Is Christianity compatable with Communism

[GenSeneca]

Yes, but he said that it would not have to be by force.

I've made my case and you've made yours, now we're just going in circles.

Special pleading

You have made exceptions of every known Communist without justifying their exemption.

1) Russia was not an industrialized country, but a generally rural one, which means Lenin's revolution skipped over a stage in the Marxist developmental model (Industrial Capitalism, specifically).

2) The Russian "Revolution" in October was not a mass Proletarian revolution, but instead a coup d'etat led by a militant minority.

I am disappointed...

...Copying and pasting plagiarized answers... Here is the first line of the "best answer" in response to the question: How Lenin did NOT follow the Communist model provided by Karl Marx??

Trotskyite wrote:

Both of the previous two users are wrong and Lenin did in fact follow Marx's theories. The theoretical model Lenin created, which can be found in "The State and Revolution," was taken nearly word for word from Marx and Engels.

Trotzkyite does a good job explaining how Lenin was indeed following Marx and even attempts to do what you failed to do, explain how Stalin would qualify as an exemption by following a doctrine of "socialism in one state". I would disagree with him on that because Stalin was quite the expansionist and helped bring about communist revolutions in almost half the world... It's a shame Trotzkyite is not a poster on this board.

You can prove said laws, but you cannot prove rights, which is why I consider you religios, not a good objectivist.

Rights exist, they are freedoms of action that impose no obligations on other individuals... Rights are not tangible objects so no matter how much proof I offer of my ability to exercise rights in the absence of force, and in the absence of laws sanctioning their protection, you will dismiss their existence.

I may as well be arguing the existence of gravity with someone who refuses to accept the existence of gravity and dismisses any proof I offer to its existence as religious fanaticism.

We cannot smoke marijuana. We cannot tresspass. We cannot kill an endangered species.

Marx wanted to abolish Religion as being an unnecessary "opium of the masses" and nothing in his writings would lead me to believe that he would approve of the use of marijuana... in fact, he would probably consider its use a selfish act of capitalist excesses that in no way added to the collective good and the illusory euphoria it produced would be unnecessary in a communist society... just like Religion.

As for Tresspassing, you still seem to think that Marx wanted to socialize more than the means of production... Marx was not suggesting that you could wander into your neighbors apartment.

Why would communists want to kill endangered species?

We cannot have a life-affecting direct-democracy because we are trapped in the prison of the constitution.

Sure you can, like I said before, start a commune and share yourselves silly in your very own "life-affecting direct-democracy"... Doing so is not unconstitutional or illegal.

Socialism in one country does not sound worldwide to me.

That was my point... The final stage of Communism, Utopian Socialism, could only be achieved once there was a world wide communist revolution. In the absence of a worldwide revolution, the state was necessary to keep the revolution moving forward to that goal.

How do you know that it is not the other way around?

Simple, you cannot exercise a collective "right" when you're all alone, they require a victim, or a slave, to provide you with whatever is necessary to fulfill your "right".

If you're alone on an island, you can exercise any of your individual rights because they are freedoms of action that place no obligations on others.

You just sound arrogant to me.

I get that a lot... Its confidence and a direct result of being knowledgeable in the topics I discuss.

Which you oppose.

I don't oppose charity.

Freedom of thought. It also violates your precious constitution's first amendment.

Teaching your child religion does not violate his freedoms any more than teaching your child communism would violate them.

What evidence?

I know... you don't accept that becoming a Doctor requires more effort, intelligence and skill than being a dock worker.

Stock market jobs require no work whatsoever.

Unless of course you want to be successful in the stock market, in which case there is a great deal of effort required.

The Sultan of Brunie sits around telling people to mine oil all day.

How an hereditary king in any way relevant to jobs in America?

The commander tells little gangs of people to go there or attack there.

He had to work his way up that position.

When you cannot hear, you cannot speak properly.

I'm still speaking.

But if they enslave others they enslave themselves. Barely anyone is dumb enough to do that.

Communists, socialists, people who favor direct democracy and all levels of Collectivists are that dumb.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

I've made my case and you've made yours, now we're just going in circles.

