right wing attitudes

[RGacky3]

This only has to do with they way right wingers think, and their attitudes that I notice, extremely elitist. For example.

When a man who's worked 30 years looses his job and goes on unemployment he's a parisite, whereas someone who ONLY makes money from capital gains is not, what does that say? RIght wingers don't value productivity, the lower classes MUST earn EVERY dollar they get, if a man collects his insurance HE PAID INTO, he's a parisite, whereas if a capitalist only makes money from other peoples work, he's not, right wingers have a double standard.

Also they have a disdain for ANYTHING remotely democratic, which is why you have an almost universal hatred for unions, you'd think they'd be ok with it because its not the "government" interefering, its part of the market, but the fact is the problem right wingers have with the govnerment is that its democratic, their problem is they don't have 100% control of it all the time, and they hate unions because they are democratic.

Right wingers always talk about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, i.e. everyone has to do things themselves, even though Capitalists get their bootstraps pulled up for them by workers, that does'nt matter.

The reaons Capitalists want everyone to play in the market as individuals is because they ahve all the money, and they'lll always win and the poor will always loose.

THey talk about freedom, but only as it applies to them, for example they'd think nothing about a company owning a town, yet as soon as there is some democratic oversight over THem they think its a breach of freedom, their definition of freedom is Them having maximum power and everyone else not threatening that power through democratic institutions.

They want workers to play fair, they criticize unions for wantin more than the "market wage" or wanting benefits, yet when it comes to them, you better on touch their bonuses.

THey want to get rid of entitlement programs and they say that chairty will do it, yet when asked about those that need charity, they call them lazy, they argue that giving them stuff will just make them more lazy, so even though they want charity to take care of the poor, they are the least likely to support charity.

They argue tooth and nail that EVERYONE can make it (even though all evience points to the contrary), mainly to justify their own power and blaim everyones poverty on the poor, i.e. its their own fault. Its really just disdain for the poor.

They believe everything positive is due to capitalism, whereas everything negative is personal responsibility.

They HAaaaattttteeeee democracy, or anything that lessesn their autocratic power.

Ultimately they are autocrats, they believe they have blue blood, they deserve to be where they are, and everyone else deserves to be poor.

When you listen to what right wingers and free market people say, ultimately thats their attitude.

[Revolution starts with U]

(Insert your western government here), land of the free. Free to the power of the people in Uniform.

[Bud Struggle]

DAMN Gack!

You're on a ROLL! :D

[RGacky3]

Hey, bud, why do you hate democracy?

[Bud Struggle]

Hey, bud, why do you hate democracy?

I don't hate it. I think if the Proletariat took it and did something useful with it we'd have a better world--and I'm all for that.

But till that day--when you take the power and the responsibility that goes with it. I guess we'll just have the status quo.

But as long as you sell your birthright for a mess of pottage--I guess things will remain the same.

The problem is not with the Bourgeoise. We have no power that the Proletarians don't freely give us.

You know that.

[RGacky3]

I don't hate it. I think if the Proletariat took it and did something useful with it we'd have a better world--and I'm all for that.

Then why don't you support policies that would help people do that?


The problem is not with the Bourgeoise. We have no power that the Proletarians don't freely give us.

You know that.

Actually yes you do, its called money.

[Bud Struggle]

Then why don't you support policies that would help people do that? I don't think that's the direction people want to go in.


Actually yes you do, its called money. That's a cop out and you know it. The only reason money means anything is that the Proletarians of the world say it does.

[RGacky3]

I don't think that's the direction people want to go in.

On issues that matter, polls show they do.


That's a cop out and you know it. The only reason money means anything is that the Proletarians of the world say it does.

No, its because the market and property laws are mandated by law.

[Bud Struggle]

On issues that matter, polls show they do.The only polls that matter are votes.




No, its because the market and property laws are mandated by law.You have more power than you know, Brother.

[Skooma Addict]

What is a "right-winger?" does part of the definition of a "right winger" include "one who hates democracy?"

[Bud Struggle]

What is a "right-winger?" does part of the definition of a "right winger" include "one who hates democracy?"

It has everything to do with posturing and nothing to do with logic, reason and a bit of just plain common sense. An even better example would be the local Abortion thread. The artifice used to avoid answering a simple question!...(Best Mod excluded.)

[Dimentio]

Generally, American right-wingers on discussion forums generally seem to be about to flex their own masculinity and their own identity. The same is true for most individuals though. Today in the western world, political individuals are generally just sympathising with a tendency because it is corresponding to their individual sense of self and not of any deeper conviction apart from their identity. The extreme example I guess is punks who buy books by Bakunin and never reads them, who listen to Bob Dylan in the misdirected belief that he is a leftist and who wear Che Guevara t-shirts (don't feel insulted now, RadioRaheem84).




Listen here you limey rat bastard, I do not know how you Red Coats do things across the pond, nor do I really care to know, but here in America we cling to our God and Guns. Surely we would be better off without wankers like you. So why don't you go back to your Tea and Crumpets, and leave American Affairs to us Americans.

With all Due Respect:

RushLimbaughFan

P.S.

Send the Queen My Regards.

[Che a chara]

The current trends of right-wing attitude are greed, selfishness and total ignorance and intolerance. They are an easily lead bunch of paranoidal nincompoops. Trying to have a reasonable and rational discussion with an extremist neo-con makes you wanna scratch your eyes out.

They base their whole ideology on ultra libertarianism, especially in the USA.

ugh, my teeth are already beginning to itch :mad:

[Bud Struggle]

The current trends of right-wing attitude are greed, selfishness and total ignorance and intolerance. They are an easily lead bunch of paranoidal nincompoops. Trying to have a reasonable and rational discussion with an extremist neo-con makes you wanna scratch your eyes out.

They base their whole ideology on ultra libertarianism, especially in the USA.

ugh, my teeth are already beginning to itch :mad:

But that has nothing to do with the Bourgoisoise. That's just Proletarian self hatred.

