I can’t remember for sure if I shared this video in the other thread, but you may find it helpful. It’s a video that’s been shared on here before and helped clarify some things for me on the distinction between mechanical and dialectical materialism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fopyyYbSvuQ

Also worth noting that it directly addresses the topic of religion in the last few minutes (though I recommend the whole video for more general clarity on the topic).

Hope it helps.

For clarity, I am an atheist, so that’s where my perspective comes from. Hopefully religious comrades can chime in and help fill in the gaps of my analysis. In short, there are advancements from religious Marxists that attempt to reconcile religion with Marxism, and I believe former socialism attempting to stamp out religion was a mistaken way of handling the question. It’s a common struggle, and religion can be useful for liberation in the right contexts. My understanding of mechanical materialism vs. dialectical materialism is stronger than my understanding of religious Marxism, however, so please read the later section answering religious Marxism with a grain of salt.

Here are some of my notes on mechanical materialism vs dialectical materialism:

Mechanistic materialism makes certain dogmatic assumptions:

1. That the world consists of permanent and stable things or particles, with definite, fixed properties;
2. That the particles of matter are by nature inert and no change ever happens except by the action of some external cause;
3. That all motion, all change can be reduced to the mechanical interaction of the separate particles of matter;
4. That each particle has its own fixed nature independent of everything else, and that the relationships between separate things are merely external relationships.

Dialectical materialism holds instead:

1. The world is not a complex of things but of processes;
2. That matter is inseperable from motion;
3. That the motion of matter comprehends an infinite diversity of forms which arise one from another and pass into one another;
4. That things exist not as separate individual units but in essential relation and interconnection.

With that in mind, the following proceeds:

1. Dialectical materialism understands the world, not as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, in which all things go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away.

2. Dialectical materialism considers that matter is always in motion, that motion is the mode of existence of matter, so that there can no more be matter without motion than motion without matter. Motion does not have to be impressed upon matter by some outside force, but above all it is necessary to look for the inner impulses of development, the self-motion, inherent in all processes.

3. Dialectical materialism understands the motion of matter as comprehending all changes and processes in the universe, from mere changes of place right to thinking. It recognizes, therefore, the infinite diversity of the forms of motion of matter from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher.

4. Dialectical materialism considers that, in the manifold processes taking place in the universe, things come into being, change and pass out of being, not as separate individual units, but in essential relation and interconnection, so that they cannot be understood each separately and by itself but only in their relation and interconnection.

With that out of the way, returning to religion. Up front, I am an atheist, so it’s easy for me to sympathize with atheist Marxists. However, it is my understanding that the militant atheism of former socialism was largely a mistake, that religious people need to be a part of the movement towards liberation rather than shut out, and that religion forms a core part of people’s culture. To deliberately stamp it out is to alienate the people, as religion is not necessarily exploitative. Under socialism, religion can be liberating and help foster community. If people naturally come to atheism as a result of better understanding the world around us, then this is how it should propagate, not through crushing religious institutions and banning the practice.

Ultimately, dialectical materialism does assert that there is nothing that is unknowable. Religion, in many ways, does occupy this territory. This is where the core conflict between materialism in general and religion comes from. This is where it is easy to reconcile my atheism with dialectical materialism. However, religious Marxists have tried to reconcile religion with Marxism by approaching it from a materialist position, which means treating it generally as knowable and learnable, and not outside of the material world. This is where my understanding drops off dramatically, as I have not researched beyond this.

Does dialectical materialism require atheism as a philosophical commitment, or is it compatible with someone who holds religious faith as a personal and communal practice so as long as they don’t use their faith as their analytical tool or basis for an argument?

In short, there are schools of Marxism that attempt to bridge this gap. You can be both religious and a Marxist, and fight for a better world for all. Most hold the atheistic line, however.

Hope that helped! Really, I was more trying to elaborate on mechanical materialism vs dialectical materialism, my answer on religion specifically is much less developed and really is my perspective as an atheist. Hopefully religious comrades can chime in and give their perspectives! It’s a common struggle!

Roland Boer - Criticism of Earth: On Marx, Engels and Theology

archive(.)org has a pdf copy (use a search engine), or use Annas Archive.

(I had a way more detailed answer but then deleted it. I think it’s better coming from a religious communist rather than coming from an athiest, albeit ex-religious, perspective. If you want to make your analysis razor sharp then I would answer: to what end? The conditions to be part of a western-tainted in-club vs the self-learning to better yourself as a social scientist in order to develop a vanguard to emancipate your peoples will take different journeys.)

that a mechanical materialist treats humans like passive objects, reduces consciousness to brain chemistry, and sees religion as just ‘false consciousness’ to be eliminated.

This is not a specifically Marxist discussion but a broader philosophical one.

In philosophy of mind, the knowledge argument or “Mary’s Room” is the non-Marxist argument.

Here’s a short video (<5mins) describing it.

My own personal view is that “physicialism” is the materialist view, and there is no contradiction between “mechanical materialism” and dialectical materialism.

I can’t believe I completely forgot this in addition to my previous comment - the awesome Dr Taimur Rahman and his excellent lectures:

https://www.youtube.com/@TaimurRahman-English/playlists

You may find the Marxism and Political Islam playlists particularly useful.