And it is getting boring. This has gone on for about a month...

You have made exceptions of every known Communist without justifying their exemption.

You have called these people Communists without justifying thier inclusion.

I am disappointed...

...Copying and pasting plagiarized answers... Here is the first line of the "best answer" in response to the question: How Lenin did NOT follow the Communist model provided by Karl Marx??

How can you tell this is copied and pasted? Before telling me to write something else, tell me how this is plagurized.

Trotzkyite does a good job explaining how Lenin was indeed following Marx and even attempts to do what you failed to do, explain how Stalin would qualify as an exemption by following a doctrine of "socialism in one state". I would disagree with him on that because Stalin was quite the expansionist and helped bring about communist revolutions in almost half the world... It's a shame Trotzkyite is not a poster on this board.

And how does he justify the actions of the brutal monarch Lenin?

Rights exist, they are freedoms of action that impose no obligations on other individuals... Rights are not tangible objects so no matter how much proof I offer of my ability to exercise rights in the absence of force, and in the absence of laws sanctioning their protection, you will dismiss their existence.

I may as well be arguing the existence of gravity with someone who refuses to accept the existence of gravity and dismisses any proof I offer to its existence as religious fanaticism.

The difference is: gravity is provable. You have not provided a shred of evidence for rights.

Marx wanted to abolish Religion as being an unnecessary "opium of the masses" and nothing in his writings would lead me to believe that he would approve of the use of marijuana... in fact, he would probably consider its use a selfish act of capitalist excesses that in no way added to the collective good and the illusory euphoria it produced would be unnecessary in a communist society... just like Religion.

Marx believed in the ability of responsible people to do what they wished with thier lives. This would conflict with abolishing marijuana.

As for Tresspassing, you still seem to think that Marx wanted to socialize more than the means of production... Marx was not suggesting that you could wander into your neighbors apartment.

I just meant being able to walk on a path without being arrested.

Why would communists want to kill endangered species?

Lions killing livestock, bears killing people, snakes killing both, charging rhinos, charging elephants, angry buffalo, child-eating crocodiles, and all manner of poisonous creatures.

Sure you can, like I said before, start a commune and share yourselves silly in your very own "life-affecting direct-democracy"... Doing so is not unconstitutional or illegal.

Where would the commune be? Every scrap of land in this country is owned by someone.

That was my point... The final stage of Communism, Utopian Socialism, could only be achieved once there was a world wide communist revolution. In the absence of a worldwide revolution, the state was necessary to keep the revolution moving forward to that goal.

Hence the earlier socoialist yet DEMOCRATIC stage.

Simple, you cannot exercise a collective "right" when you're all alone, they require a victim, or a slave, to provide you with whatever is necessary to fulfill your "right".


If you're alone on an island, you can exercise any of your individual rights because they are freedoms of action that place no obligations on others.

And so, you now should define what you see as a "right". That way I will know wether you think collective rights or individual rights are the real rights and your justification of said view.

I don't oppose charity.

But I thought you opposed "free rides".

Teaching your child religion does not violate his freedoms any more than teaching your child communism would violate them.

And I would not indoctrinate my child, because my ideals are not so pathetic that someone needs to be brainwashed to agree with them.

I know... you don't accept that becoming a Doctor requires more effort, intelligence and skill than being a dock worker.

They require as much effort and skill, and the doctor's intelligence is countered by the dock-worker's strength.

Unless of course you want to be successful in the stock market, in which case there is a great deal of effort required.

It is a simple matter of addition and subtraction over time.

How is an hereditary king in any way relevant to jobs in America?

Something called inheritance. I believe you have heard of it?

He had to work his way up that position.

He had personal favor with the higher officers. Proved by how many crummy generals there are.

I'm still speaking.

Without hearing, instead of speaking, you would be making animal noises.

Communists, socialists, people who favor direct democracy and all levels of Collectivists are that dumb.

WOW! Mr. Goody two shoes uses personal insults!

 

[GenSeneca]

And it is getting boring. This has gone on for about a month...

