Is Christianity compatable with Communism

[Agnapostate]

I think I can see why Marxism, as you have defined it, has never been put into practice, can't you?

Aside from the fact that I am an anarchist and not a Marxist, Marxism has never been put into practice because it suffers from various organizational deficiencies, but the rightist cliches that you just repeated are not among them. I understand that this might sound disdainful or haughty, but I've honestly encountered and rebutted the same tiresome talking points so many times that I feel like an evolutionary biologist speaking to Internet creationists. And I believe that many socialists feel exactly the same way.

But as to your point here, I'll repeat something that I've previously posted, to illustrate the nature of your comment as a widespread rightist talking point: This is based on the same common cliche that the other "arguments" against socialism advanced in this thread were, namely the misconception that socialism involves completely equal distribution of goods and resources regardless of labor input since utopian socialist rascals expect that workers will produce for the common good without consideration for individual wants and needs. I have never encountered a single element of socialist political or economic theory that could lend legitimate support for his misconception.

Socialism entails remuneration based on measurement of labor itself; generally speaking, market socialism entails remuneration based on the product of one's labor (with provisions on the basis of needs perhaps also forming a safety net of sorts at times), collectivism entails remuneration based on one's labor effort and democratically determined wages, and communism entails allocation of labor based on abilities and of goods and resources based on needs with a provision for deprivation of public resources for those able but unwilling to work. As put by my fellow anarcho-communist, Peter Kropotkin:

Is it not evident that if a society, founded on the principle of free work, were really menaced by loafers, it would protect itself without the authoritarian organization we have nowadays, and without having recourse to wagedom?

Let us take a group of volunteers, combining for some particular enterprise. Having its success at heart, they all work with a will, save one of the associates, who is frequently absent from his post. Must they on his account dissolve the group, elect a president to impose fines, and work out a vode of penalties? It is evident that neither one nor the other will be done, but that someday the comrade who imperils their enterprise will be told: "Friend, we should like to work with you; but as you are often absent from your post, and you do your work negligently, we must part. Go and find other comrades who will put up with your indifference!"

This way is so natural that it is practiced everywhere, even nowadays, in all industries, in competition with all possible systems of fines, docking of wages, supervision, etc.; a workman may enter the factory at the appointed time, but if he does his work badly, if he hinders his comrades by his laziness or other defects, if he is quarrelsome, there is an end of it; he is compelled to leave the workshop.

So, as with any other empty misconceptions about socialism (its allegedly authoritarian and centralized nature, its inefficiency, its manifestation through social democratic capitalism, etc.), this one is a common talking point but rather short on substance. I'll probably write a text about basic myths on the subject soon enough; the most economically complex theoretical work leaves questions unanswered by those unfamiliar with the topic.

 

[GenSeneca]

After a tantrum and refusal to respond to my evisceration of his/her posts because I had copied and pasted material that I had written previously into one of my replies, GenSeneca hypocritically engages in the same behavior. Ah...anti-socialists.

I did respond, your entire conclusion was built on a fallacious premise, that of Classical Liberalism being incompatable with Capitalism. I used actual definitions with actual facts and it brought your house of cards crashing down, at which time you copped out by saying that you already "explained" it and declared yourself victorious.

Also, in order for me to have been hypocritical... I would have had to post a response that had nothing to do with the topic being addressed, argued against statements from people not participating in the thread; I would have had to post it without adding a hyperlink to the post from elsewhere, and would have had to make the bulk of my reply a copy and paste job that went on for pages.

P.S. I'm not anti-Socialist, I'm pro-Capitalist. We Capitalists believe that individuals should be free to choose their associations, so if you want to be a socialist and do socialist things with other socialist people, that's fine with us, but the moment you deny us our individual rights and force your collectivist associations on the entire population, we have a problem with that.

 

[Agnapostate]

I did respond, your entire conclusion was built on a fallacious premise, that of Classical Liberalism being incompatable with Capitalism. I used actual definitions with actual facts and it brought your house of cards crashing down, at which time you copped out by saying that you already "explained" it and declared yourself victorious.

Also, in order for me to have been hypocritical... I would have had to post a response that had nothing to do with the topic being addressed, argued against statements from people not participating in the thread; I would have had to post it without adding a hyperlink to the post from elsewhere, and would have had to make the bulk of my reply a copy and paste job that went on for pages.

The claim that there was a "response that had nothing to do with the topic being addressed" is a fallacious one that has been rebutted in this very thread. You falsely claimed that classical liberalism and capitalism were somehow compatible, and I rebutted that. You then screeched that I was off-topic because you had no other response to offer. To give an example of what you consider a red herring, you foolishly claimed that socialism is intertwined with central planning, I mentioned market socialism as a counterexample, and your comical response was that you "hadn't mentioned market socialism."

