Is Christianity compatable with Communism

[GenSeneca]

Too bad for them.

So you agree, Communism violates the rights of individuals and any group unlucky enough to find themselves in the minority.

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

Its a system of 100% taxation (total slavery), not a moneyless economy.

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.

So whatever you want, you just take it.

A common myth. If you dont work, you dont get to consume.

As I said in my Blog, Socialism is Evil: "Socialism teaches life without production has no value."

You are confirming all my statements on why Socialism is Evil.

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.

Again from my blog post:

By trying to sacrifice the rights of the top 5th for the Common Good, the bottom 4/5ths sacrifice themselves to slavery at the hands of the superior ruling class, who's rights they sought to destroy. Now slaves to the Common Good - defined for them by their rulers - individuals have no rights and no value beyond what their superiors dictate.

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

As I said, the producers will only produce enough to keep from being tossed overboard and no more because in the absence of competition and rewards, there is no incentive to achieve. The consumer class you will create, will consume more than they produce until you put a gun to their head and force them to produce more.

Also, you are freely admitting that once a worker is no longer able to work, disabled or simply elderly, they are left to die or face exile. Socialism is Evil.

At least with Capitalism, there is room for compassion in the form of charity.

It would produce much more than the Capitalist system, as the capitalist system only produces for profit,

Profit is an incentive that drives individuals to achieve and out produce their competition. You don't have to put a gun to someones head to convince them to make a profit.

while communism produces to meet needs.

When you force people to work at the point of a gun, they will do just enough work to not get shot. Communism is slavery. Socialism is Evil.

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.

That in no way addresses my statement. You think people will work harder when they work for the interests of society as a whole but who decides what is in the best interest of society? The ruling elite, your slave masters.

Wha point are you trying to make with this qoute?

You already proved my point. Socialism is Evil.

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

You want power, so you take it. You want your neighbors lawnmower, so you take it. Anything you want, you just take it....

You are acting like a toddler. "Oh, I want I want I want I want I want!!"

Clearly this is psychological projection. You are the one who wants what doesn't belong to you and you're willing to sacrifice your own rights in order to have a chance at getting what you haven't earned and don't deserve.

P.S. Socialism is Evil.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

So you agree, Communism violates the rights of individuals and any group unlucky enough to find themselves in the minority.

In a few ways, yes.[/QUOTE]

Its a system of 100% taxation (total slavery), not a moneyless economy.

No, there is no taxation.

So whatever you want, you just take it.

Yeah, if you are producing.

As I said in my Blog, Socialism is Evil: "Socialism teaches life without production has no value."

Exactly.

You are confirming all my statements on why Socialism is Evil.

I am confirming a few of them, but nothing I said is in any way cruel or malicious.

Again from my blog post:

By trying to sacrifice the rights of the top 5th for the Common Good, the bottom 4/5ths sacrifice themselves to slavery at the hands of the superior ruling class, who's rights they sought to destroy. Now slaves to the Common Good - defined for them by their rulers - individuals have no rights and no value beyond what their superiors dictate.

Thier vote counts, they are aloud to demonstrate to convince voters to agree with thier decisions. They are not slaves if they can do that.

As I said, the producers will only produce enough to keep from being tossed overboard and no more because in the absence of competition and rewards, there is no incentive to achieve. The consumer class you will create, will consume more than they produce until you put a gun to their head and force them to produce more.

If they dont like getting to consume if they produce, then there will be a vote on it. If the majority votes for that decision, no more Communism.

Also, you are freely admitting that once a worker is no longer able to work, disabled or simply elderly, they are left to die or face exile. Socialism is Evil.

No, I did not. If a old, sick, or disabled person cannot work, they will be provided for.

Profit is an incentive that drives individuals to achieve and out produce their competition. You don't have to put a gun to someones head to convince them to make a profit.

They dont need to out-produce the competition.

When you force people to work at the point of a gun, they will do just enough work to not get shot. Communism is slavery. Socialism is Evil.

I never said anything about force.

That in no way addresses my statement. You think people will work harder when they work for the interests of society as a whole but who decides what is in the best interest of society? The ruling elite, your slave masters.

If I dont like it, I can leave.


You already proved my point. Socialism is Evil.