[synthesis]

That's a cop out and you know it. The only reason money means anything is that the Proletarians of the world say it does.

Cool story, bro.

Power does indeed flow through the barrel of a gun. The lack of class consciousness is only the first obstacle to a successful revolution. The second will be weapons and the servants of the state who use them.

[RGacky3]

But that has nothing to do with the Bourgoisoise. That's just Proletarian self hatred.

I'm talking about political view, most Bourgousie hold those attitudes I mentioned, i.e. the aristocratic world view.

[Dean]

I don't think that's the direction people want to go in.

That's a cop out and you know it. The only reason money means anything is that the Proletarians of the world say it does.
No, money represents labor value in the context of a system that trades the same.

[Bud Struggle]

No, money represents labor value in the context of a system that trades the same.

If you say so.

But if you (as a Proletarian) want to change that. It's up to you.

Isn't it?

The system that currently exists does so only by Proletarian consent.

[Dimentio]

I'm talking about political view, most Bourgousie hold those attitudes I mentioned, i.e. the aristocratic world view.

Not really. Varies country-wise, regionally, and globally. There are also different stratas amongst them. I would for example claim that the super-rich are seeing themselves as enlightened rulers of the world. Overally, they are secularised liberal philantropists who believe they could save the world by doing charitable things.

The prime examples are Bill Gates and DM de Rotschild.

Within the natural resource business, they tend to be more ruthless and openly reactionary, but that is natural if you make a living out of the direct scavenging in the Third World.

When it comes to unenlightened "Ugh ugh, big gun = big dick" attitudes, its generally a very male thing, and isn't so very prevalent within the bourgeoisie, because most representatives of the bourgeoisie do have some academic merits, or at least academic attitudes. Moreover, the bourgeoisie generally don't troll on the web.

[Bud Struggle]

Moreover, the bourgeoisie generally don't troll on the web.

HEY! :mad:

The Bourgeoisie do what they do.

[Dean]

If you say so.

But if you (as a Proletarian) want to change that. It's up to you.

Isn't it?

The system that currently exists does so only by Proletarian consent.

Consent implies a ruling stock in the system in question, which the proletarian does not have.

[Bud Struggle]

Consent implies a ruling stock in the system in question, which the proletarian does not have.

Yes they have a ruling stock. They just do not choose to exercise an option on that stock.

I have no doubt that the Proletarins rule the world. They just have not chosen to use their options. And that is their decision.

[Dean]

Yes they have a ruling stock. They just do not choose to exercise an option on that stock.

I have no doubt that the Proletarins rule the world. They just have not chosen to use their options. And that is their decision.
Economic activity is driven by the cost-benefit analysis of each individual wherein their limited knowledge plays a controlling role in the ultimate decisions made. So the mystification of the market, coupled with direct propagandization by the media, government and school system, directly impact the ability of the proletarian classes to make educated decisions.

Furthermore, the relative ratio of collective to individualist social and economic activity directly impact the likelihood of the above "option" to be carried out.

Your attempt to blame the proletarian class for the economic models of today falls short. Its worth noting that very few of the bourgeois class do not suffer from the same information and consciousness constraints as the proletarian class.

Those who do not (in any class) are invariably a part of the highest echelon of economic class, or one of many small, fractured groups or individuals who "look in" on the hysteria of the market, at best aware when they, themselves engage in the same.

[Bud Struggle]

Economic activity is driven by the cost-benefit analysis of each individual wherein their limited knowledge plays a controlling role in the ultimate decisions made. So the mystification of the market, coupled with direct propagandization by the media, government and school system, directly impact the ability of the proletarian classes to make educated decisions.

Furthermore, the relative ratio of collective to individualist social and economic activity directly impact the likelihood of the above "option" to be carried out.

Your attempt to blame the proletarian class for the economic models of today falls short. Its worth noting that very few of the bourgeois class do not suffer from the same information and consciousness constraints as the proletarian class.

Those who do not (in any class) are invariably a part of the highest echelon of economic class, or one of many small, fractured groups or individuals who "look in" on the hysteria of the market, at best aware when they, themselves engage in the same.

Alll well and good. The Proletarians of the world can change all of that in a heartbeat. All they need to do is to snap their fingers. The information is AVAILABLE to them. It has been available for some time. One fair thing you can say about the Bourgeoise--they give free access to any and every source of information. And still the Proletarinans do nothing.

They CHOOSE not to. What is that to me?

[Dean]

Alll well and good. The Proletarians of the world can change all of that in a heartbeat. All they need to do is to snap their fingers. The information is AVAILABLE to them. It has been available for some time. One fair thing you can say about the Bourgeoise--they give free access to any and every source of information. And still the Proletarinans do nothing.

They CHOOSE not to. What is that to me?

The supremacy of "choice" is a fallacy of market mysticism. If you think my post is "all well and good," then you accept that limited information obfuscates our ability to make educated choices - including the choice to go out and seek information which would prove that the working class is both exploited and collectively has the capacity to change the system.

You can't run back to your argument as if it is universally meaningful. I've given a direct refutation of its validity - you should be obliged to confront that point now.

[Che a chara]

Alll well and good. The Proletarians of the world can change all of that in a heartbeat. All they need to do is to snap their fingers. The information is AVAILABLE to them. It has been available for some time. One fair thing you can say about the Bourgeoise--they give free access to any and every source of information. And still the Proletarinans do nothing.

They CHOOSE not to. What is that to me?

Mass suppression and criminalisation by the ruling class are major stumbling blocks. This is undeniable. Throughout history national liberation and class struggles have been labelled terrorist. Who wants to be in that category ?

Many proletarians have been 'dumbed down', and have been made to feel too comfortable in whatever lifestyle they find themselves in. That is the danger of the free market. It's dog-eat-dog and fuck the carcass, then the normalisation sets in.

[Bud Struggle]

The supremacy of "choice" is a fallacy of market mysticism. If you think my post is "all well and good," then you accept that limited information obfuscates our ability to make educated choices - including the choice to go out and seek information which would prove that the working class is both exploited and collectively has the capacity to change the system.

