Atheism: Reactionary influence and revolutionary Marxism

The Atheist community is divided in to three different factions. Most people believe there is only one grouping, that all Atheists are the same, this is incorrect. Others believe there is two factions, New Atheist and average, this is also incorrect. The Atheist community is divided in to three; New Atheist, Average Atheist, Marxist Atheist.

Marxist Atheist:

The Marxist Atheist is an individual who believe in the Atheist principles of Marxism and believes religion is the opiate of the masses, as Marx said. However, with Marxism advanced under Lenin's principles, the Marxist Atheist believes open relentless war against religion will drive the masses in to the hands and control of the religious institutions. That the best way to combat religion is through promotion and increase of science and logical analysis, with the silence of public display of religious influence. That following a religion should be the individuals right to follow, but left to practice in private housing and church congregation. This is what the other Atheist factions differ by, for they lack the understanding of Marxism, especially the advanced principles of Marxism-Leninism. They differ from the Marxist Atheist for they support the reactionary relentless war against religion. Thus why the resistance grows strong against them, for their relentless war fuels opposition, fuels driving the masses to religious beliefs out of the aspect of opportunism. With this, it's also common among the average and New Atheists to reject the involvement of any religious individuals in any meeting or grouping. While Marxist Atheists believe religious comrades are welcomed, as long as their actions are not guided or influenced by religious belief, or to benefit religion in any way.

Average Atheist:

The average Atheists are either ones who fall on neither side, or ones that quickly fall on one side against the other. They're easily manipulated by liberal and conservative philosophy, as are New Atheists. Currently, we see today the shrinking of the this group with the growth of Marxist Atheists and New Atheists. This is why, for a Marxist Atheist, or even a Average Atheist, New Atheists seem to be the only Atheists within the community that they're against. Average Atheists look to Marxist Atheists and believe they're the same, when they're not, as explained above.

New Atheist:

New Atheists, guided by the reactionary influence of Dawkins and Harris, are the extremists of the Atheist community. They promote and support the act of imperialist war, usually guided by the view of right-wing parties and politicians. They follow in line of support of the racist view of minorities, usually brought on by opportunism which was the driving belief carried and passed on to them displayed by Dawkins himself. With this, it has also influenced the support for war against Middle Eastern nations, for their ignorance and discrimination has transitioned in to backing the acts of imperialist politicians. New Atheism, with the influence of sexist people like Dawkins, carry a strict anti-feminist stance, even sometimes a MRA stance; One in which that drives them to misunderstanding patriarchy and massive sexist influence upon the nation. There is many issues with the New Atheist group, but those mentioned previously, are a few major issues. Reactionary influence plagues the Atheist community, leading to the easy manipulation of the community as a whole, which is what caused the creation of New Atheism, for the figure heads who driven the formation of it, comes from the reactionary aspects of anti-feminism, imperialism, opportunism, individualism, liberal/conservative philosophy, etc.

With this said, how do we combat the reactionary aspects worming its way throughout the Atheist community? The same way you combat the reactionary influence of liberalism and conservatism; With Dialectical Materialism, and Marxism-Leninism. Those who combat against the Marxist ideal, which stands for the liberation of the working people from all forms of oppression and exploitation, stand against their brothers and sisters, and act in the name of individualism, that selfishly works for itself, rather than the benefit of all oppressed people's liberation.

The Gulag: Dissecting Lies from Truth

Collaborated piece from Charles O'Connell and Chris Pitre

“Gulag is a Russian acronym for Main Administration of Corrective Labor Camps”

Written by Charles O'Connell:

Gulags are famous within western culture under the myth that it was a tool used by the “oppressive” soviet “dictatorship” to silent dissidents. This is a myth for a reason.
The reality is: It was a progressive alternative to the Tsarist prison system, used to hold murderers, thieves, rapists, and other major criminals, including individuals of terrorist organizations from causing chaos in the state, and violent anti-government reactionaries who caused acts of terror.