Those people that claim you cannot be religious and communist are missing the point and if you think about it reasonably kinda dooming the revolution in the global south, which is overwhelmingly religious, if you read the selected works of Mao in his speeches he would mobilize the religious beliefs of people, in a questioning manner but not as to attack the people but to challenge some parts of it, but that in itself shows that the people following Mao were religios at least part of them, and that was not a problem in itself, the exploitation that organized religion enacts on people is, so if your faith helps you go through life, and if you have your heart and mind in the idea of changing the world to one where there is si much less senseless suffering of people, my friend any Communist organization worth their salt would be lucky to have you, be a friend of the people and you’ll be a good Communist. Just some last points that i think are somewhat obvious for you but I would avoid using religious arguments into the agitation and propaganda campaigns if you end up on such tasks of an organization, even when talking to people that share your faith, once it might give the idea that the organization has religous bases or encourages religiosity, which I don’t think is usually the case, even if an organization has no problem with members being religious(which I think is the correct position) it wont be something reccomended

Idk what mechanical materialism is exactly but I’d like to give my thoughts on how religion interacts with marxism.

From a non-theoretical, completely practical stand point, not accepting religious people is short sighted. There are a fuck ton of religious people and it is stupid to alienate them from our movement. They aren’t going to stop being religous because we tell them it’s idealist, it will just push them away from our worker’s movement. Excluding religious people, banning religion, or criticizing religious people for their spiritual beliefs is a great way to lose the support of a large chunk of the working class.

From another perspective though, I think it is silly to dogmatically apply dialectical materialism to everything. Truth is, we can’t answer a lot of serious questions that people have about death and the afterlife through scientific means. People are going to have those questions, and they are going to find and believe unfalsifiable answers to them whether we like it or not. You can follow a marxist path in your life while maintaining your spiritual beliefs. I do not see this as a contradiction.

I’m too mentally spent to address the main topic of your post (maybe I’ll put in more effort later). Regarding religion, I believe you’ll find what Marx said here helpful:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.^[1]

Religion is a very important aspect of people’s culture. Marxism must be applied to the conditions of a society, so religious faith is very important. I’m aware that there are Islamic Socialist movements and it seems, there is a great deal of conciliation between Marxism and Islamic tenets.

The impression these Marxists have is that religions are nothing but a tool of exploitation. This is a wrong analysis; in reality, it’s the ruling class who dictates the direction of the superstructure, politics, culture, etc. of a society. Religion has been erroneously understood to stand outside the influence of class relations, but the reality is that when a class has power to dictate the direction of development of a society, it too has direction over religious representations. I think the illusion that religion stands outside the ruling class’s sphere of influence and that it just seems to always take an oppressive character is a necessary tool to create a sort of “buffer” between the oppressor and oppressed relationship between the ruling class and the subjugated classes; in a sense, the ruling class uses religion as a tool of subjugation, but also as a way to misdirect any dissent or material struggle against their established power.

What would religion look like under a dictatorship of the proletarian? I think if a society with a rigorously educated, steadfast and theoretically-strong vanguard party guides the development of a workers’ society to maximize the well-being of humankind, I have no doubt that religion would be allowed to present the very character that we read about it from their very texts, rather than distortions and corruptions aimed at serving the interests of a minority ruling class. Religion would have the opportunity to be truly “of the masses” instead of just a ruling minority. Just as we understand the concept of “everything a corporation touches turns to shit”, religion has been mistreated in this fashion by feudalists, monarchists, bourgeois aristocracies, etc. Marxism isn’t a dogma that is intended to scrub all character from of a society or an individual, this is a distortion of Marxism.

I’m not a materialist. I found Islam not materialistic but also not idealistic.

The first example of the materialist side of Islam is Qur’an Surah Ar-Ra’d verse 11 which means:

“For each one are successive [angels] before and behind him who protect him by the decree of Allah. Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves. And when Allah intends for a people ill, there is no repelling it. And there is not for them besides Him any patron.”

The second is Hadith which means:

“Anas ibn Malik reported: A man said, “O Messenger of Allah, should I tie my camel and trust in Allah, or should I leave her untied and trust in Allah?” The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Tie her and trust in Allah.”” (Sunan al-Tirmidhī 2517)

The third is Qur’an Surah Jumu’ah verse 10 which means:

“Once the prayer is over, disperse throughout the land and seek the bounty of Allah. And remember Allah often so you may be successful.”

And about dialectical materialism, I suggest you learn about Tan Malaka and his writings. I’ve never read his writings but maybe you’ll find something.

I am sorry if my English is bad.

I’ve not heard of mechanical materialism before, but from overall I don’t think that dialectical materialism, communism, and Marxism are in direct conflict with religion. Primarily because religion is spiritual, it deals with the non-material reality. While it does have an effect on material reality such as prohibitions on certain foods or practices and necessary prayer, those are material things that must be considered as such. Ultimately it’s no different than a culture that has prohibitions on foods, practices, and its own rituals or festivals. And those things can be accounted for materially.

Ultimately I think that a lot of religions tend to uphold the same principles and values that Marxism does, but whereas religion relies on a moral and spiritual analysis Marxism takes a more pragmatic materialist approach to come to similar conclusions.

Broadly speaking the only thing religion has in direct conflict with communism is the nature of the church as an anti-revolutionary institution as we’ve seen historically. As long as religious organizations answer to the people and participate within, but do not supersede or exist outside of the people’s control, then there is no conflict. Ultimately various religious organizations becoming anti-communist, particularly after the October revolution, is the root of a lot of anti-religious sentiment within Marxism I think and why Marx himself didn’t connect as much about communism and religion being in conflict with each other than Lenin and others did later.

All that said Marxist theory has come a long way in analyzing these things with the benefit of historical analysis and anti-religious sentiment is similar to anti-LGBTQ sentiment, and outdated concept rooted in historical conditions that must be overcome.