You can't run back to your argument as if it is universally meaningful. I've given a direct refutation of its validity - you should be obliged to confront that point now.

You have no other choice. Blame, yell, exhort, rally, cry, plead, defy, argue. Who cares?

You either take power or you don't. It's about action not words. Listen Dean, I became a member of the Bourgeois through actions. Nothing I have ever said mattered to a hill of beans--but my actions made me what I am today.

You Communists what a future? It's through action. Nothing else matters---really.
i

[Bud Struggle]

Mass suppression and criminalisation by the ruling class are major stumbling blocks. This is undeniable. Throughout history national liberation and class struggles have been labelled terrorist. Who wants to be in that category ? No IF they lose they are Terrorists. IF they win they are Livorationists.


Many proletarians have been 'dumbed down', and have been made to feel too comfortable in whatever lifestyle they find themselves in. That is the danger of the free market. It's dog-eat-dog and fuck the carcass, then the normalisation sets in.

i don't disagree--but again, it's about winners and losers. there is nothing more.

[Dean]

You have no other choice. Blame, yell, exhort, rally, cry, plead, defy, argue. Who cares?

You either take power or you don't. It's about action not words. Listen Dean, I became a member of the Bourgeois through actions. Nothing I have ever said mattered to a hill of beans--but my actions made me what I am today.

You Communists what a future? It's through action. Nothing else matters---really.
i
Right, and I gave an analysis of why particular actions happen. Are you not going to respond to it?

[Che a chara]

No is they lose they are Terrorists. Is they win they are Livorationists.

To this day, for example, the Bolsheviks and the July 26th Movement have been painted in terrorist colours, as currently are EZLN.



i don't disagree--but again, it's about winners and losers. there is nothing more.

Surely you can see that survival of the fittest is inhumane ? .... Come on aboard dude :D

[Bud Struggle]

Right, and I gave an analysis of why particular actions happen. Are you not going to respond to it?

And I agree--but it doesn't matter. It is only about the winners. The losers turn up like Stalin--with only Keyser Soso defending him on some meaningless website.

[Dean]

And I agree--but it doesn't matter. It is only about the winners. The losers turn up like Stalin--with only Keyser Soso defending him on some meaningless website.
It does matter. The winners and losers both have capacities, interests and exist in a system wherein the economic leverage of each class, and each individual in the class, is not static.

[Dimentio]

HEY! :mad:

The Bourgeoisie do what they do.

I don't really count you to the 1% wealthiest people ^^

[RGacky3]

The losers turn up like Stalin--

Stalin was a winner actually, killed millions, enriched himself, got away with it, a powerful man, your wet dream really Bud, you should LOVE stalin.


Surely you can see that survival of the fittest is inhumane ? .... Come on aboard dude

He gave up christianity :).


Overally, they are secularised liberal philantropists who believe they could save the world by doing charitable things.

Thats part of the aristocratic world view, they don't mind being nice to poor people as long as its THEM being nice, the benevolent dictator thing, its why people like Bud like the wefare system but not real social democracy, because they want to be nice to poor people without giving up the control the capitalists have.


One fair thing you can say about the Bourgeoise--they give free access to any and every source of information. And still the Proletarinans do nothing.



No they don't, its the Law.


When it comes to unenlightened "Ugh ugh, big gun = big dick" attitudes, its generally a very male thing, and isn't so very prevalent within the bourgeoisie, because most representatives of the bourgeoisie do have some academic merits, or at least academic attitudes. Moreover, the bourgeoisie generally don't troll on the web.

yeah, but their attitudes are not the ugh ugh big gun thing, read what I wrote.


Blame, yell, exhort, rally, cry, plead, defy, argue. Who cares?

You either take power or you don't. It's about action not words. Listen Dean, I became a member of the Bourgeois through actions. Nothing I have ever said mattered to a hill of beans--but my actions made me what I am today.


In other words, situations don't matter, facts don't matter, conditions don't matter, because what I believe is the way the world works MUST be that way, dispite all those pesky facts and contexts.

But look, what we are trying to do is encourage them to take power, I take it you support that, if they do.

[Bud Struggle]

Sorry I didn't answer this yesterday--I was unfortunately doing a hit and run on RevLeft because of work concerns.


Economic activity is driven by the cost-benefit analysis of each individual wherein their limited knowledge plays a controlling role in the ultimate decisions made. So the mystification of the market, coupled with direct propagandization by the media, government and school system, directly impact the ability of the proletarian classes to make educated decisions. I could agree with you--but the mystification is not set up by the system. There are no real secrets. Everyone is able to find out as much as they care to find out about the market or anything else they find of interest. One of the nice things about Cpaitalism is that there are precious few secrets. There are books and schools and internet to help the Proletariat find out anything they need to know. It's no one's fault but their own if they do not.

True, the system might be set up taking into account that the Proletariat doesn't find out these things--but that's no exil plot--that's just the maket being practical.


Your attempt to blame the proletarian class for the economic models of today falls short. Its worth noting that very few of the bourgeois class do not suffer from the same information and consciousness constraints as the proletarian class. As I said--if the Proletarians were interested--they could find out anything they want. I was a Proletarian--I found out without much trouble what I needed. I take it that 99% of the people on this Website are Proletarian and all sorts of information both pro and con Capitalism was available to them. If the Communists on RevLeft can do it--anyone can.


Those who do not (in any class) are invariably a part of the highest echelon of economic class, or one of many small, fractured groups or individuals who "look in" on the hysteria of the market, at best aware when they, themselves engage in the same. Do you mean "look in" or engage in hysteria? :D

[Bud Struggle]

I don't really count you to the 1% wealthiest people ^^

Me neither. :(

[Bud Struggle]

But look, what we are trying to do is encourage them to take power, I take it you support that, if they do.

I'm the one saying the Proletariat should have a Revolution--and you guys are giving reasons why it can't happen. :blink:

[RGacky3]

We are giving reasons why it has'nt happened yet, or background.