You want power, so you take it. You want your neighbors lawnmower, so you take it. Anything you want, you just take it....

Exactly.

Clearly this is psychological projection. You are the one who wants what doesn't belong to you and you're willing to sacrifice your own rights in order to have a chance at getting what you haven't earned and don't deserve.

I produce, so I consume.

 

[GenSeneca]

Dante, there are several contradictions in what you have said, so lets go over some of them:

The Consumer Class

I stated: Communism creates a three class system; an ever expanding class of consumers (underproductive and non productive members of society)....

The consumer class, as I call them, consume more than they produce, hence their class title. This class of people includes the elderly, disabled, mentally challenged, and anyone else who is unfit to work or has a limited capacity for work.

You denied that such a class would exist: "If you dont work, you dont get to consume.... The punishment for not producing is exile in the worst cases and not being aloud to consume most of the time." - Dante

I called you on that assertion by pointing out that to avoid having a consumer class, you would have to leave the elderly and disabled to die. At which time you backtracked on your previous statements and said: "If a old, sick, or disabled person cannot work, they will be provided for." - Dante

But that statement is in conflict with the following statement you agreed was accurate: "Socialism teaches life without production has no value."

Would there be a consumer class or would you let them die?

If you let the unproductive live, then you are acknowledging that life without production does have value. In which case, what value do the unproductive have in a society based on the principle of production being necessary for consumption?

Taxation and Slavery

Scenario #1: You have a job that pays you $50,000 a year but 100% of what you earn (produce) is taken through taxes and equally distributed among society. In return, the government provides you with the necessities of life; food, water, clothes, housing, etc.

Scenario #2: You have a job that pays you nothing, so you pay no taxes, but 100% of what you produce is taken by government who redistributes it among society and in return, government provides you with the necessities of life; food, water, clothes, housing, etc.

What is the difference?

Slaves work for no money, and have no individual rights, but their necessities of life, food, water, clothes, housing, etc. are provided by the slave owner.

A communist works for no money, and has no individual rights, but their necessities of life, food, water, clothes, housing, etc. are provided by government.

What is the difference?

The use of Force

You said: "If the burgousie dont kindly step out of thier positions of power, then they will need to be pulled out of them by force." - Dante

They have something you want, so you are willing to use force, and violate their individual rights, in order to take it from them.

What is to stop you from using force to get whatever you want from others?

What is there to stop others from using force to get what they want from you?

------
I will leave it there for now....

 

[Agnapostate]

That GenSeneca will be perpetually incapable of offering substantive criticism of socialism should surprise no one.

 

[GenSeneca]

That GenSeneca will be perpetually incapable of offering substantive criticism of socialism should surprise no one.

Unlike yourself, Dante has earned my respect for his willingness to engage me in discussion by responding to the things I've actually said, he doesn't copy and paste irrelevent replies he made in other forums, to other people, on other topics.

Dante, keep up the good work. I know it can be tough to defend your views from someone like myself but you're on the right track. Deal with criticisms head on, don't take intellectual shortcuts, don't deflect to other topics or defer to what someone else has said about the topic... You need to understand Marxism inside and out to defend it, or in my case, to argue against it.

 

[Agnapostate]

Unlike yourself, Dante has earned my respect for his willingness to engage me in discussion by responding to the things I've actually said, he doesn't copy and paste irrelevent replies he made in other forums, to other people, on other topics.

I have illustrated the fact that I can eviscerate your fallacies at will, and will move on to other neglected contentions that we have had on this forum in times past shortly, so that it becomes apparent to all observers that your anti-socialist talking points and standard regurgitations are shallow and empty. That I reply to your comments with previously posted material is evidence of the bland homogeneity of Internet rightists.

 

[PLC1]

I have illustrated the fact that I can eviscerate your fallacies at will, and will move on to other neglected contentions that we have had on this forum in times past shortly, so that it becomes apparent to all observers that your anti-socialist talking points and standard regurgitations are shallow and empty. That I reply to your comments with previously posted material is evidence of the bland homogeneity of Internet rightists.

Can you do all of that by pointing to one single example of a successful Marxist economy anywhere in the world?

