The political aspect

I've written previous essays about my generally positive outlook on religion: see Why I Love Religion, Why I Love Religion Part 2, the Deeper Reason I Value Religion, and so on.  I've generally considered this primarily from spiritual, philosophical, psychological, and emotional perspectives.  But most of what I've written in those articles has not been focused on the politics of these complex issues.  I'll begin to try to tackle that aspect today.

One of the greatest tactical mistakes of Karl Marx and many Marxists was the failure to join forces with potential religious allies.  Imagine if the Democratic Party in the United States said that if you're religious, you're not allowed to be a democrat.  They'd be finished in a week.  Likewise, imagine if the Republicans said the same thing.  It would be automatic death for any political movement, but especially for a movement like Marxism, which claimed that "The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves," and thus sought to build a mass movement of the industrial proletariat.  Perhaps the prohibition of religion might be a more achievable tactic in a movement composed of highly educated elites - either professionals, aristocrats, or the bourgeoisie themselves.  But a purely secular workers' movement is doomed from the start.

Insisting upon atheism is not only politically untenable, it is also theoretically weak.  Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that Marxist theory should have a grounding in theism - not at all.  But it seems a perfectly sensible position to me to say that a critical theory of political economy and the political movement that arises therefrom should be perfectly compatible with, yet in no way dependent upon, theism, religion, spirituality, and so on.  Actually, frankly, that goes for any economic, political, or scientific theory.  If you tell me that you have an economic theory, but that it requires you to believe in, or not to believe in, God or any particular religion, I would know right away that this is not a particularly good theory.  Belief or non-belief in God is immaterial to economic analysis - just as chemical analysis does not require anyone to believe, or not believe, in God.  And anyway, theories should not require you to believe, or not believe, in anything.  On the contrary, in science, it is up to us to evaluate the theories - it is not up to the theories to evaluate us.  If a theory is robust, it can stand on its own two feet, that is to say, on the evidence - it does not need any help from our emotional, ideal, abstract commitments.

This miscalculation has had absolutely devastating political consequences, for the entire world.  By thoughtlessly making itself the enemy of religion, Marxism made itself the enemy of most of humanity, at least in the eyes of most of humanity.  This has given a massive boost to the power of the enemies of communism and of the left in general.

For instance, this is in no small part a factor in the rise of fascism.  It was an important factor in the first half of the 20th century, and it remains an important factor today.  Millions worldwide are convinced that the eternal salvation of their souls depends on their courageous opposition to "godless communism."  Even now, religion remains an important motivation behind many conspiracy theorists, who feel a profound spiritual fear of leftist movements with whom they otherwise might have sympathized.  We could be living through a historical period driven by a broad, powerful political coalition of populists, both religious and secular.  But instead, too many leftists cling irrationally to a gatekeeping test of ideological purity that rejects all religious people and narrows their own movement to irrelevance.

This litmus test is particularly stupid on the Marxists' part, because religious people have a lot to offer the left.  Not only are the vast majority of people religious - and especially the vast majority of the working class.  But also, religion is a great resource for getting organized.  

But if the left starts to allow religion, which religion should it allow?  What kinds of religions?  In short: all kinds.  Religious freedom should be a cornerstone of leftist politics.  We should work to preserve all the religious traditions - there are currently more than 4 thousand religions practiced worldwide, from Oro to Dinka to the Washat dreamers to Montamentu to Ta Oi - so that no one religion dominates and eliminates all the others.  As I indicated in my previous essays, there is a grave danger that the religions that are more integrated into capitalism will eliminate those that are less integrated into the capitalist system.  As I put it earlier, "There has to be some kind of check and balance against the power of Big Religion.  And the only way to do so, if religion itself will not cease, is to strengthen the small religions."  They need our special help and protection.  But I tend to believe that just about every religious tradition has at least certain aspects that are not totally dominated by capitalism, and I insist that every religion is worth preserving.