[Bud Struggle]

We are giving reasons why it has'nt happened yet, or background.

Personally I think it should happen. And I don't think it ever will--but it's not because the Proletariat wasn't given the resources.

It is because they are lambs. :)

[RGacky3]

It is because they are lambs.

Theres the right wing attitude right there.

Are rape victims lambs too?


but it's not because the Proletariat wasn't given the resources.


the top one percent of the US population control more than the bottom 95%, and they are getting richer and richer, worldwide its worse, so yeah, its because of that.

I'm saying they should take it, and I think they will I like MLK believe ultimately history bends toward justice

[Bud Struggle]

I'm saying they should take it, and I think they will I like MLK believe ultimately history bends toward justice Well we agree on the first part--but I think ultimately history bends toward 1984.

It's the part of my Christianity that believes that man is flawed and doomed if he isn't granted Redemption.

[Occidentalrights]

They argue tooth and nail that EVERYONE can make it (even though all evience points to the contrary), mainly to justify their own power and blaim everyones poverty on the poor, i.e. its their own fault. Its really just disdain for the poor.

So, you admit the inequality of man? Are you renouncing the communist belief that environment is the sole driver of human achievement? I'm not sure what "right" you're referring to but these positions you advocate for us aren't well researched. What you believe to be the far "right" in fact most definitely does not believe that everyone can "make it". Our position is that human beings form a natural meritocracy in which each individual performs according to his abilities, and high performing individuals have no responsibility to subsidise low performing individuals beyond the limits of human dignity.

[Dimentio]

So, you admit the inequality of man? Are you renouncing the communist belief that environment is the sole driver of human achievement? I'm not sure what "right" you're referring to but these positions you advocate for us aren't well researched. What you believe to be the far "right" in fact most definitely does not believe that everyone can "make it". Our position is that human beings form a natural meritocracy in which each individual performs according to his abilities, and high performing individuals have no responsibility to subsidise low performing individuals beyond the limits of human dignity.

"Low-performing" individuals have no responsibility to allow "high-performing" individuals to live. :lol:

*troll post deserves troll answer*

[Occidentalrights]

troll post deserves troll answer

My apologies if you felt I was coming across "trollish". was looking for an honest argument

[RGacky3]

It's the part of my Christianity that believes that man is flawed and doomed if he isn't granted Redemption.

Its more a part of it to treat injustice the way Jesus did, but if you were around, I guess it would be the common people were just lambs and weak and really deserved to be treated the way they were.

But again, you seam to have given up any sense of morality and principle.

[Bud Struggle]

But again, you seam to have given up any sense of morality and principle.

You seem to equate being moral with being a loser.

[RGacky3]

You seem to equate being moral with being a loser.

Nope, I equate being moral with having convictions and standing by them. I equate being a christian with trying to emulate Jesus (kind of the definition).

[Bud Struggle]

Nope, I equate being moral with having convictions and standing by them. I equate being a christian with trying to emulate Jesus (kind of the definition).

But Jesus recognized the world for what it was. He didn't live in a pretend world of make believe he recognized slavery and sin and prostitution and a lot of other things. He never tried to reform the world by Revolution. that's the LAST thing he would have wanted.

Read the Bible.

[RGacky3]

He never tried to reform the world by Revolution.

Actually thats exactly what he did, his whole thing was revolutionizing the religious authority (which at the time was the everything authority), and he was vehamently anti-nationalist.

I think you need to read the bible and see his attitudes on oppressed people, then read what he pharases at the time though, because they sound a lot like you.

[Bud Struggle]

Actually thats exactly what he did, his whole thing was revolutionizing the religious authority (which at the time was the everything authority), and he was vehamently anti-nationalist.

I think you need to read the bible and see his attitudes on oppressed people, then read what he pharases at the time though, because they sound a lot like you.

"Give unto Caesar." Jesus never wanted to change the civil order. The early Christians never wanted to change the Civil order. Paul worked WITHIN the Roman society of the day--he made use of his Roman citizenship on a number of occasions.

I'll grant you the current Born Again Christian attitude todards "God and country" is over the top, but there is nothing anti-nationalist in the Bible. FWIW the Old Testament pretty much invented nationalism.

[Dimentio]

My apologies if you felt I was coming across "trollish". was looking for an honest argument

The problem with national socialism is that its unhealthy fixation on performance as some sort of inherent traits is very convenient, since it always would be used as an excuse of the winners.

When you have got rid of all of a specific group, you would start searching for low-performing individuals within your group, to weed them out. Always constantly seeking those who you look on as inferior to yourselves.

One day, you would happen to be the one deemed as inferior. Would it be wrong for those superior to trample on you then?

[Occidentalrights]

"The problem with national socialism is that its unhealthy fixation on performance as some sort of inherent traits is very convenient, since it always would be used as an excuse of the winners.

When you have got rid of all of a specific group, you would start searching for low-performing individuals within your group, to weed them out. Always constantly seeking those who you look on as inferior to yourselves.

One day, you would happen to be the one deemed as inferior. Would it be wrong for those superior to trample on you then?"

I am a White Seperatist, not a National Socialist, I don't advocate such eugenic snobbery.

[Bud Struggle]

I am a White Seperatist, not a National Socialist, I don't advocate such eugenic snobbery.

I knew it was smelly! :D

Welcome to RevLeft Oxy!

[Adi Shankara]

I am a White Seperatist, not a National Socialist, I don't advocate such eugenic snobbery.

Tell me what makes a skin color so special that it is in need of preserving? I am one for preserving one's culture or heritage...but that can be done without subscribing to pseudoscientific racial theories of "purity", or alluding to one's ethnicity.

as George Galloway said, "white nationalist bigots should get a DNA test, they may just be a bit surprised."

[Bud Struggle]

Tell me what makes a skin color so special that it is in need of preserving? I am one for preserving one's culture or heritage...but that can be done without subscribing to pseudoscientific racial theories of "purity", or alluding to one's ethnicity.

as George Galloway said, "white nationalist bigots should get a DNA test, they may just be a bit surprised." There is a lot more Neandrethal blood in White Europeans than in other races. :)

[IcarusAngel]

I am a White Seperatist, not a National Socialist, I don't advocate such eugenic snobbery.

