This is one of those current objections to Marxism which testify to a complete misunderstanding of Marxian dialectics. The contradiction which perplexes these objectors is a real contradiction in real life, i. e., a dialectical contradiction, and not a verbal or invented one. To draw a hard-and-fast line between the theoretical propaganda of atheism, i. e., the destruction of religious beliefs among certain sections of the proletariat, and the success, the progress and the conditions of the class struggle of these sections, is to reason undialectically, to transform a shifting and relative boundary into an absolute boundary; it is forcibly to disconnect what is indissolubly connected in real life. Let us take an example. The proletariat in a particular region and in a particular industry is divided, let us assume, into an advanced section of fairly class-conscious Social-Democrats, who are of course atheists, and rather backward workers who are still connected with the countryside and with the peasantry, and who believe in God, go to church, or are even under the direct influence of the local priest—who, let us suppose, is organising a Christian labour union. Let us assume furthermore that the economic struggle in this locality has resulted in a strike. It is the duty of a Marxist to place the success of the strike movement above everything else, vigorously to counteract the division of the workers in this struggle into atheists and Christians, vigorously to oppose any such division. Atheist propaganda in such circumstances may be both unnecessary and harmful—not from the philistine fear of scaring away the backward sections, of losing a seat in the elections, and so on, but out of consideration for the real progress of the class struggle, which in the conditions of modern capitalist society will convert Christian workers to Social-Democracy and to atheism a hundred times better than bald atheist propaganda. To preach atheism at such a moment and in such circumstances would only be playing into the hands of the priest and the priests, who desire nothing better than that the division of the workers according to their participation in the strike movement should be replaced by their division according to their belief in God. An anarchist who preached war against God at all costs would in effect be helping the priests and the bourgeoisie (as the anarchists always do help the bourgeoisie in practice). A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could. A Marxist must be able to view the concrete situation as a whole, he must always be able to find the boundary between anarchism and opportunism (this boundary is relative, shifting and changeable, but it exists). And he must not succumb either to the abstract, verbal, but in reality empty “revolutionism’˜ of the anarchist, or to the philistinism and opportunism of the petty bourgeois or liberal intellectual, who boggles at the struggle against religion, forgets that this is his duty, reconciles himself to belief in God, and is guided not by the interests of the class struggle but by the petty and mean consideration of offending nobody, repelling nobody and scaring nobody—by the sage rule: “live and let live”, etc., etc.

It is from this angle that all side issues bearing on the attitude of Social-Democrats to religion should be dealt with. For example, the question is often brought up whether a priest can be a member of the Social-Democratic Party or not, and this question is usually answered in an unqualified affirmative, the experience of the European Social-Democratic parties being cited as evidence. But this experience was the result, not only of the application of the Marxist doctrine to the workers’ movement, but also of the special historical conditions in Western Europe which are absent in Russia (we will say more about these conditions later), so that an unqualified affirmative answer in this case is incorrect. It cannot be asserted once and for all that priests cannot be members of the Social-Democratic Party; but neither can the reverse rule be laid down. If a priest comes to us to take part in our common political work and conscientiously performs Party duties, without opposing the programme of the Party, he may be allowed to join the ranks of the Social-Democrats; for the contradiction between the spirit and principles of our programme and the religious convictions of the priest would in such circumstances be something that concerned him alone, his own private contradiction; and a political organisation cannot put its members through an examination to see if there is no contradiction between their views and the Party programme. But, of course, such a case might be a rare exception even in Western Europe, while in Russia it is altogether improbable. And if, for example, a priest joined the Social-Democratic Party and made it his chief and almost sole work actively to propagate religious views in the Party, it would unquestionably have to expel him from its ranks. We must not only admit workers who preserve their belief in God into the Social-Democratic Party, but must deliberately set out to recruit them; we are absolutely opposed to giving the slightest offence to their religious convictions, but we recruit them in order to educate them in the spirit of our programme, and not in order to permit an active struggle against it. We allow freedom of opinion within the Party, but to certain limits, determined by freedom of grouping; we are not obliged to go hand in hand with active preachers of views that are repudiated by the majority of the Party.

from: V. I. Lenin: The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion

source:  http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

religous people have morals too! the main thrust of the Bible in the New Testament is of love and compassion to your neighbour. The bible teaches strongly about the need to help the disadvantaged. like it or not, religions are a major part of our society and a movement to end poverty will never succeed without the support of the religions

> a movement to end poverty will never succeed without the support of the religions

Without the support of the organised religions ? Oh, please, let me rip you to shreds before the orgnanised crime squads arrive. We don't need the approval of those who oppress us to be free.We are free because we decided to be not because someone told us to be. We hate your kind of sanctimonious blethering. Lets face it, a movement to end poverty will never suceed with the support of idiots like you, of whatever Abrahamic religion that you pretend to espouse. Your faith compels you to confess that you aren't poor, aren't humble and aren't worthg listening to - and therefore have no idea wht you are talking about. Go tell it to the mountains !

Like it or not the government is a big part of our society and the only way to end poverty is to get its support. I say they are both murderous opportunistic regimes and a large part of the cause of poverty. To really make poverty history we must start by getting rid of both.

..just as a matter of interest, is it just the Christian churches you want closed down or does this extend to other religions as well - muslims, hidus, and so on?

The very basis of this movement is flawed, it is not good enough to just merely stop people from starving to death. the fundamental reason why people are living in poverty is PROPERTY

I can't understand what the issue with christian organisations getting invovled really is. If we examine the history of the trade justice movement then
1) One of the main groups was the Jubilee 2000 co-alition which was formed along the biblical principle of a jubilee year cancelling of all debts to realise people from their bondage of debt.
2) The people who do this , do so out of conviction that they cannot stand by and see inequality in the world, in equality they have helped bring about by the damaging consumerist lifestyle.

Now I don't see any issues with either of them. I don't see churches using it as a recruiting tool, unlike some other groups that were involved in the co-alition events such as protests (make capitlism history band anyone ;) ).

Regards
John

What an brilliant post. Only a true anarchist can be unassailably sanctimoniously unsanctimonious.

(using a PC soon to be donated to a good cause after learning from folk like you)

Hey anonymous poster. You need to chill out! Don’t start quoting Chomsky to try to pretend you have intellectual weight behind your argument.

I cycled up to Edinburgh in order to let my voice be heard. That is what I understand the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign to be about, raising awareness. Without public awareness and consent there cannot be social change.

On several occasions during the ride our cycle caravan had the support of churches up and down the country, supplying fine tea, cake, sandwiches and offers of accommodation. The churches helped to get people talking and put pressure on governments in regard to trade equality, debt and aid.

I don’t speak as one who is religious or who goes to Church, but I am able to see that Churches and those who attend them can be one of many social networks in a community which has a largely positive outcome.

Well I never expected such a good set of responses!! Thanks guys/girls?

You know how sometimes you just need to throw a stone in the pond and watch the ripples.

My heart is warmed and powered.

Any more comments from Christians most welcome ;) common you can do better than this surely.

Or is it just a "Faith Issue" (standard responce No.1 from film "The God That Wasn't There")

Me.

Dude your prentending that the Community would not offer the same kind of help you got from the churches on you pre-defined route is neither helpful nor intelligent.

Once again the Churches jumping on a Bandwagon and pretending to be Helpful like no other fools another idiot like you.

I'm sure you are kind hearted and recognise kind heartedness when you see it but wise up a bit m8.