The qoute that you used to explain this earlier in fact stated that religion would become irrelevent to people once the conditions requiring it were abolished.
Marx states religion would have to be abolished as part of the revolution.
Of OUR government in america, yes. But the original purpose of government when it first appeared was control.
Communism is all about control.
That period was supposed to be authoritarianism of the MAGORITY, not one of the minority, which Lenin and Stalin put into effect.
Lenin and Stalin did precisely what Marx would have done.
Explain how any of these people were in any way communists.
Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
I asked you to offer some concrete evidence as to why Lenin and Stalin fail to qualify as Communists but you still have not done so.
It is not a law if it is not allowing or prohibiting something by force
The laws of motion... The law of gravity... The law of Identity... The law of Causality... Whether or not you choose to recognize these laws, they exist - just like individual rights - they exist, whether or not you choose to recognize their existence.
Communism requires a society with laws different than present society, and we could be severely punished for exercising some of the freedoms we would have under communism.
Such as?
Plus, Marx called for world revolution.
Which is why Lenin and Stalin were doing precisely what Marx called for.
So now your rights are violating each other. Makes them make less sense and be less likely of existing.
Did you notice that I put the positive "rights" in quotes? That's because they are not legitimate rights, they are the "rights" collectivists craft to abolish individual rights.
So, according to you, communists and heirs are the same thing?
Communists steal from others through the use of force, heirs are simply the recipients of charity.
Most people are indoctrinated into thier religion from birth, which is a terrible infringement on thier freedom.
Which freedom?
Correct, but there are way more than two jobs in the entire world.
Moving the goalpost (raising the bar): argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
It doesn't matter which jobs, higher paying jobs require more education, skill, and ability than lower paying jobs but you dismiss such realities as trivial.
I am not talking about this forum, but if I just went up to you on a street and did that.
First, my freedom of speech exists no matter what the medium, whether its spoken or written does not matter. Second, even if you attempted to shout me down on the street, I could simply continue speaking... I have a right to speak, not a right to be heard... So no matter how loud you shout, you cannot stop me from speaking.
But they could leave the society and practice capitalism in an area were communism has no need to go.
There you go again proving my point... You're free to practice Communism under Capitalism but Capitalists must leave your Communist society in order to practice their preferred system.
I have only suggested denying the right to property, which is just one.
What you are suggesting in practice, is that some people have a right to make property out of others.
But you are basing this on the belief that everyone will vote to benefit themselves, which destroys your argument that they will enslave themselves.
They will enslave
each other, by democratic means. That is the basis of Collectivism, sacrifice of the individual (self interest) to the collective.
