible repeatedly in multiple languages. He told his wife to seek spiritual edification in the jewish prophets rather than a secular church. His analysis of religion is constantly and consistently respectful and to the point with the notable and glaring exception of people who say “i’m a christian/jew/etc” and then ruthlessly exploit their workers. And even then, Marx’s disrespect is usually quoting scripture to show how far they’ve gone from it rather than “lol u believe in man in the sky”.

Marx actually admits to an existence of a ton of abstract, non-material social things in Capital which exist, objectively, without a material form. The entirety of communism is a belief that Marx had could become reality. As many indigenous folks have argued (for example, deloria jr. in “Same old Rock” in Marxism and Native Americans) Marxism is itself a religion that demands taking a lot on faith (revolutionary optimism is faith; belief in revolution is faith; belief in an eventual better world in the future? Faith.

And if you read indigenous activists, theorists and so forth (e.g. Coulthard Red Skin, White Masks) you will see it argued very strongly that indigenous religions/spiritualities are materialist in that they are methods of describing and organising empirically obtained information, disregarding theology which no longer holds true to investigation. When you research religions besides Christianity in the global north in particular and organised hierarchical monotheistic religions which developed to support material inequalities and sufferings it becomes very evident that this is how most of them work, except for the religions of the nobility who write things down and get obsessed with literalism.

If you don’t mind my asking comrade what sorta investigation into religion (past or contemporary) have you done? What sorta investigations into the structure of science and how it works (e.g. Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; Siltoe ed Local vs. Global Science or Aikenhead and Michell *Indigenous and Scientific Ways of Knowing Nature) have you done?

I don’t have this idea and never said nor implied it. I have repeatedly been saying that this is a thing I have seen occur time and time again, not that it is true for every single person and case. I would appreciate it if you would not misrepresent what I’m saying comrade. It doesn’t help anyone

Why not use your limited time on this Earth to build your comrades up instead of tearing them down in private? Why do you need to mock people, especially if your mockery hits your comrades in the crossfire? Is this a materialist analysis aimed towards revolutionary praxis or is this you just wanting to get more upvotes with le burn?

And you don’t get a pass to mock people without that having consequences (e.g. POC especially from global south leaving whitedominated spaces time and time again because y’all care more about whining about metaphysics and spreading the gospel of Dawkins than actually getting off your asses and doing shit)

yes? Have been told by several queer friends from latin america for example that they’ve felt alienated from white/global north queer spaces bc of the casual mockery of their beliefs (with the justification that they are only mocking the “bad ones”)

Yeah, from what ik generally it’d be the older animals, much older than we kill them today and very much restricted to events where a large group beyond the immediate owners gets to eat (e.g. chiefly feasts in the Scottish highlands; saints’ feastdays in much of Europe or various sacrifices in Rome or Judah). The whole idea of breeding and raising exclusively to butcher comes with markets export of goods for consumption in the cities. There’s also just more concern in general for the animal because you’re relying on them for various other tasks (and just generally, its easier to deal with a contented animal than an angry one)

Saito in Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism actually shows that Marx had thoughts on the ‘modern’, rapid, meat-focused, industrialised animal agriculture, as it was developing:

Marx’s excerpts from Lavergne’s Rural Economy of England, Scotland and Ireland (1855) are of interest. … Marx notes that Lavergne is excited about the progress made by Bakewell sheep and discovers a proof of the superiority of English agriculture:

Bakewell. Earlier English sheep, as French now, not fit for the butcher, before 4 or 5 years. According to his system it may be fattened as early as one year old, and in every case has reached its full growth before the end of the 2nd year. By System of Selection. (19) (Bakewell—farmer of Dishley Grange.) (Reduced size of the sheep. Only so many bones as necessary for their existence) His sheep are called “new Leicesters.” “The breeder can now send 3 to market in the same space of time that it formerly took him to prepare one; and broader, rounder, greater development in those parts which give most flesh.… Almost all their weight is pure meat.”94

Lavergne is enthusiastic about the shortening of time necessary for the animals’ maturity thanks to Bakewell’s “system of selection,” which also increased the amount of meat.