P.S. I'm not anti-Socialist, I'm pro-Capitalist. We Capitalists believe that individuals should be free to choose their associations, so if you want to be a socialist and do socialist things with other socialist people, that's fine with us, but the moment you deny us our individual rights and force your collectivist associations on the entire population, we have a problem with that.

You're neither a capitalist nor a pro-capitalist. If you were, you'd not be so foolish as to advocate laissez-faire "free market" economic structure, which would ensure the destabilization of capitalism due to its utopianism. And you certainly don't believe in any kind of freedom except in the purely Orwellian sense of the word.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

I think your definition of Communism is quite at odds with that of most of the rest of the world.

Maybe the rest of the world is brainwashed?

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Marx was clearly stating that to attain real happiness, the abolition of illusory happiness (religion) was necessary. Interpreting his statements as you have is a serious misunderstanding of his philosophy.
You are forgetting the second part of the qoute. If the present conditions dissapear, religion will simply fall out of use without needing to be abolished.

They are natural, required by nature for survival. Because rights exist independent of government, governments are instituted among men to protect our rights from those who would use force to deny us our rights.

Qouteing the Constitution destroys whatever relevency you already have.

Pretending rights do not exist is how you hope to control people, "You have no rights, so I can do whatever I want to you."

Or is it the other way around? "I have the right to withold this land from your tent-living family".

The Nazi's felt their treatment of Jews was justified for the percieved harm the Jews had caused.

But I am not suggesting genocide, torture, burgousie-skin lampshades, or any of that sick crap. I am simply suggesting taking thier mansions and sports cars.

Whether you need it or not, you have no right to that property... or at least you feel that way about people with property you want.

See? Proving my point about the purpose of rights being control. "I am starving to death!". "MY CHICKEN!!!!!!!!"

I hope you are not serious... Individual rights belong to all individuals, collective rights belong to certain groups. When property rights were held only by Societies elites, it was a collective right only extended to the elites and denied to individuals who were not members of that group. What you want are more collective rights, whereby you extend "rights" to a certain group (the proletariat) while denying the individual rights of people not in that group.

Firstly, that would mean that property is a collective right of the burgousie today. Secondly, Communism sees everyone as equal, whatever they had before the revolution disregarded.

1. Communists have no "rights", only permissions, which can be taken away at the drop of a hat.
2. We are not living under Capitalism.

1. No one has any rights no matter what.
2. We are living in the advanced version of the originally noble and well-meaning ideal of capitalism

No, they are not. My rights cannot be taken, they will continue to exist, but they can be denied by force. If that bully on the playground punches me in the nose every time I speak, my right to free speech hasn't disappeared, it still exists, he is simply denying me the ability to exercise that right.

So you just have privilages. If a toddler says he has a right to watch TV for eight days straight, does that make it true?

They are always bigots... They don't only hate religion, they hate the people who practice and preach religion.

Maybe the ones you have met. I know dozens who do not think that way.

That's because you have never comprehended the meaning of the phrase, Existence exists, A is A.

I knew that was what is meant! Rand says some unbelievably obvious things. I KNOW WHAT A IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You interpreting it as rights would make the lady role in her grave.

That's not what you said before, when you said your neighbor could take your lawnmower and you could take one from someone else.

Meaning the people as a whole own everything collectively.

From another post in another thread:

This guy:

And this guy:

These men both work at the same place yet they have massively different skill sets and abilities - thus, massively different pay.

Yes. Firstly, 1 in 100 burgousie play sports. Secondly, most football players are arrogant, mean, stupid, spoiled, childish, violent, sociopathic bullys. Thirdly, most teenagers work in fast food places because most jobs dont hire teenagers. For all you know, that kid could be the next Einstein. Oh, how awful, I value intelligence more than brute strength.

And a Socialist, once he realizes that life without having an equal amount of stuff compared to everyone else is possible, would be able to understand that he doesn't need to deny people their individuals rights.

What rights?

You are saying I have no rights, that rights don't exist, that you should be able to take everything I have worked hard to acquire, that you should have the power to dictate what freedoms I can exercise, that the purpose of my life is to serve others (society), and that my refusal to be your willing slave causes you to feel justified in using force against me... That's pretty Evil.

1. Prove that rights exist
2. You are probably either poor or a heiress or part of the 60s-70s generation.
3. I did not say that I could choose your freedoms, anyone can leave the Communist society if they want to.
4. I said that the meaning of life is the survival of the human race.
5. Slaves cannot have any freedoms, communists have every freedom except property rights[as you put it].

