China party official warns members over religion

[Mr. G]

BEIJING (AP) — Religious practice among Chinese Communist Party members is increasing and threatens its unity and national leadership, a top party official said in remarks reported Monday.

Party members are required to be atheists and must not believe in religion or engage in religious practice, said Zhu Weiqun, a member of the party's Central Committee and executive vice director of its United Front Work Department in charge of dealings with nonparty groups.

Religious practice is a growing trend, especially in areas inhabited by ethnic minorities, and must not be tolerated, Zhu said in comments published in the latest edition of the main party theoretical journal, Qiushi, and reported by the official Xinhua News Agency

Read More Here...

[AlexanderS]

Scary regime that is.

[plwk]

The only religion allowed...

Sorry catmoon...this thread ain't abt ya....

[catmoon]

Oh great, now I see the future. For the rest of my mortal days, I'm going to have to put up with being referred to as Chairman Meow.

[Huifeng]

The only religion allowed...

Sorry catmoon...this thread ain't abt ya....

To explain the joke to those who don't know Chinese.

The chairman is, of course, Mao Zedong.
In Chinese, the word for cat is "mao" (though first tone, not second tone).

So, in the picture, the "Mao" is saying "M[ia]o".
Something like that.

~~ Huifeng

[edearl]

Scary regime that is.

Not any worse than, and probably less bad, than Catholicism during the inquisition. And, being an atheist in the USA is not without risks. See: http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/04/29/t ... heists.htm

Seems like people need to hate. -

[Thug4lyfe]

Soundz like a good thang to me, dat means more people are becoming religious in da political circle. Not to mention there are masters actually doing positive work to help China getting back to it's Buddhist roots,

More positive than haters overseas.

[Beatzen]

I went through a phase where I read Marx religiously. I never found anything explicitly hostile to spirituality. It's a materialistic analytical scheme, but I'm of the opinion that they take that opiate of the masses line far out of context. If Marxism was a religion, most of the chinese leadership would have to be excommunicated. They're neo-liberals masquerading as socialists. The Chinese should actually study Marx if they want to keep up their red flag cherade

[catmoon]

Ah Marx. I think his only serious error was that he understimated the human potential for corruption, and the consequent difficulty of finding morally qualified people to lead his visionary governments. As for the opiate of the masses, he may have been generally right. How many people hide away in their religions, their churches and temples just to escape reality?

[Beatzen]

Ah Marx. I think his only serious error was that he understimated the human potential for corruption, and the consequent difficulty of finding morally qualified people to lead his visionary governments. As for the opiate of the masses, he may have been generally right. How many people hide away in their religions, their churches and temples just to escape reality?

I don't think he was concerned much with human nature, or asserting ethical standards. Marx was an analyst. He studied economic structures. There is great critical inspiration to be found, especially in his later works. But people don't understand that he was just a social critic, and an ardent capitalist. Not a prophet of socialism.

[zangskar]

But people don't understand that he was just a social critic, and an ardent capitalist. Not a prophet of socialism.

Marx certainly wasn't "just a social critic". The First International, just to start.

Best wishes
Lars

[Beatzen]

But people don't understand that he was just a social critic, and an ardent capitalist. Not a prophet of socialism.

Marx certainly wasn't "just a social critic". The First International, just to start.

Best wishes
Lars

Certainly he was supportive, but he wasn't the cult figure then that he has been since. He went to the first Internationale as a journalist.

[zangskar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ssociation

[gregkavarnos]

I don't think he was concerned much with human nature, or asserting ethical standards. Marx was an analyst. He studied economic structures. There is great critical inspiration to be found, especially in his later works. But people don't understand that he was just a social critic, and an ardent capitalist. Not a prophet of socialism.

That Marx was an analyst and a social critic okay, he definitely was not a revolutionary activist, but Marx was an ardent capitalist??? You on drugs or something? Should you be on drugs? Where exactly in Marxs voluminous social critique did you read a statement to that effect?

[Beatzen]

I don't think he was concerned much with human nature, or asserting ethical standards. Marx was an analyst. He studied economic structures. There is great critical inspiration to be found, especially in his later works. But people don't understand that he was just a social critic, and an ardent capitalist. Not a prophet of socialism.

That Marx was an analyst and a social critic okay, he definitely was not a revolutionary activist, but Marx was an ardent capitalist??? You on drugs or something? Should you be on drugs? Where exactly in Marxs voluminous social critique did you read a statement to that effect?

