Is Christianity compatable with Communism

[Dante the Marxist]

Direct democracy could work on a village level, of a town hall level, but not on a national level.

The system of representative democracy is the best form of government so far devised, or maybe I should say the least bad.

Yes, not on a national level. Thats sort of what I have been saying. Regional direct democracy.

 

[PLC1]

Yes, not on a national level. Thats sort of what I have been saying. Regional direct democracy.

Having a regional democratic government is all well and good, but we still need a central government. A collection of villages, each with its own town council, would not make a viable republic.

 

[Agnapostate]

Certainly, and I'd support the other comments about the conflicts between Christianity and capitalism. As was mentioned, the apostles' practice of libertarian communism, for example, is recorded in Acts 2:44-45, the passage noting that "[n]ow all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need." Similar text is contained in Acts 4:34-25, where it is written that "[n]or was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need." Since, according to the consistent Christian view, the "Acts of the Apostles" should properly be titled the "Acts of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles," it's a matter of divine endorsement, especially considering its establishment after the Pentecost.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Having a regional democratic government is all well and good, but we still need a central government. A collection of villages, each with its own town council, would not make a viable republic.

Yes, there will still be a single government, but the regions will make many of thier own decisions if only because the central government cannot handle all the votes. The central government's jobs would probably be things like laws that can be applied internationally, stopping civil wars and inssurections if they come up, making sure all goods in the world economy are distributed were they are needed, and other similiar jobs.

 

[PLC1]

Yes, there will still be a single government, but the regions will make many of thier own decisions if only because the central government cannot handle all the votes. The central government's jobs would probably be things like laws that can be applied internationally, stopping civil wars and inssurections if they come up, making sure all goods in the world economy are distributed were they are needed, and other similiar jobs.

You just explained why we can't invest too much power in the central government, but must keep some of it at the local level.

The framers of the Constitution wrote the tenth amendment with just that in mind.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

You just explained why we can't invest too much power in the central government, but must keep some of it at the local level.

The framers of the Constitution wrote the tenth amendment with just that in mind.

Yeah....

Whats your point?

 

[PLC1]

Yeah....

Whats your point?

You posted:

regions will make many of thier own decisions if only because the central government cannot handle all the votes.

Which is true enough. Another reason why regions have to make their own decisions is that locals know their own needs and wants much better than any central government ever could.

That's why politics have to be local as well as national.

of course, the tenth Amendment only mentions states and individuals, but the same principle holds for towns and counties as well.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

You posted:



Which is true enough. Another reason why regions have to make their own decisions is that locals know their own needs and wants much better than any central government ever could.

That's why politics have to be local as well as national.

of course, the tenth Amendment only mentions states and individuals, but the same principle holds for towns and counties as well.

Ok. That is rather good.

 

[GenSeneca]

A belief in a direct democracy, were every single decision is decided by vote.

A tyranny of the majority. Direct democracy under Communism doesn't protect the rights of the minority or even the rights of individuals... in fact, it does just the opposite. Communism has zero tolerance for minority opinions, viewing such people, and groups, as being rebels against the majority: (iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people. - Principles of Communism [section 18] Frederick Engels, 1847

There would be no representitives, just mass votes on every decision.

In California, they voted against raising taxes to pay for the welfare state they previously voted to expand. Where majority rules, everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too but reality and the law of causality catch up to those who try to evade them. Communism seeks to reverse the law of causality by claiming that consumption of a product or service will increase its availability rather than diminish it.

All property would be owned by the people as a whole.

You mean the state would own all property.

Things like religioun and prejudice would slowly flicker out, because the oppression and dire material conditions that led to thier creation would no longer exist.

Such a system is incredibly oppressive and does lead to dire material conditions as an infinite amount of need stresses a limited amount of resources and ability. Prejudice would explode, not diminish, because despite its claims to the contrary, Communism creates a three class system; an ever expanding class of consumers (underproductive and non productive members of society), ever diminishing class of producers (the productive members of society) and a static class of ruling elite (the intelligencia, who place themselves above society).

The producers quickly learn that their "reward" for being more productive, is to work longer hours in more laborious jobs with greater responsibilities, while those who are less productive are "punished" by having to work fewer hours in less laborious jobs with fewer responsibilities. As a result, the ruling class has to use the power of the state to force individuals to be productive members of society.