It is the Collectivists, such as yourself, who have oppressive tendencies, not us Individualists. We Individualists (Capitalists & Classical Liberals) believe that all associations among men should be entirely volitional, while you, a Collectivist, believe that all associations should be compulsory, all men should be forced to live as altruists, forced to be their brothers keeper, and you're willing to use violence to enforce that belief.

I have never said anything other than that I can take property, that is it.

Even Marx pointed out there would necessarily be a ruling elite under communism; the academics, intellectuals, and of course the Communist party leaders. He also said that once the communist revolution achieved its goal, global communism, the ruling class would become superfluous and fade into history... of course such a belief is utter nonsense, those in power do not like to give it up, as you already know in the case of the bourgeoisie, and as was the case in the USSR, Communism only devolves into despotism and tyranny because rather than lose their power, they can simply revoke the "privileges" that give you the illusion of freedom.

Once you realise that Lenin was a pseudo-nationalist monarchist instead of a communist, you will see that argument crumble and why I am laughing at your ignorance.[this is not calling you stupid, but that you have had information withheld from you]

 

[GenSeneca]

You are forgetting the second part of the qoute. If the present conditions dissapear, religion will simply fall out of use without needing to be abolished.

Here's the second half of the quote:

"The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition, which needs illusions."

Marx is not saying it will fade away, he is explaining why it must be abolished.

Qouteing the Constitution destroys whatever relevency you already have.

But quoting Marx gives you relevancy?

Or is it the other way around? "I have the right to withold this land from your tent-living family".

Nope, you have it all wrong. As long as you have the money, you can buy land, nobody will try to stop you.

But I am not suggesting genocide, torture, burgousie-skin lampshades, or any of that sick crap. I am simply suggesting taking thier mansions and sports cars.

That's how the Nazi's started out too... They had the Jews as the target of their discontent, you have the Bourgeoisie.

See? Proving my point about the purpose of rights being control. "I am starving to death!". "MY CHICKEN!!!!!!!!"

Every individual has a right to keep the fruits of his labors or dispose of them as he sees fit. If he's a chicken farmer, he can keep his chickens, sell his chickens, give them away to feed the hungry or destroy them, he has the freedom of choice. According to you, he should have no choice but be forced to do with his chickens as "society" sees fit... So you're denying an individual his rights in order to control him.

Firstly, that would mean that property is a collective right of the burgousie today.

Wrong... Any individual can own land and the only thing in your way is the cost. The collective rights of kings and noblemen to own land were limited to those who were kings and noblemen, no matter how rich an individual not in that group might be, he could not own land.

Secondly, Communism sees everyone as equal, whatever they had before the revolution disregarded.

Under Communism, some are more equal than others... A lesson you can learn from history, human nature, or the hard way, by living through it.

1. No one has any rights no matter what.

You have rights. They exist.

2. We are living in the advanced version of the originally noble and well-meaning ideal of capitalism

The minute we began trading Individual rights for Collective Rights, Capitalism was destroyed. On a side note, you defend the USSR as being something other than the "advanced version of the originally noble and well-meaning ideal of" Communism.

So you just have privilages.

I have rights.

If a toddler says he has a right to watch TV for eight days straight, does that make it true?

Watching television is not a requirement for mans survival, so in that regard, it doesn't qualify as a right. The only way it would qualify as a right, would be if the toddler earned, or purchased, the television, and used it in the pursuit of his happiness.

Maybe the ones you have met. I know dozens who do not think that way.

I doubt it... you might know some Atheists and Agnostics who aren't religious bigots but Anti-Theists are, by definition, bigoted against religion and religious people.

I KNOW WHAT A IS!

Obviously you do not... that or you knowingly reject the law of identity.

You interpreting it as rights would make the lady role in her grave.

Your knowledge of Rands philosophy is even worse than your knowledge of Marx.

Meaning the people as a whole own everything collectively.

That is not a concept that you have derived from Marx:

"When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character." - Communist Manifesto

Once again, if you interpret the statements of Marx as meaning that all property should be social, collectively owned, property, then you misunderstand what he was saying.

Firstly, 1 in 100 burgousie play sports.

You overgeneralized and stereotyped, I used two specific examples. That football player will retire sometime in his 40's, whereupon you will criticize him for being part of the idle rich and unworthy to keep the property he worked so hard to accumulate. You want what you have not earned and you want to take it from those who have earned it.

Secondly, most football players are arrogant, mean, stupid, spoiled, childish, violent, sociopathic bullys.

You confuse football players for Socialists.

I value intelligence more than brute strength.

Unless of course intelligence earns someone a place in the bourgeoisie class, right?