 

[Agnapostate]

Can you do all of that by pointing to one single example of a successful Marxist economy anywhere in the world?

Why would I? I am not a Marxist. Unlike the theoretical abstraction of laissez-faire capitalism, however, Marxism is not a utopian ideology, at the very least.

 

[PLC1]

Why would I? I am not a Marxist. Unlike the theoretical abstraction of laissez-faire capitalism, however, Marxism is not a utopian ideology, at the very least.

Marxism is not a utopian ideology?

since when?

 

[Agnapostate]

Marxism is not a utopian ideology?

since when?

It's Marxism that has traditionally provided the skeptic of capitalism an ideal lens for analyzing its numerous failures. An adequate understanding of capitalism cannot be gained without adaptation of Marxist elements. Now, most people are inclined to regard Marxism in a very skewed way, merely equating it with the most authoritarian aspects of Leninism (which many socialists regard as a pseudo-socialist ideology) without considering the fact that Marx was actually primarily concerned with criticism of capitalism and spent scarcely any time or resources focusing on socialist/communist organizational theory in comparison to the sheer breadth of his focus on capitalism (compare Das Kapital to the Manifesto, for example).

So, while I personally frown upon much of Marx's organizational theory and am ultimately an anarchist rather than a Marxist as a result, I recognize his tremendous anti-capitalist contributions that all socialists can profit from.

 

[GenSeneca]

Why would I? I am not a Marxist. Unlike the theoretical abstraction of laissez-faire capitalism, however, Marxism is not a utopian ideology, at the very least.

Then point to one example of a successful "anarcho-socialist" state.

How about one example of where "republican market socialism" has been successfully implemented?

Perhaps if they were more than "theoretical abstractions" of socialism, you could offer a real world example....

 

[GenSeneca]

I have illustrated the fact that I can eviscerate your fallacies at will

You make assertions backed by nothing of substance.

it becomes apparent to all observers that your anti-socialist talking points and standard regurgitations are shallow and empty.

You make assertions backed by nothing of substance.

That I reply to your comments with previously posted material is evidence of the bland homogeneity of Internet rightists.

To you... the rest of us recognize it as intellectual laziness and an inability to respond to what was actually presented.

David from Mises.org summed up your "ability" pretty well:

The use of words doesn't necessarily result in a coherent argument.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Dante, there are several contradictions in what you have said, so lets go over some of them:

The Consumer Class

I stated: Communism creates a three class system; an ever expanding class of consumers (underproductive and non productive members of society)....

The consumer class, as I call them, consume more than they produce, hence their class title. This class of people includes the elderly, disabled, mentally challenged, and anyone else who is unfit to work or has a limited capacity for work.

You denied that such a class would exist: "If you dont work, you dont get to consume.... The punishment for not producing is exile in the worst cases and not being aloud to consume most of the time." - Dante

I called you on that assertion by pointing out that to avoid having a consumer class, you would have to leave the elderly and disabled to die. At which time you backtracked on your previous statements and said: "If a old, sick, or disabled person cannot work, they will be provided for." - Dante

But that statement is in conflict with the following statement you agreed was accurate: "Socialism teaches life without production has no value."

Would there be a consumer class or would you let them die?

If you let the unproductive live, then you are acknowledging that life without production does have value. In which case, what value do the unproductive have in a society based on the principle of production being necessary for consumption?

Most of these people [the elderly, disabled etc.] have probably been producing thier entire lives. So, according to the labor theory of value, they would be provided for.

Taxation and Slavery

Scenario #1: You have a job that pays you $50,000 a year but 100% of what you earn (produce) is taken through taxes and equally distributed among society. In return, the government provides you with the necessities of life; food, water, clothes, housing, etc.

Scenario #2: You have a job that pays you nothing, so you pay no taxes, but 100% of what you produce is taken by government who redistributes it among society and in return, government provides you with the necessities of life; food, water, clothes, housing, etc.

What is the difference?

Slaves work for no money, and have no individual rights, but their necessities of life, food, water, clothes, housing, etc. are provided by the slave owner.

A communist works for no money, and has no individual rights, but their necessities of life, food, water, clothes, housing, etc. are provided by government.

What is the difference?