Since the beginning of the nineteenth century, many of Bakewell’s “New Leicesters” were brought into Ireland and crossed with native sheep, creating new races, known as “Roscommon” and “Galway.”95 The original ecosystem in Ireland was transformed from the perspective of maximizing profits and ground rents, and this is exactly another example of ecological imperialism. Here the health and wealth of animals are not a primary concern, but what is important is their utility for capital. Notably, this type of progress did not impress Marx, and thus he wrote without hesitation in his private notebook: “Characterized by precocity, in entirety sickliness, want of bones, a lot of development of fat and flesh etc. All these are artificial products. Disgusting!”96

In the excerpts from Wilhelm Hamm’s Agricultural Tools and Machines in England (Die landwirthschaftlchen Geräthe und Maschinen Englands), one finds a similar remark by Marx. As a reaction to Hamm’s praise of intensive farming in England—Hamm translated Lavergne’s work into German—Marx calls “feeding in the stable” the “system of cell prison” and asks himself:

In these prisons animals are born and remain there until they are killed off. The question is whether or not this system connected to the breeding system that grows animals in an abnormal way by aborting bones in order to transform them to mere meat and a bulk of fat—whereas earlier (before 1848) animals remained active by staying in free air as much as possible—will ultimately result in serious deterioration of life force?97>

I hope not

Rent is expensive

You are describing modern technology in general

Yes, based on our resource consumption we need to radically restructure our entire society to be more ecological. Not sure what your point is; i would like extraction for all those other purposes reduced and minimized also because what we’re doing rn isn’t sustainable. Marx was fairly clear on this

it’ll mostly maintained by highly capable technical staffs

I addressed this in my original reply; “Also of course the unequal exchange between the global south and north to create the superprofits funding the blue collar job-haver’s salary and benefits.” I don’t think it’s inherently good that more technical jobs are opened up in the imperial core

Governmental research institutions

Friend you seem to have entirely missed the meaning of ‘academia is bourgeois’. I said: “Its goal is constant growth of its industry, with little to no regard for the consequences (which are always displaced as far away from the scientist as possible). All of this is justified with an unproven faith that it will eventually be beneficial for the people whose land is dug up for the metals for the neat machines scientists play with.”. I did not mention anything about the stratification of academic jobs, and governmental research institutions clearly fall into academic science as I defined it.

It’s harming and/or is premised on harming:

1. Animals, people, etc to make room for mines
2. Marine life to ship these materials
3. animals, people in the area of the forges/factories/etc in the global south
4. repeat 2 and 3 a few times
5. animals, plants, in the area of construction
6. the entire planet after its powered up (through emissions and constant transportation of fuel and scientists to it)

Is there a world in which clearing land of animals, people, etc to make room for mines, extracting tons of ore from the ground, shipping(very harmful in and of itself in this society) it to a second place (cleared, etc) to be forged (at high temperatures requiring some energy source shipped from a third place (cleared etc)) and then shipping it to a fourth place (cleared, etc) to be built into a giant energy-consumer for perpetuity won’t be harmful?

Where are the raw materials (including energy!) for this project coming from? Are the miners in the global south or the indigenous peoples pushed off their lands not harmed by the constantly increasing demand for materials academics present? Will these people see any benefit, in their or their childrens’ lifetimes? Do the bourgeois, the mining and metalworking companies and all their friends, not make massive amounts of money selling these materials? Are the carbon emissions and environmental destruction not worth preventing?

Extraction of raw material from the global south, the dispossession of indigenous peoples in those areas and ecocide that it’s all premised on come to mind.

Also of course the unequal exchange between the global south and north to create the superprofits funding the blue collar job-haver’s salary and benefits.

Academic science (not all science; empirical investigation good) is bourgeois. Its goal is constant growth of its industry, with little to no regard for the consequences (which are always displaced as far away from the scientist as possible). All of this is justified with an unproven faith that it will eventually be beneficial for the people whose land is dug up for the metals for the neat machines scientists play with.