1. Prove that rights exist
2. You are probably either poor or a heiress or part of the 60s-70s generation.
3. I did not say that I could choose your freedoms, anyone can leave the Communist society if they want to.
4. I said that the meaning of life is the survival of the human race.
5. Slaves cannot have any freedoms, communists have every freedom except property rights[as you put it].

I have never said anything other than that I can take property, that is it.

I'll have to come back to this, responding to those statements will take more time than I have right now and fill a separate post.

Once you realise that Lenin was a pseudo-nationalist monarchist instead of a communist, you will see that argument crumble and why I am laughing at your ignorance.[this is not calling you stupid, but that you have had information withheld from you]

What you need to realize is that Lenin and Stalin were an "advanced version of the originally noble and well-meaning ideal of" Communism.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Here's the second half of the quote:

"The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition, which needs illusions."

Marx is not saying it will fade away, he is explaining why it must be abolished.

Or that people will simply stop being religious once the condition that requires them to be dissapears.

But quoting Marx gives you relevancy?

No, it does not, unless we are arguing about "Marx said this in 1848" "Well, he said this in 1873!". They are just there to show what Marx's views are.

Nope, you have it all wrong. As long as you have the money, you can buy land, nobody will try to stop you.

There is the problem. Can you say with a straight face that most of the world is lazy? If that were so, we would run out of food, goods, and anything that requires labor to produce it.

That's how the Nazi's started out too... They had the Jews as the target of their discontent, you have the Bourgeoisie.

Of course, our ideal has been around for more than 100 years, and you don't see us putting bourgeoisie into gas chambers.

Every individual has a right to keep the fruits of his labors or dispose of them as he sees fit. If he's a chicken farmer, he can keep his chickens, sell his chickens, give them away to feed the hungry or destroy them, he has the freedom of choice. According to you, he should have no choice but be forced to do with his chickens as "society" sees fit... So you're denying an individual his rights in order to control him.

What rights? If he is unable to retain them in any condition, they are privilages, not rights.

Wrong... Any individual can own land and the only thing in your way is the cost. The collective rights of kings and noblemen to own land were limited to those who were kings and noblemen, no matter how rich an individual not in that group might be, he could not own land.

In those days, you could become a king or nobleman by carving out thier own kingdom, our swearing fealty to a king.

Under Communism, some are more equal than others... A lesson you can learn from history, human nature, or the hard way, by living through it.

You have no historical examples of communism, you cannot prove that human nature exists, and, of course, I hope I will see what living in it is like in a few decades.

You have rights. They exist.

Prove it.

The minute we began trading Individual rights for Collective Rights, Capitalism was destroyed. On a side note, you defend the USSR as being something other than the "advanced version of the originally noble and well-meaning ideal of" Communism.

Which would mean that collective rights are better for humanity.

I have rights.

Prove it.

Watching television is not a requirement for mans survival, so in that regard, it doesn't qualify as a right. The only way it would qualify as a right, would be if the toddler earned, or purchased, the television, and used it in the pursuit of his happiness.

Neither is owning land.

I doubt it... you might know some Atheists and Agnostics who aren't religious bigots but Anti-Theists are, by definition, bigoted against religion and religious people.

Define Anti-thiest as apposed to athiest.

Obviously you do not... that or you knowingly reject the law of identity.

A is a. That is all.

Your knowledge of Rands philosophy is even worse than your knowledge of Marx.


That is not a concept that you have derived from Marx:

"When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character." - Communist Manifesto

Once again, if you interpret the statements of Marx as meaning that all property should be social, collectively owned, property, then you misunderstand what he was saying.

How is this very different than what I have been saying?

You overgeneralized and stereotyped, I used two specific examples. That football player will retire sometime in his 40's, whereupon you will criticize him for being part of the idle rich and unworthy to keep the property he worked so hard to accumulate. You want what you have not earned and you want to take it from those who have earned it.

I already critisize him for being idle and undeserving. All he has to do is work out, gain some weight, tackle people, and toss a ball. Hard work indeed...

You confuse football players for Socialists.

You have obviously never been in a high-school before.

Unless of course intelligence earns someone a place in the bourgeoisie class, right?

Wrong.

What you need to realize is that Lenin and Stalin were an "advanced version of the originally noble and well-meaning ideal of" Communism.

Again, prove it.

 

[GenSeneca]

1. Prove that rights exist

Right now I'm exercising my right to free speech... Can you think of any ways to stop me from exercising that right without using force? Since you do not believe such a right exists, I should not be able to exercise it, so you should have no problem stopping me from exercising that right without resorting to methods of force.

2. You are probably either poor or a heiress or part of the 60s-70s generation.

Strike 1, 2 and 3, you're out!

