“Q: IS MARXISM A RELIGION AND IF SO HOW SO?”
We have an unfortunately myopic and abrahamic understanding of the term religion, when the universal function of religion is to produce a group strategy, a standard of weights and measures that serve it, a set of myths to convey it, ‘logic’ of persuasive arguments to justify (excuse) it, rituals to indoctrinate generations into it, and institutions to intergeneration-ally transmit it, all to produce mindfulness that produces the inner ability to cooperate with so many fellow super-predators and continue the process of self domestication so that cooperation can scale.
So one can make a religion out of any of the logical paradigms supernatural, philosophical, empirical, or scientific-computational (operational). The primary challenge is the demographic distribution and the abiilty to teach the majority of the distribution through youthful indoctrination. Ergo, the logical paradigm of a religion often is dependent upon the demographic distribution. Even today christian sects are roughly sorted by IQ. (yes, really).
So the more ‘falsehoods’ in a religion the more ‘false promises’ must be made within it. The more ‘truths’ in a religion the fewer false promises must be made within it. Ergo there five hundred dead gods we know of, and there are, depending upon how you count them, something under forty dead civilizations, with their dead religions, dead ‘gods’ or some equivalent.
Why is a false promise necessary? For the creation of a debt. A debt provokes the altruistic response, altruistic punishment response, and the guilt response, which suppresses self interest and aggression in the majority middle of the distribution of wants and needs – particularly in the form of tolerance and forgiveness of minor slights and envies. Even a true religion of truthful debts, to nature, one’s ancestors, one’s people, and one’s people’s heroes, creates a debt – but that debt is true not false.
The primary old religious false promise was life after death. The marxist false promise is life after european civilization (whiteness). But european civilization is a proxy for the laws of the universe and even the natural law of cooperation.
So the marxist false promise is one of (a) violation of physical law by an end to scarcity (b) violation of behavioral law by an end to self interest, kin interest, self determination by self determined means, meritocracy, reciprocity and proportionality. (c) and a violation of evolutionary laws by an end to natural selection (merit). So what is the difference between the women, peasant, serf, slave, immigrant rebellion of the ancient world and the women, working class, underclass, immigrant of the modern world?
So is marxism a religion? The strategy in the marxist sequence is the same as the strategy in the abrahamic sequence. And the abrahamic sequence is the formalization of the female means of social construction of undermining and sedition against personal responsibility for the commons usually enforced by males (but in the old world and the new, enforced by europeans). All that changed is the storytelling.
So, you can tell a theological, philosophical, or empirical story, just as you can tell a ghost, mystery, and a science fiction story. The set of plots is the same, the set of archetypes are the same, and all that varies is the context and vocabulary, and whether we use the supernatural promise, the ideal promise, or the economic promise: Salvation after the Romans, After the Church, and After the Western Males.
All of them are the false promise of the end to the formal (logical), physical (scarcity), behavioral (reciprocity), and evolutionary (natural selection) laws of the universe.
And there is no possibility of violating those laws without falling victim to them.
As such the problem is discovering a non-false religion – and that religion, of course, was stoicism, ancestor thanks (worship) and nature-thanks (worship) – which the christians set out to destroy just as thoroughly as the left has set out to destroy truth that corresponds to those laws.
Unfortunately, stoicism like europeanism was an upper half male religion and too costly and uinituitive to teach the rest.
That’s why Christianity appropriated so much of it -to reach the rest and allow their inclusion in ‘polite society’. Meaning self respect self image and status. 😉
Religion is much much much cheaper means of ruling and domesticating than force. 😉
Hope this helps someone. 😉
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @SRCHicks