Another Libertarian with his "values" argument.

[Dimentio]

I am a White Seperatist, not a National Socialist, I don't advocate such eugenic snobbery.

Whatever. Ethnic separatism is just another kind of snobbery, especially dangerous when the world needs to be united more than ever.

[Revolution starts with U]

Bud, you will have to provide evidence of that. My training in anthropology tells me there is no dna evidence of descent from homo neandertalis

[RGacky3]

Paul worked WITHIN the Roman society of the day--he made use of his Roman citizenship on a number of occasions.


To defend himself legally, yeah, so did Lenin, so did Fidel Castro


The early Christians never wanted to change the Civil order.

THey opposed it, thats th reason they were killed by Romans.

But what they DID'NT do is have the asshole attitude that you do, of "screw the poor, they deserve it, they are lambs." Thats the attitude they overtly opposed.


I'll grant you the current Born Again Christian attitude todards "God and country" is over the top, but there is nothing anti-nationalist in the Bible. FWIW the Old Testament pretty much invented nationalism.

Jesus entire point was to be "no part of this world" and to get out of worldly politics. Thats the whole damn reasons the Christians were in the Arena, it was'nt because Romans juts did'nt like them, it was because they refusedto take part in nationalism or join the legions.

As far as the old testiment its was because the Jews claimed to be Gods CHosen people, but according to the bible the new testimant changed that.


"Give unto Caesar." Jesus never wanted to change the civil order.

The context of that was saying you should pay your taxes.

BUt again, the entire attitude of the Gospels was completely opposite of your attitude toward to poor and oppressed.

[Bud Struggle]

Jesus entire point was to be "no part of this world" and to get out of worldly politics. Thats the whole damn reasons the Christians were in the Arena, it was'nt because Romans juts did'nt like them, it was because they refusedto take part in nationalism or join the legions.

Here's the important part you miss--the Romans killed them because the Christians refused to worship thei Roman gods--NOT because they wanted to overthrow the empire or change anything about the empire. They weren't of the world so they were not to take part in the things of the world.

And the part about "Give unto Caesar" wasn't just about paying taxes but to work WITHIN the confines of the accepted order and not to change it.

Here's the early Christian The Epistle to Diognetus read expecially chapter 5.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diognetus-lightfoot.html

Being a "Revolutionary" is directly opposed to being a Christian.

[RGacky3]

Here's the important part you miss--the Romans killed them because the Christians refused to worship thei Roman gods--NOT because they wanted to overthrow the empire or change anything about the empire. They weren't of the world so they were not to take part in the things of the world.

Jews did'nt worship Roman Gods either, but they were willing to support Roman sovreignty, Christians did not, they did'nt fight in the legions or take part in Roman nationalism. THATS why they were killed, look it up.


And the part about "Give unto Caesar" wasn't just about paying taxes but to work WITHIN the confines of the accepted order and not to change it.


Then I guess Jesus was a hypocrite, because his whole thing was to change the concept of the Jewish law.

But again, BUD, we are talking about atttitudes here, your attitude (whether or not you believe being a revolutionary is christian or not) is extremely unchristian.

[Bud Struggle]

Jews did'nt worship Roman Gods either, but they were willing to support Roman sovreignty, Christians did not, they did'nt fight in the legions or take part in Roman nationalism. THATS why they were killed, look it up. Not really. Jews were regularly excluded from any tolerance the Romans had to local Gods. The Jews were persecuted as badly if not worse than the Christians.


Then I guess Jesus was a hypocrite, because his whole thing was to change the concept of the Jewish law. Religious law. NOT civil authority. Jesus never challenged the Roman leaders--he said pay your taxes to them. He never challenged the Sanhedrin. "My kingdom is NOT of this world."


But again, BUD, we are talking about atttitudes here, your attitude (whether or not you believe being a revolutionary is christian or not) is extremely unchristian. In your (judging from your obviously rather shakey knowledge of Christian history and theology) opinion. :)

[Revolution starts with U]

It is more difficult to pass a camel thru the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the gates of heavan.
Give up your worldly possessions to the poor and go from town to town preaching the good word.
The meek shall inherit the earth
Those without sin cast the first stone
etc, etc, etc

[Dimentio]

Bud, you will have to provide evidence of that. My training in anthropology tells me there is no dna evidence of descent from homo neandertalis

Actually, recent evidence shows that 4-8% of the genome of Non-Africans are of Neanderthal origin.

[Dean]

Jesus was directly antagonistic to the ruling Roman milieu because his ideology rested on observance of the rights of the poor, which contrasted with the established church of any religions (including Xianity). That's if we're to believe the bulk of the New Testament, that is.


Not really. Jews were regularly excluded from any tolerance the Romans had to local Gods. The Jews were persecuted as badly if not worse than the Christians.

I don't know if the net character of the Romans' treatment of Xians was worse than the same to the Jews. But I don't think that's the point - the point is that the fledgling Xian religion was characterized by a dangerous asceticism which was antagonistic to the interests of the Roman state. The established Jewish church doesn't seem to have shared this characteristic, nor its particular apparent mutual antagonism with Rome.

[RGacky3]

Religious law. NOT civil authority. Jesus never challenged the Roman leaders--he said pay your taxes to them. He never challenged the Sanhedrin. "My kingdom is NOT of this world."


Religious law WAS civil authority.


In your (judging from your obviously rather shakey knowledge of Christian history and theology) opinion.

So your saying that your attitude toward the poor and oppressed (i.e. its their own fault, they are weak, they deserve it, and only power is important and morlity is pointless) is christian?

[Bud Struggle]

Religious law WAS civil authority. Not even close. You are kidding right? Jesus was sent to Pontius Pilate by the Sanhedrin specificly because they had no authority to judge Jesus. Read Flavius Josephus's Jewish Wars.