3. I did not say that I could choose your freedoms, anyone can leave the Communist society if they want to.

You just love making my points for me, thank you!

Under a purely Capitalist system, you and your communist buddies would be free to set up a little communist enclave and share your property till your hearts content... so long as all who participated were doing so by their own volition.

Under Communism, you wouldn't allow people to live as Capitalists, recognizing individual rights, having free markets, owning property and capital, you would tell them to get with the collectivist agenda or you would confiscate all their worldly possessions and tell them to get out: (iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants...

4. I said that the meaning of life is the survival of the human race.

Life is an end to itself, not a means for the ends of others.

5. Slaves cannot have any freedoms, communists have every freedom except property rights[as you put it].

Slaves had freedoms and just like the Communist, they were taken and given by the whim of their masters. Your communist freedoms could be taken by "society", by a majority, so you would be a slave to the whims of society.

I have never said anything other than that I can take property, that is it.

I know, you said something about taking someones mansion, sports car, lawnmower, etc.... Marx wanted to place the means of production (what he referred to as "Kapital") in the hands of the collective and clearly stated that personal property (possessions), except in the case of rebels and emigrants, was not to be considered social (collective) property:

"When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character." - Communist Manifesto

Once Capital is placed in the hands of the collective, personal property will no longer be symbols of class, therefore only the means of production need to be collectivized, not all property.

 

[GenSeneca]

Or that people will simply stop being religious once the condition that requires them to be dissapears.

It wasn't an "either or" choice, Marx said Religion would have to be abolished. Argue against that fact all you like, its still fact no matter what your opinion or interpretation.

No, it does not, unless we are arguing about "Marx said this in 1848" "Well, he said this in 1873!". They are just there to show what Marx's views are.

My reference to the Constitution is simply to illustrate the foundation of the rights you enjoy but take completely for granted and seek to abolish.

There is the problem. Can you say with a straight face that most of the world is lazy? If that were so, we would run out of food, goods, and anything that requires labor to produce it.

Can you say with a straight face that anything you just said has anything to do with your ability to purchase land?

Of course, our ideal has been around for more than 100 years, and you don't see us putting bourgeoisie into gas chambers.

Communism has killed about 100 million people, without the need for gas chambers. Since you're going to reject any notion of communist atrocities, just skip it. Also skip over the part where you make excuses and blame the deaths on something other than communism... Instead, cite for me something from Marx, or Engels, that demonstrates where people like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao violated Communist principles with their brutal regimes.

What rights? If he is unable to retain them in any condition, they are privilages, not rights.

Rights vs. Privileges:

In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth.

Rights exist, privileges must be granted. Rights cannot be taken away, only suppressed by force. Privileges can be taken away as easily as they are granted. My right to free speech is just that, a right but in contrast, driving is a privilege, not a right.

In those days, you could become a king or nobleman by carving out thier own kingdom, our swearing fealty to a king.

Come back from the deep end of the pool, you're in over your head.

You have no historical examples of communism,

We do have historical examples of Communism and its killed around 100 million people so far.

you cannot prove that human nature exists,

The law of identity. Its not the theory of identity, its not the opinion of identity, its the law of identity.

and, of course, I hope I will see what living in it is like in a few decades.

Why wait? Get some commie buds together and share yourselves silly.

Which would mean that collective rights are better for humanity.

Individual rights can be held and exercised by individuals or by groups of individuals, collective rights can only be held by groups to the exclusion of individuals.

Neither is owning land.

If you earn, purchase, or inherit property (personal possessions or land), you have a right to dispose of that property as you see fit. You can sell it, rent it, give it away, utilize it for your own purposes or allow public access to it etc.

Define Anti-thiest as apposed to athiest.

Atheism is passive while Anti-Theism is active.
Atheist: "I don't believe in God."
Anti-Theist: "God does NOT exist!"

A is a. That is all.

Is there a lifeguard on duty? We have shallow thoughts attempting to wade in deep waters....

A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity

How is this very different than what I have been saying?

Because you want to socialize all property, not just capital, not just the means of production.

I already critisize him for being idle and undeserving. All he has to do is work out, gain some weight, tackle people, and toss a ball. Hard work indeed...

If its so easy, why are there more people working for peanuts in a concession stand when they could be making loads of money as professional football players?

You have obviously never been in a high-school before.

You're obviously still there.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

It wasn't an "either or" choice, Marx said Religion would have to be abolished. Argue against that fact all you like, its still fact no matter what your opinion or interpretation.

I am not denying that he wants to abolish it, but the way he wants to. Instead of forcing people into it, he thought thatt, once the conditions that required religion were abolished, it would be the same thing as abolishing religion because, without human minds that use it, religion cannot exist.