Quite boring... and disappointing. Not only did you resort to plagiarism, you didn't even own up to it once caught.

How did I know those were not your words? The author used compound sentences with near perfect punctuation and didn't misspell a single word. Such things stand out when I've been reading your misspelled words, short, choppy sentences and sporadic punctuation for almost a month.

 

[Agnapostate]

A search for the allegedly "plagiarized" material yielded a single result on Yahoo Answers. Of the two options of someone having plagiarized an obscure comment of an amateur author whose answer was not selected as the best or someone having simply re-posted this comment elsewhere, which seems more likely?

It appears to me that GenSeneca has been handed yet another defeat by a socialist, and chooses to hiss and squeal rather than accept it.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Quite boring... and disappointing. Not only did you resort to plagiarism, you didn't even own up to it once caught.

How did I know those were not your words? The author used compound sentences with near perfect punctuation and didn't misspell a single word. Such things stand out when I've been reading your misspelled words, short, choppy sentences and sporadic punctuation for almost a month.

I only require proof of acquisations to admit to them. It was a test.

 

[GenSeneca]

Dante, in case you're still interested...

"The state is based on this contradiction. It is based on the contradiction between public and private life, between universal and particular interests. For this reason, the state must confine itself to formal, negative activities." - Marx

Marx recognized the difference between negative and positive liberties, he felt the proper role of government was to limit itself to negative activities. To better understand this concept, the US constitution and bill of rights is described as a charter of negative liberties, it prohibits government from infringing on the rights of individuals, it spells out what the government cannot do (negative) rather than specifying what government must do (positive).

"[T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf." - Obama

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Dante, in case you're still interested...

"The state is based on this contradiction. It is based on the contradiction between public and private life, between universal and particular interests. For this reason, the state must confine itself to formal, negative activities." - Marx

Marx recognized the difference between negative and positive liberties, he felt the proper role of government was to limit itself to negative activities. To better understand this concept, the US constitution and bill of rights is described as a charter of negative liberties, it prohibits government from infringing on the rights of individuals, it spells out what the government cannot do (negative) rather than specifying what government must do (positive).

"[T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf." - Obama

Did I say I did not recognise the difference between different types of liberties? No, I said I did not recognise the existence of rights, which fall under the theology, not the history and government, category.

 

[dogtowner]

seems to me this is an apples / refrigerators question

 

[Dante the Marxist]

seems to me this is an apples / refrigerators question

Elaborate please.

 

[GenSeneca]

Did I say I did not recognise the difference between different types of liberties? No, I said I did not recognise the existence of rights, which fall under the theology, not the history and government, category.

When I first mentioned negative and positive rights you said:

Explain what you mean by "negative and positive" please.

You didn't like my entirely accurate explanation, you complained that they canceled one another out, so I wanted to show you that Marx understood this and wanted to limit his communist government to negative activities.

He knows more about my own idealology more than I do! I am very embarressed by this major flaw in my understandding of Marx.

If you were not so belligerent about learning Marxist ideology from a Capitalist, your understanding of Marx would be greatly improved.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

When I first mentioned negative and positive rights you said:



You didn't like my entirely accurate explanation, you complained that they canceled one another out, so I wanted to show you that Marx understood this and wanted to limit his communist government to negative activities.

You are being ridiculously arrogant in thinking that you can define things as positive and negative. None can do that.

 

[GenSeneca]

You are being ridiculously arrogant in thinking that you can define things as positive and negative. None can do that.

Marx did, was he arrogant in doing so?

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Marx did, was he arrogant in doing so?

He said it as it was"if you dont feed someone, they will starve". You are just trying to make your own religion or something.

 

[PLC1]

He said it as it was"if you dont feed someone, they will starve". You are just trying to make your own religion or something.

Why do I have to feed him? Can't he feed himself?

Children need to have someone feed them, but adults?

 

[GenSeneca]

You are just trying to make your own religion or something.

I guess they've stopped teaching such basics in high school.

Everything I've said about rights you will also hear in any political science 101 class in any college.