So your saying that your attitude toward the poor and oppressed (i.e. its their own fault, they are weak, they deserve it, and only power is important and morlity is pointless) is christian? As Jesus said: "The poor will always be with us."

What goes on in this world is meaningless. We are citizens of the next world.

[Bud Struggle]

Jesus was directly antagonistic to the ruling Roman milieu because his ideology rested on observance of the rights of the poor, which contrasted with the established church of any religions (including Xianity). That's if we're to believe the bulk of the New Testament, that is. Neo he wasn't. Jesus wasn't a Revolutionary. He personally said--do you duty to the rules (give to Ceaser...) he never opposed slavery--neither did the earily Christians. He stood befor Pilate and Herod and never denounced them. He put back the ear of the Centerion that Peter cut off. The list goes on.

His kingdom WAS NOT OF THIS WORLD.


I don't know if the net character of the Romans' treatment of Xians was worse than the same to the Jews. But I don't think that's the point - the point is that the fledgling Xian religion was characterized by a dangerous asceticism which was antagonistic to the interests of the Roman state. The established Jewish church doesn't seem to have shared this characteristic, nor its particular apparent mutual antagonism with Rome.

Both sects refused to do the one thing that would unify them with the rest of the Empire--worship the Emporer.

[Dimentio]

We cannot know why he was killed (if he has existed). Most likely because he challenged the local religious establishment in Judea.

As for the Jews, they weren't persecuted in the Roman Empire. In fact, in Alexandria and other places with many Jews, they had their own theatres, temples and even local autonomies. Rome had a thriving Jewish community. When conflicts arose, it was mostly because of ethnic clashes between Jews, Greeks and other ethnic communities, and the Roman authorities often mediated, sometimes intervened.

The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in year 70 CE and the destruction of Jerusalem in 132 CE was a direct result of two Jewish rebellions, not of any particular frenzy, given the usual Roman brutality. The fact that Flavius Josephus could write his history is - if anything - a proof that Jews who changed sides could rise high into the Roman nobility.

It was first when Christianity became the dominant religion that antisemitism started to creep in.

[Bud Struggle]

We cannot know why he was killed (if he has existed). Most likely because he challenged the local religious establishment in Judea.

As for the Jews, they weren't persecuted in the Roman Empire. In fact, in Alexandria and other places with many Jews, they had their own theatres, temples and even local autonomies. Rome had a thriving Jewish community. When conflicts arose, it was mostly because of ethnic clashes between Jews, Greeks and other ethnic communities, and the Roman authorities often mediated, sometimes intervened. They were persecuted--but as the Roman empire had different policies under different emporers it came and went.


The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in year 70 CE and the destruction of Jerusalem in 132 CE was a direct result of two Jewish rebellions, not of any particular frenzy, given the usual Roman brutality. The fact that Flavius Josephus could write his history is - if anything - a proof that Jews who changed sides could rise high into the Roman nobility. The Romans killed over a million Jews in 70 AD, About a half million Jews were killed in 132 AD and a similar amount were semt oin exile around the empire. And then a persecution again in 135 when it was a crime to be circumcised or to read the Torah. Those were the big persecutions--there were also a number of minor ones. "Rebellion" is a loaded word--these rebellions occured because the Jews refused to worship the emporer. Anyway these were vast amounts of Jews being killed--it wasn't just a matter of a few people.


It was first when Christianity became the dominant religion that antisemitism started to creep in. It occured then to--but not until the Nazis did it reach the proportions it did in the Empire.

[RGacky3]

"Rebellion" is a loaded word--these rebellions occured because the Jews refused to worship the emporer.

The Jews wern't required to. The Romans actually (before the rebellions) wen't out of their way to respect the Jewish religion and give them a measure of autonomy.



But again Bud, your attitude toward the poor and oppressed, do you honestly think it was shared by the Jesus of the bible?

[Bud Struggle]

The Jews wern't required to. The Romans actually (before the rebellions) wen't out of their way to respect the Jewish religion and give them a measure of autonomy. AS I SAID: different emporer, different attitude. But killing off a million Jews here and a half million there is no small matter.


But again Bud, your attitude toward the poor and oppressed, do you honestly think it was shared by the Jesus of the bible?Well Jesus said : "the poor will always be with us."

And the answer is yes. It is consistant with Christian theology since the beginning. The Bible says nowhere that all people should be financially equal. the Bible says to give alms to the poor. It says to treat the poor with respect. The Bible says to respect civil authority.

As Jesus said: his kingdom isn't of this world. This world is fleeting and of no matter. We are to pile up our treasures in the next. You don't see that? Have your Revolution, have your Communism or Anarchism--there is nothing wrong with that. But it isn't something ordained in the Bible or the will of God. Neither is Capitalism--much to the embarassment of the Born Agains. There is no "Prosperity Gospel" in the Gospels.

Jesus just wasn't concerned about the material things.

[Edit] Just to clarify: I don't take money or material things very seriously at all. It's nice at times, an inconvienience at others. Having a full belly and a roof over your head is nice and good--everything else is, well if you have it, you have it--but it's nothing to be taken seriously. To be honest, having money is an uncomfortable thing sometimes--it's rather hard to explain. You just have more "stuff" to worry about. Hardly worth the bother.

[Dimentio]

They were persecuted--but as the Roman empire had different policies under different emporers it came and went.

The Romans killed over a million Jews in 70 AD, About a half million Jews were killed in 132 AD and a similar amount were semt oin exile around the empire. And then a persecution again in 135 when it was a crime to be circumcised or to read the Torah. Those were the big persecutions--there were also a number of minor ones. "Rebellion" is a loaded word--these rebellions occured because the Jews refused to worship the emporer. Anyway these were vast amounts of Jews being killed--it wasn't just a matter of a few people.

It occured then to--but not until the Nazis did it reach the proportions it did in the Empire.

The Jews were not exceptionally persecuted in comparison with other peoples who had the misfortune of standing in the path of the Roman imperial agenda. The Britannians were quite brutally subdued, and the Dacians were completely annihilated.