My reference to the Constitution is simply to illustrate the foundation of the rights you enjoy but take completely for granted and seek to abolish.

So you admit rights are not eternal or natural.

Can you say with a straight face that anything you just said has anything to do with your ability to purchase land?

Yes.

Communism has killed about 100 million people, without the need for gas chambers. Since you're going to reject any notion of communist atrocities, just skip it. Also skip over the part where you make excuses and blame the deaths on something other than communism... Instead, cite for me something from Marx, or Engels, that demonstrates where people like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao violated Communist principles with their brutal regimes.

How can I, when none of these regimes existed when Marx and Engels were still alive?

Rights vs. Privileges:



Rights exist, privileges must be granted. Rights cannot be taken away, only suppressed by force. Privileges can be taken away as easily as they are granted. My right to free speech is just that, a right but in contrast, driving is a privilege, not a right.

So what is the difference? Semantics do not produce good ideas.

Come back from the deep end of the pool, you're in over your head.

This from the guy who uses wikipedia for the most deep aspects of his ideals...

We do have historical examples of Communism and its killed around 100 million people so far.

Such as?

The law of identity. Its not the theory of identity, its not the opinion of identity, its the law of identity.

The law of identity? Will I be punished for not obeying it? Besides, nothing can be more than a theory unless it is proven.

Why wait? Get some commie buds together and share yourselves silly.

I have.

Individual rights can be held and exercised by individuals or by groups of individuals, collective rights can only be held by groups to the exclusion of individuals.

So there is really only one difference?

If you earn, purchase, or inherit property (personal possessions or land), you have a right to dispose of that property as you see fit. You can sell it, rent it, give it away, utilize it for your own purposes or allow public access to it etc.

You of all people believe in inheritance? You are the guy who talks about people earning a living through thier own work, not by thier father's.

Atheism is passive while Anti-Theism is active.
Atheist: "I don't believe in God."
Anti-Theist: "God does NOT exist!"

Then I am an anti-thiest. Stone me.

Is there a lifeguard on duty? We have shallow thoughts attempting to wade in deep waters....

A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity

Aristotle is not the sole authority on everything. Just putting down things from famous greek philosophers does not make you correct.

Because you want to socialize all property, not just capital, not just the means of production.

I am not going to change my mind just yet, but I will look into that more, and see if I should change my ideas a bit.

If its so easy, why are there more people working for peanuts in a concession stand when they could be making loads of money as professional football players?

Not everyone likes tackling others, 3 hour games with only 10 minutes of actual football, and showering with other men.

You're obviously still there.

It does not take more than 10 seconds of sitting around in a school hallway to see how awful most football players are.

 

[GenSeneca]

You might have missed it but I also responded to comments I had to break up from one of your previous posts...

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=121243&postcount=113

I am not denying that he wants to abolish it, but the way he wants to. Instead of forcing people into it, he thought thatt, once the conditions that required religion were abolished, it would be the same thing as abolishing religion because, without human minds that use it, religion cannot exist.

Marx was advocating for an armed, violent, communist revolution but you honestly believe he wasn't in favor of forcing the abolition of religion as part of that revolution?

So you admit rights are not eternal or natural.

Rights are natural and the Declaration stated the purpose of government was to protect those rights, not to grant them.

How can I, when none of these regimes existed when Marx and Engels were still alive?

Then on what basis do you claim that Lenin and Stalin were not following the Marxist concept of using violence and force in the furtherance of a communist revolution?

So what is the difference? Semantics do not produce good ideas.

The difference is, rights are inherent while privileges are granted.

Such as?

Because of the Soviet Unions blackout of information, estimates of civilian deaths at the hands of Stalin range from 7 million to 50 million or more:

The Tragic Human Toll Of the Early Stalin Years
By WALTER GOODMAN


...Stalin's achievement in blasting his vast country out of feudalism is not ignored, but tonight's focus is on the cruel cost; one estimate is that 20 million people throughout the Soviet Union were annihilated in the first 30 years of Stalin's reign, not counting the losses in war.

Forced collectivization brought starvation to millions of peasants; vast projects took the lives of countless slave laborers; purges depleted the ranks of sometime comrades, intellectuals and military officers. The record is described as ''Stalin's war against his own people.'' -- New York Times

That's just Stalin... The Black Book of Communism places the total deaths attributable to Communism at around 100 million world wide.

The law of identity? Will I be punished for not obeying it? Besides, nothing can be more than a theory unless it is proven.

You do "obey" the Law of Identity, you can't "disobey" the Law of Identity. If you bothered reading what it was, and understood it, you would know that.

I have.

Then why do you attack those who want nothing to do with your Collectivism and threaten to use force against them?