Marx was not hostile to capital. He argued that surplus capital should be reinvested back into the means of production.

[gregkavarnos]

Karl Marx talked about the inherent contradictions of capital that give rise to an impoverished proletariat and that the social/historical consequences of this dialectic will be the collapse of capitalism and the institution of a proletarian centred political/economic/social structure.

You are talking about Karl Marx right? Not Groucho, Harpo or Chico Marx? Right???

Or maybe you read the Smith and Keynes translation of his works?

[Malcolm]

Karl Marx talked about the inherent contradictions of capital that give rise to an impoverished proletariat and that the social/historical consequences of this dialectic will be the collapse of capitalism and the institution of a proletarian centred political/economic/social structure.

You are talking about Karl Marx right? Not Groucho, Harpo or Chico Marx? Right???

Or maybe you read the Smith and Keynes translation of his works?

I think Beatzen is referring to the fact that Marx called capitalism "progressive", and a necessary phase in the historical developments which presage Industrial Socialism.

What Marx was, in fact, was an idealogue of urbanism and industrial civilization.

In terms of Smith, there is in fact very little in Marx that goes beyond Smith's labor theory of wealth. Marx's Capital is essentially a commentary on Wealth of Nations, properly understood.

[gregkavarnos]

I think Beatzen is referring to the fact that Marx called capitalism "progressive", and a necessary phase in the historical developments which presage Industrial Socialism.

That's the problem with a linear historically deterministic model of social/economic development.

[zangskar]

A famous economist once said all of modern economics is just a commentary on Wealth of Nations, which is also true in a way, though it's certainly something of a simplification. The view that Marx doesn't represent anything really new is only true in terms of what has became modern, formalized neoclassical economics. From the point of view of the history of "mainstream" economics then yes, Marx was basically an insignificant German economist who hardly deserves to have his name mentioned. But that's certainly only true within that narrow subject, and completely wrong from the point of view of either political or social science, or history more generally.

Beatzen, you "Read Marx religiously" but you don't know what the First International is.

[Beatzen]

I think Beatzen is referring to the fact that Marx called capitalism "progressive", and a necessary phase in the historical developments which presage Industrial Socialism.

What Marx was, in fact, was an idealogue of urbanism and industrial civilization.

In terms of Smith, there is in fact very little in Marx that goes beyond Smith's labor theory of wealth. Marx's Capital is essentially a commentary on Wealth of Nations, properly understood.

This is exactly what I was saying. Thank you. I felt like the natives were restless and my powder was getting rather wet for a moment.

I'm particularly fond of Rosa Luxemburg's commentaries on Marx's later works. I think she really predicted the cold war. so, following that observation I'd say that there is value in Marx's critiques, as long as one doesn't get overly enchanted by his earlier, more philosophical writing.

A famous economist once said all of modern economics is just a commentary on Wealth of Nations, which is also true in a way, though it's certainly something of a simplification. The view that Marx doesn't represent anything really new is only true in terms of what has became modern, formalized neoclassical economics. From the point of view of the history of "mainstream" economics then yes, Marx was basically an insignificant German economist who hardly deserves to have his name mentioned. But that's certainly only true within that narrow subject, and completely wrong from the point of view of either political or social science, or history more generally.

Beatzen, you "Read Marx religiously" but you don't know what the First International is.

You forgot to factor in that these narrowed, specified "social sciences" were in marx's day insepperable. for instance, "political economy" is not really something they talk about in contemporary political science or economics classes in higher education.

I know what the first international was, I'm just poo-pooing what I think is your uninformed interpretation of what marx's role there was. which I believe was as more of a reporter and observer than some cult personality. But then again, I wasn't there, and I haven't read anything beyond his writings. So obviously he's going to sound like a reporter to me.



I was mentored by a wonderful activist who had a PhD in social sciences from NYU. Name Carol Cina. Read her doctoral disertation. Called "Social Science for Whom" - brilliant marxian [not "Marxist"] structural analysis of social science itself. Inspired by the fact that in the 60's, in her social science text books, flip to the front and you see "research paid for by department of defense."

She argued that social sceince was created by the ruling class as a method for probing a population to find out how little you have to give them so that they don't rebel

see, that's the marxian-ism that I'm famuiliar with as genuine. It's blunt, rational, and may be interpreted as incendiary, but in the end it only diagnoses. It's not a truth like the Dharma, which diagnoses and treats. People think marx was perscribing something, when he really didn't. He was just good at taking notes,.