You cannot deny that the age of antisemitism began with the rise of Christianity, and the "murder of the saviour myth", to which the catholic church is bearing a high weight of responsibility. During easter in Rome in the middle ages, Jews were forced to wear horns and parade around the town where people threw eggs at them. The Church didn't condone persecutions, and actually condemned the persecutions of Jews in relation to the crusades and the Black Death, but it created the very conditions for the persecutions to arise.

[Bud Struggle]

The Jews were not exceptionally persecuted in comparison with other peoples who had the misfortune of standing in the path of the Roman imperial agenda. The Britannians were quite brutally subdued, and the Dacians were completely annihilated.

You cannot deny that the age of antisemitism began with the rise of Christianity, and the "murder of the saviour myth", to which the catholic church is bearing a high weight of responsibility. During easter in Rome in the middle ages, Jews were forced to wear horns and parade around the town where people threw eggs at them. The Church didn't condone persecutions, and actually condemned the persecutions of Jews in relation to the crusades and the Black Death, but it created the very conditions for the persecutions to arise.

I never said they were exceptional. They were persecuted in the rather random way the Romans persecuted people. The Jews took particular exception to being a conquered people and payed the price accordingly.

Also I don't think you could call Roman persecution--anti-Semitism. Further those were rather harsh times and to retro-judge the Romans for their morality is futile.

[Revolution starts with U]

Actually, recent evidence shows that 4-8% of the genome of Non-Africans are of Neanderthal origin.
Do you have a link?

[RGacky3]

Well Jesus said : "the poor will always be with us."


Put that in context Bud


But killing off a million Jews here and a half million there is no small matter.

No, its not, but theres a difference in systematically persecuting and killing in a war.


And the answer is yes. It is consistant with Christian theology since the beginning. The Bible says nowhere that all people should be financially equal. the Bible says to give alms to the poor. It says to treat the poor with respect.

Does the bible say that poor people deserve it? Does the bible say there are just wolves and sheep and the wolves should deserve their power?

What about Isaiah 65:20,21 which is basically the communist goal, what about the early christian communists.

What about the condemnation of the merchants and the nobles.

Jesus' attitude was against the haughty against those that oppressed, and with the humble and the oppressed. You are the definition of haughty and the definition of siding with the oppressed over the oppressor.

Whether or not Jesus was a revolutionary or not has nothing to do with it, his attitudes do. Your attitude was the same as the leaders of the time, that viewed the poor as simple of a lesser caliber, that viewed the poor as people who should be exploited.

It does'nt even matter how rich you are, if your an asshole, and an elitist, the type of person that believes that oppression and exploitation are simple things to be accepted and utilized, your not in line with christian thinking.


To be honest, having money is an uncomfortable thing sometimes--it's rather hard to explain. You just have more "stuff" to worry about. Hardly worth the bother.

Tell that to someone who's unemployed.

[Bud Struggle]

Put that in context BudIt seems like Jesus is saying there won't be any Communism.


No, its not, but theres a difference in systematically persecuting and killing in a war. The killing of the Jews by the Romans was systematic.


Does the bible say that poor people deserve it? Does the bible say there are just wolves and sheep and the wolves should deserve their power?

What about Isaiah 65:20,21 which is basically the communist goal, what about the early christian communists.

What about the condemnation of the merchants and the nobles.

Jesus' attitude was against the haughty against those that oppressed, and with the humble and the oppressed. You are the definition of haughty and the definition of siding with the oppressed over the oppressor.

Whether or not Jesus was a revolutionary or not has nothing to do with it, his attitudes do. Your attitude was the same as the leaders of the time, that viewed the poor as simple of a lesser caliber, that viewed the poor as people who should be exploited.

It does'nt even matter how rich you are, if your an asshole, and an elitist, the type of person that believes that oppression and exploitation are simple things to be accepted and utilized, your not in line with christian thinking. Quite a bit of unconnected ranting here, Brother.


Tell that to someone who's unemployed. You have the most annoying habit of choosing just a PART of what I say and quoting me out of context. But if you are going to do that with the Bible--who am I to complain? :D

[Dimentio]

Do you have a link?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18869-neanderthal-genome-reveals-interbreeding-with-humans.html

[Dimentio]

I never said they were exceptional. They were persecuted in the rather random way the Romans persecuted people. The Jews took particular exception to being a conquered people and payed the price accordingly.

Also I don't think you could call Roman persecution--anti-Semitism. Further those were rather harsh times and to retro-judge the Romans for their morality is futile.

There we agree. Roman persecution of Jews cannot be called antisemitism, since antisemitism follows a logic where the Jews are a part of a demonology. I don't think there was any single ethnic group the Romans hated exceptionally much, apart from Carthaginians.

[RGacky3]

It seems like Jesus is saying there won't be any Communism.

THe context is pharasies were criticizing him for allowing a hooker to wash his feet with oil, they were saying that it could have been sold and used for the poor, and he was pointing out their hypocricy, saying the poor are always with us, so you can do something about it (which they don't do) instead of ragging on a prostitute for washing his feet.

Again, context Bud, and you know the context but you choose to ignore it, your not bieng honest.


You have the most annoying habit of choosing just a PART of what I say and quoting me out of context.

My point was saying stuff like "oh money is'nt important" sounds great when you have enough to live, so no, I'm not taking it out of context, I'm pointing out elitist attitudes.


It does'nt even matter how rich you are, if your an asshole, and an elitist, the type of person that believes that oppression and exploitation are simple things to be accepted and utilized, your not in line with christian thinking.

Thats my point.

[Dean]

Neo he wasn't. Jesus wasn't a Revolutionary. He personally said--do you duty to the rules (give to Ceaser...) he never opposed slavery--neither did the earily Christians. He stood befor Pilate and Herod and never denounced them. He put back the ear of the Centerion that Peter cut off. The list goes on.

His kingdom WAS NOT OF THIS WORLD.