So there is really only one difference?

There are other differences between collective and individual rights, such as individual rights being negative and collective rights being positive.

You of all people believe in inheritance? You are the guy who talks about people earning a living through thier own work, not by thier father's.

I am the one who believes in the concept of private property and that individuals have the right to do with their property whatever they wish, that includes leaving it to their heirs.

Then I am an anti-thiest. Stone me.

How would you characterize religious people?

Aristotle is not the sole authority on everything. Just putting down things from famous greek philosophers does not make you correct.

I'm not sourcing him on "everything", just giving him credit for being the first to identify the law of identity... You can no more argue against the law of identity than you can stop me from speaking without using force.

I am not going to change my mind just yet, but I will look into that more, and see if I should change my ideas a bit.

I'll be glad to help, most of my Marx and Engels is in books but I'm sure I can find the quotes on the net.

Not everyone likes tackling others, 3 hour games with only 10 minutes of actual football, and showering with other men.

So they would prefer working for close to minimum wage at the concession stand? Of course not... you just can't bring yourself to admit that it takes talent, drive, ambition, strength and hard work to be an accomplished athlete.

It does not take more than 10 seconds of sitting around in a school hallway to see how awful most football players are.

There's more to life than high school.

 

[Aus22]

As a Socialist and a Catholic I can see simiarities bewteen pure Communism and Christianity. However I do not think a Christian could be a Marxist. Non could a Marxist be a Christian as Marx himself said religion was the opium of the people.

Most social democratic parties have been formed by Christians. Catholic social justice statements have influence greatly the Labor Party in Australia and thre UK.

I can not see how a Christian could oppose helping the poor thetough such things as Progressive taxation, Social Welfare and free schools and hospitals. Whether this is communism is debatable but Christianity to me is closer to Socialism than Capitalism.

It is true that right wing parties are closer to social policies of Christians like abortion and gay marriages but I do not think these are essence of Christianity. Loving you neighbour is.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Right now I'm exercising my right to free speech... Can you think of any ways to stop me from exercising that right without using force? Since you do not believe such a right exists, I should not be able to exercise it, so you should have no problem stopping me from exercising that right without resorting to methods of force.

I can stop you by cutting you off when you try to talk. "Capitalism is..."-"YOUR MOTHER!!"-:Excuse me, I would like to-""THATS WHAT SHE SAID!!!!"
It would really be a immature thing for me to do, but it is a way.

Strike 1, 2 and 3, you're out!

That wold have been one strike if you could have found a way to prevent me from cutting you off...

You just love making my points for me, thank you!

Likewise, Sheriff, likewise.

Under a purely Capitalist system, you and your communist buddies would be free to set up a little communist enclave and share your property till your hearts content... so long as all who participated were doing so by their own volition.

And the same for Capitalists under a purely Communist system.

Under Communism, you wouldn't allow people to live as Capitalists, recognizing individual rights, having free markets, owning property and capital, you would tell them to get with the collectivist agenda or you would confiscate all their worldly possessions and tell them to get out: (iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants...

When you leave, feel free to go be a Capitalist in some deserted region...

Life is an end to itself, not a means for the ends of others.

Really? Would you enjoy yourself in a world with no human beings?

Slaves had freedoms and just like the Communist, they were taken and given by the whim of their masters. Your communist freedoms could be taken by "society", by a majority, so you would be a slave to the whims of society.

But, if communists decide everything democratically, do you think they would take away thier own freedom? I certainly dont.

I know, you said something about taking someones mansion, sports car, lawnmower, etc.... Marx wanted to place the means of production (what he referred to as "Kapital") in the hands of the collective and clearly stated that personal property (possessions), except in the case of rebels and emigrants, was not to be considered social (collective) property:

"When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character." - Communist Manifesto

Once Capital is placed in the hands of the collective, personal property will no longer be symbols of class, therefore only the means of production need to be collectivized, not all property.

He knows more about my own idealology more than I do! I am very embarressed by this major flaw in my understandding of Marx. I proceed to take the more sensible road"common ownership of the means of production". I always had a feeling that I was saying something incorrectly, and now I have found it. Well, my position is now that of Marx, not what I thought his was.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

You might have missed it but I also responded to comments I had to break up from one of your previous posts...

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=121243&postcount=113


Marx was advocating for an armed, violent, communist revolution but you honestly believe he wasn't in favor of forcing the abolition of religion as part of that revolution?

I do not think he would force it, but he said that the human mind would simply reject it. And without a following, what is the power of religion?

Rights are natural and the Declaration stated the purpose of government was to protect those rights, not to grant them.

I would say that the purpose of a good people's government would be to defend freedoms, but the original purpose of government its self was control. Not that we communists want that, but just to clarify something important.