The Marxist concept of eliminating competition and replacing it with association to bring about an endless bounty of goods and services, making money superfluous, only works in science fiction. It worked in the world of Star Trek, because they had a machine called the "replicator", which created food, drinks and other material goods out of thin air, making the need for raw materials, labor and production of goods superfluous.

Things like borders and wars would no longer have any place, because the world would be unified.

Peace is the abscense of opposition to Socialism - Marx

Just how do you go about unifying the world and bring peace? By force of arms?

 

[Agnapostate]

GenSeneca, effectively everything you've said about socialism and communism on this forum has been inaccurate. It's time for me to renew the task of educating you that I unfortunately left neglected more than a year ago.

 

[PLC1]

GenSeneca, effectively everything you've said about socialism and communism on this forum has been inaccurate. It's time for me to renew the task of educating you that I unfortunately left neglected more than a year ago.

Some of the things GenSeneca posts are inaccurate, but the above post about socialism and communism is not among them. If you want to start a debate, why not sift through her other posts to find one that is incorrect?

 

[Agnapostate]

Some of the things GenSeneca posts are inaccurate, but the above post about socialism and communism is not among them. If you want to start a debate, why not sift through her other posts to find one that is incorrect?

It would be more difficult to find one that isn't, but I'm content to rebut the inaccurate claims about socialism/communism in the thread that I unfortunately abandoned.

 

[GenSeneca]

Some of the things GenSeneca posts are inaccurate,

I respectfully disagree.

but the above post about socialism and communism is not among them.

Thanks.

If you want to start a debate, why not sift through her other posts to find one that is incorrect?

Some of the things PLC posts are inaccurate.

 

[PLC1]

I respectfully disagree.


Thanks.


Some of the things PLC posts are inaccurate.

What! I rarely am wrong. The last time I remember being wrong about a political issue was having voted for Lyndon Johnson in '64.

but hey, no one is perfect.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

A tyranny of the majority. Direct democracy under Communism doesn't protect the rights of the minority or even the rights of individuals... in fact, it does just the opposite. Communism has zero tolerance for minority opinions, viewing such people, and groups, as being rebels against the majority: (iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people. - Principles of Communism [section 18] Frederick Engels, 1847

Too bad for them. You are acting like a toddler. "Oh, I want I want I want I want I want!!". So you dont get 200 acres of land, a factory, a mansion, and a porche. Big deal.

In California, they voted against raising taxes to pay for the welfare state they previously voted to expand. Where majority rules, everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too but reality and the law of causality catch up to those who try to evade them. Communism seeks to reverse the law of causality by claiming that consumption of a product or service will increase its availability rather than diminish it.

Luckily, Communism is a moneyless economy, so such a tax problem would not arise.

You mean the state would own all property.

No, I dont. I mean that if Fred wants your lawnmower, he gets it, but you can just get his, or someone elses. You call it theft. I call it love.

Such a system is incredibly oppressive and does lead to dire material conditions as an infinite amount of need stresses a limited amount of resources and ability. Prejudice would explode, not diminish, because despite its claims to the contrary, Communism creates a three class system; an ever expanding class of consumers (underproductive and non productive members of society), ever diminishing class of producers (the productive members of society) and a static class of ruling elite (the intelligencia, who place themselves above society).

A common myth. If you dont work, you dont get to consume. The intelligencia probably will remane stuck-up and act all high and mighty. THey will not, however, hold any real power, so that would not really matter.

The producers quickly learn that their "reward" for being more productive, is to work longer hours in more laborious jobs with greater responsibilities, while those who are less productive are "punished" by having to work fewer hours in less laborious jobs with fewer responsibilities. As a result, the ruling class has to use the power of the state to force individuals to be productive members of society.

The punishment for not producing is exile in the worst cases and not being aloud to consume most of the time.

The Marxist concept of eliminating competition and replacing it with association to bring about an endless bounty of goods and services, making money superfluous, only works in science fiction. It worked in the world of Star Trek, because they had a machine called the "replicator", which created food, drinks and other material goods out of thin air, making the need for raw materials, labor and production of goods superfluous.

It would produce much more than the Capitalist system, as the capitalist system only produces for profit, while communism produces to meet needs. The problem of resource exhaustion can be solved like such: Resources on Earth will take billions of years to diminish. Space colonisation will probably begin in about 150 years.

Peace is the abscense of opposition to Socialism - Marx

Wha point are you trying to make with this qoute?

Just how do you go about unifying the world and bring peace? By force of arms?

If the burgousie dont kindly step out of thier positions of power, then they will need to be pulled out of them by force.