The difference is, the communist has all of the individual rights except for property rights. That is a very insignifigant right that has nothing to do with health or happiness, unless you count the fact that it infringes on most of the other rights.

The use of Force

You said: "If the burgousie dont kindly step out of thier positions of power, then they will need to be pulled out of them by force." - Dante

They have something you want, so you are willing to use force, and violate their individual rights, in order to take it from them.

What is to stop you from using force to get whatever you want from others?

What is there to stop others from using force to get what they want from you?

So you consider taking property a violation of individual rights? Property has only became a right in the last few thousand years. Property does not improve health. Property does not improve sanity. Property does not improve happiness. Property does not increase the quality of life. So what can it be other than a little toy to show off?

So, property has nothing to do with the "rights" equation at all, and the above argument is considered null and void.

 

[Agnapostate]

Then point to one example of a successful "anarcho-socialist" state.

Your sentence contained both a redundancy and an oxymoron; "anarcho-socialist" is a redundancy as anarchists are necessarily socialists, and "anarcho-socialist state" is an oxymoron as anarchists favor the elimination of the state. That said, if you'd been stalking me a bit more effectively, you'd know that I most often refer to the Spanish Revolution.

How about one example of where "republican market socialism" has been successfully implemented?

There has never been an attempt to implement republican market socialism. However, the most critical difference between that and the focus of your advocacy is that republican market socialism has not existed, whereas laissez-faire capitalism cannot exist.

Perhaps if they were more than "theoretical abstractions" of socialism, you could offer a real world example....

There is no shortage on my part. The fact that you've foolishly chosen to ignore actually existing capitalism in favor of "laissez-faire" capitalism will forever isolate you to the utopian camp, though.

You make assertions backed by nothing of substance.

You make assertions backed by nothing of substance.

To you... the rest of us recognize it as intellectual laziness and an inability to respond to what was actually presented.

You regurgitate the same tired talking points that every two-bit statist is interested in; consequently, you endure the same replies (though I've only copied and pasted one reply at length, and it was to illustrate an important point about classical liberalism and market socialism). You then comically claim that my posts are "red herrings."

You: "Socialism always relies on heavy central planning and a command economy."

Me: "Actually, contemporary market socialism is a perfect counter-example to that."

You: "I didn't mention market socialism. Red herring."

What you need above all is an elementary logic course.

David from Mises.org summed up your "ability" pretty well:

mises.org? If you wanted to find the pinnacle of economic incoherence, it would be on that site. And if you want to see the way I rip apart ignorant Misesians (apart from my evisceration of you, of course), it would be on this site. Of course, the fact that I was banned from "libertarian" forums for being a dissenter is fairly humorous in and of itself.

 

[GenSeneca]

Most of these people [the elderly, disabled etc.] have probably been producing thier entire lives. So, according to the labor theory of value, they would be provided for.

Thank you for admitting that I was correct, and you were wrong, about a consumer class existing under communism.

The difference is, the communist has all of the individual rights except for property rights.

Name some of the individual rights a communist could exercise that a slave could not.

That is a very insignifigant right that has nothing to do with health or happiness,

You could not survive without material property.

unless you count the fact that it infringes on most of the other rights.

If you have no right to the products of your labor (property), then you are a slave.

You said earlier that you produce, therefore you have a right to consume... but if you have no right to material property, then you have no right to possess that which is necessary for you to engage in consumption.

So you consider taking property a violation of individual rights?

Yes. Using force to take something that does not belong to you is a violation of your victims individual rights.

Have you ever been robbed, mugged or had something stolen from you?

Property has only became a right in the last few thousand years.

It didn't "become" a right, the right has always existed but it wasn't recognized, or protected, as an individual right until the enlightenment... which was a few hundred years ago, not a few thousand.

Property does not improve health. Property does not improve sanity. Property does not improve happiness. Property does not increase the quality of life. So what can it be other than a little toy to show off?

You require material property to live.

If material property is of no value to you....

Why do you want to redistribute wealth?
Why does material inequality concern you?
Why do you want the "right" to take property from other people?

So, property has nothing to do with the "rights" equation at all

Without property rights, no other rights can be exercised.

the above argument is considered null and void.

If you find answering simple questions too difficult, then you're welcome to stop.