Then on what basis do you claim that Lenin and Stalin were not following the Marxist concept of using violence and force in the furtherance of a communist revolution?

I said that they did not do anything communist once the revolution was over. They had authoritarian regimes with dictators and a massive beurocracy, the complete opposite of Communism.

The difference is, rights are inherent while privileges are granted.

And you just confirmed my statements.

Because of the Soviet Unions blackout of information, estimates of civilian deaths at the hands of Stalin range from 7 million to 50 million or more:



That's just Stalin... The Black Book of Communism places the total deaths attributable to Communism at around 100 million world wide.

And you honestly think that any of these people were communists?

You do "obey" the Law of Identity, you can't "disobey" the Law of Identity. If you bothered reading what it was, and understood it, you would know that.

Then it is not a law if it can not be broken.

Then why do you attack those who want nothing to do with your Collectivism and threaten to use force against them?

We only do that when they are preventing communists from living in a communist society.

There are other differences between collective and individual rights, such as individual rights being negative and collective rights being positive.

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

I am the one who believes in the concept of private property and that individuals have the right to do with their property whatever they wish, that includes leaving it to their heirs.

Why would you want some snot-nosed brat to have something he doesnt deserve?

How would you characterize religious people?

Innocent people who have been brainwashed into false beliefs, which have killed about 800 million people.

I'm not sourcing him on "everything", just giving him credit for being the first to identify the law of identity... You can no more argue against the law of identity than you can stop me from speaking without using force.

Which I can.

I'll be glad to help, most of my Marx and Engels is in books but I'm sure I can find the quotes on the net.

Thank you. Please do.

So they would prefer working for close to minimum wage at the concession stand? Of course not... you just can't bring yourself to admit that it takes talent, drive, ambition, strength and hard work to be an accomplished athlete.

I am saying that most people would probably hate being in a major sports team.

There's more to life than high school.

I am just using an example.

 

[GenSeneca]

I do not think he would force it

I have read nothing of Marx or Engels that leads me to believe they wouldn't use force to abolish religion, that seemed pretty self evident in their remarks on the subject.

I would say that the purpose of a good people's government would be to defend freedoms, but the original purpose of government its self was control. Not that we communists want that, but just to clarify something important.

The purpose of our government was to protect our individual rights from everyone else, be it other individuals, groups and even government. You see governments protection of our individual rights as government exerting control over the population but I see your Communist government exerting control to deny individuals their rights by enslaving them to the will of the majority.

I said that they did not do anything communist once the revolution was over. They had authoritarian regimes with dictators and a massive beurocracy, the complete opposite of Communism.

You need to read up on your Marx. The concept of transitioning to Utopian Socialism was predicated on building a massive authoritarian state that would have the power to abolish such things as private property and religion, once that goal was accomplished, they were then supposed to begin dismantling the state aparatus... in that, Lenin and Stalin were doing precisely what Marx had called for. So you're complaint should be that they didn't take the necessary final steps to implement utopian socialism.

And you just confirmed my statements.

Its good to hear you're coming around and recognizing the existence of individual rights.

And you honestly think that any of these people were communists?

They were all communists, what they were not is utopian socialists, a concept which you seem to confuse with communism.

Then it is not a law if it can not be broken.

That is a glittering jewel of collasal ignorance.

We only do that when they are preventing communists from living in a communist society.

You have already said that you and your buddies practice communism... so exactly how are people who choose not to participate with your collectivist activities preventing you from exercising communism?

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

Negative rights bar action from being taken against the right. The right to free speech is a negative right, it bars other people and even government from infringing on your right.

Positive "rights", like Health Care, impose obligations on others. If you have a "right" to health care, then someone is obligated to provide you with health care, which violates the individual rights of the provider.

Why would you want some snot-nosed brat to have something he doesnt deserve?

You're the communist... you want to take property from other people, property you didn't earn and don't deserve. Those who own property have a right to do with it as they please, that includes giving it away, even to snot-nosed brats that don't deserve it.

Innocent people who have been brainwashed into false beliefs

If I could get some help from the peanut gallery on this one... Could one of my religious friends please chime in as to whether or not you chose, by your own free will and by rational decision, to believe in your religion? Where you in any way forced, or otherwise "brainwashed", into following your religion?

Which I can.

You can do which... argue against the law of identity or stop me from exercising free speech without the use of force?

Thank you. Please do.

Glad to help.

I am saying that most people would probably hate being in a major sports team.

If we take things like talent, skill, education and all the other requisites out of the equation and simply asked people whether they would prefer to be a pro-athlete or a concession stand worker, I can't imagine more than 5% choosing the consession stand.