I’ve been struggling for a while to reconcile my faith (Islam) with communism. I’ve run into a lot of leftists who tell me flat out that you can’t be religious and a Marxist. They quote Lenin, Bukharin, and the ABC of Communism to argue that religion is ‘idealist’ and that any believing communist is a ‘revisionist.’

But recently, someone on this platform responded to one of my posts with something that really stuck with me. They suggested that the leftists I’ve been arguing with might be confusing mechanical materialism with dialectical materialism. They put it this way:

‘A dialectical materialist view would say that somebody receiving a message from a god is part of their material conditions… either way, it’s still a real thing impacting them.’

They argued that a mechanical materialist treats humans like passive objects, reduces consciousness to brain chemistry, and sees religion as just ‘false consciousness’ to be eliminated. A dialectical materialist, by contrast, understands that consciousness is real, that ideas emerge from material conditions and then react back on them, and that religion is a complex phenomenon that can be a force for resistance or oppression depending on the context.

This really resonated with me, but I want to understand it more deeply.

So I want to ask you all:

  1. In your own words, what is the difference between mechanical and dialectical materialism?

  2. How does dialectical materialism approach the question of religion, compared to mechanical materialism?

  3. 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?

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmygrad.ml
    5·
    14 days ago

    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!