Joseph Stalin is famous for the gulag, however, the gulag was a proposed policy by Vladimir Lenin in 1918. The gulag was to provide a prison system for the new Socialist state, this was to keep criminals from being freed and running throughout the country causing chaos and destruction. Not only was this policy brought to deal with the criminals of the old Russian Tsarist prison system, but also to deal with the imprisonment of White Army soldiers captured during the civil war.

Chris spoke on the subject of the Soviet gulags. Chris Pitre's grandparents use to live in Soviet Romania, he carries knowledge passed on to him from those who lived in the Soviet society.

Written by Chris Pitre:

"The Gulags were a prison system constructed to house high profile or maximum security criminals. In its early inception, through the civil war and Nazi paranoia, political prisoners were housed and military officials were executed. Contradictory to the outrageous claims of ten to one hundred million dead, the Gulags saw only 850,000 executed. Additional deaths were attributed to diseases, such as a tuberculosis outbreak which was later identified. a serum was produced to crush the outbreak. Prisoners sent to the Gulags would be transported via railway to remote and isolated areas of northern Russia where escape would be difficult. The inmates, unlike western prisons. Did not keep all inmates sealed into cages. Violent and unpredictable inmates were isolated to avoid harming other prisoners; But for the general population, they slept in what would resemble a military barracks. An electric fence would surround the prisons, but in many cases the fences were turned off, either during power outages or to conserve electricity; This is significant, because the idea of escape was infallible, the idea to contain was unnecessary. The inmates would wake and begin performing work. There were workshops, some inmates paved roads, woodshops, inmates could volunteer to work as assistants within the prison offices (such as a doctor or nurse's aid, or a Secretary to the warden of your section). All based on good behavior and merit systems.

A well known myth of the Gulags is that at its pique under Stalin, the ranks swelled to roughly 100,000,000. This was reported to a French news agency from a sergeant in the Red Army who was detained there. But there are two glaring flaws with this. One, it was not customary for Gulag prisoners to go around counting themselves. Two, the population of this time (1940s) was roughly 170,000,000. The myth would have you believe that 'more than half' of a nations own people, after war and decimation, were incarcerated for hating their own country, while the other half stood around watching them."

Proletariat and Bourgeoisie "Right to Work"

The term “Right to Work” is used often, usually by those of the right-wing movement. Those who support private enterprise. However, there is two different right to work policies. This article will be highlighting such difference between both bourgeoisie and proletariat right to work.

Bourgeoisie Right To Work:

Right to work policy, under the bourgeoisie capitalist establishment, is used by conservatives for one objective: Break up unions and cut back regulation. Capitalist states that implement right to work policies have done such to allow private enterprise, which breaks up unions and lowers regulation laws for businesses. This is historically evident within such capitalist states like America, where conservative states have right to work policies. 25 U.S. states have such policies, this includes states like Arizona, Alabama, Kansas, Georgia, Florida, etc. Bourgeoisie right to work states either completely get rid of the union, replacing it with private enterprise, or they weaken the unions within the state to such a degree that they collapse in on themselves. 

Proletariat Right To Work:

Proletariat right to work policies are completely opposite to bourgeoisie right to work policies, for proletariat right to work policies are implemented in socialist states, like the USSR, Vietnam, East Germany, DPRK, etc. Right to work policies under socialist nations can be explained as the following:

“All able-bodied citizens choose occupations in accordance with their wishes and skills and are provided with stable jobs and working conditions. Citizens work according to their abilities and are paid in accordance with the quantity of their work”

The Communist/socialist community says this proletariat right to work policy would be incomplete with out the right to relaxation. The right to relaxation can be explained as the following:

“This right is ensured by the establishment of the working hours, the provision of holidays, paid leave, accommodations at health resorts and holiday homes at state expense and by a growing network of cultural facilities”

Proletariat right to work, unlike bourgeoisie right to work, holds the labor of the working people, their working conditions, and their relaxation to the highest importance. Along with this, proletariat right to work may be a separate policy on the subject, but unlike conservative capitalist states, the socialist states are big supporters of trade union membership. This is not detailed within the right to work policy, from what is to be believed the trade union memberships issue is a separate policy entirely. However, this does show the major difference between the two.