Both sects refused to do the one thing that would unify them with the rest of the Empire--worship the Emporer.
The quotes purporting Jesus to be pro-establishment are shaky at best, primarily because they contradict other parts of the new testament - unsurprising, since each account paints Jesus in a different light.

Its not worth trusting the traditional interpretations primarily because the Christian religion has existed as a state-backed religion which has its own interests in a very specific interpretation of the text.

I always though the "give unto Caesar" quote was actually rejecting the tax code - after all, everything is "God's" according to Jesus.

[Bud Struggle]

The quotes purporting Jesus to be pro-establishment are shaky at best, primarily because they contradict other parts of the new testament - unsurprising, since each account paints Jesus in a different light. Dean, I never meant to portray Jesus as prop establishment--but rather that just wasn't his business. Jesus (or at least the Jesus as portrayed the Gospels) wasn't in the interested in worldly authority. His kingdom was not of this world--and his teaching was about getting salvation in the next.


Its not worth trusting the traditional interpretations primarily because the Christian religion has existed as a state-backed religion which has its own interests in a very specific interpretation of the text. I totally agree there.


I always though the "give unto Caesar" quote was actually rejecting the tax code - after all, everything is "God's" according to Jesus.That's fair enough--but most take it as the complete detachment of Jesus for the things of this world.

[Dean]

Dean, I never meant to portray Jesus as prop establishment--but rather that just wasn't his business. Jesus (or at least the Jesus as portrayed the Gospels) wasn't in the interested in worldly authority. His kingdom was not of this world--and his teaching was about getting salvation in the next.
I don't think you've read Matthew.


That's fair enough--but most take it as the complete detachment of Jesus for the things of this world.
It's kind've similar to transcendentalism and Buddhism, and they stem from basic concepts which philosophically reject a restriction to the material world. I don't think that Jesus can be honestly said to be detached from the world, though - after all, he did say he 'comes not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.' These are very real concepts.

[Kiev Communard]

Also I don't think you could call Roman persecution--anti-Semitism. Further those were rather harsh times and to retro-judge the Romans for their morality is futile.

Actually the Romans were anti-Semitic (Judeophobic) because they thought the Jews to be "barbaric" and "rebellious". The Emperor Domitianus, for instance, established specific laws against Judaism, including the ban on circumcision, and Hadrianus reinforced these laws after Bar-Kokhba revolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt)

[Bud Struggle]

I don't think you've read Matthew. I would have thought you would have said Luke. ;) I think the mistake of the Jews that when Jesus was talking of the Kingdom of Heaven--they felt he was speaking of an earthly kingdom--and he obviously wasn't. I also think the Sermon on the Mount was a simple explaination on how one could "see God" or be included into heaven. I don't think Jesus was saying "lay down and take it" exactly--but I do think he was hinting at if you do take it--there will be an ultimate reward.

VERY unmaterialistic views--and views that can easily be exploited.



It's kind've similar to transcendentalism and Buddhism, and they stem from basic concepts which philosophically reject a restriction to the material world. I don't think that Jesus can be honestly said to be detached from the world, though - after all, he did say he 'comes not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.' These are very real concepts. Well yea. The concept of "Peace on Earth" except in the few moments of the nativity narrative is completely alien to Jesus.

But I think the point of the Gospels isn't so much as a comment on society as a person's relationship with his neighbors and with God.

[Dean]

I would have thought you would have said Luke. ;) I think the mistake of the Jews that when Jesus was talking of the Kingdom of Heaven--they felt he was speaking of an earthly kingdom--and he obviously wasn't. I also think the Sermon on the Mount was a simple explaination on how one could "see God" or be included into heaven. I don't think Jesus was saying "lay down and take it" exactly--but I do think he was hinting at if you do take it--there will be an ultimate reward.

VERY unmaterialistic views--and views that can easily be exploited.
“And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” Revelations, 13:17.

[Revolution starts with U]

But I think the point of the Gospels isn't so much as a comment on society as a person's relationship with his neighbors and with God
You're right there, but the nature of this relationship was very revolutionary. It wasn't in any way, just go with the status quo and try to one-up everyone. For the apostles specifically he advocated the rejection of material possessions. For the world as a whole he advocated anti-seperatism and assisstance to the poor (in both wealth and spirit)... the second one being exactly what we advocate ;)
My only question is why did he pick Peter to build his church when Peter obviously got it the least...?

[Bud Struggle]

“And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” Revelations, 13:17.

I'm a Catholic--we don't believe in Revelations!

:D :D :D

[Bud Struggle]

But I think the point of the Gospels isn't so much as a comment on society as a person's relationship with his neighbors and with God
You're right there, but the nature of this relationship was very revolutionary. It wasn't in any way, just go with the status quo and try to one-up everyone. For the apostles specifically he advocated the rejection of material possessions. For the world as a whole he advocated anti-seperatism and assisstance to the poor (in both wealth and spirit)... the second one being exactly what we advocate ;)
My only question is why did he pick Peter to build his church when Peter obviously got it the least...?

Hey Comrade--you posted on this subject before and in my eternal battle with The Great Satan (RGacky) I've neglected your posts. Sorry.

I would say it was more of a "detachment" than a "rejection." You could be rich as Croseus but as long as you didn't "love" your posessions--it didn't matter. Share your wealth. Don't forget that Christianity was "built" on the backs of rich women that took the Christians into their homes and moved it along through the empire.

And Peter? He was an ass and a traitor. Jesus founded his Church on him because it never was (or more correctly--shouldn't have been) about earthly dominion--it was about treasures in heaven.

[Revolution starts with U]

Hey Comrade--you posted on this subject before and in my eternal battle with The Great Satan (RGacky) I've neglected your posts. Sorry.

I would say it was more of a "detachment" than a "rejection."
You could be rich as Croseus but as long as you didn't "love" your posessions--it didn't matter. Share your wealth.

"It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven. Share your wealth, yes. But to be a full follower, he advocated a full rejection of material possessions; i.e. the first time he sends the apostles out on their own.


Don't forget that Christianity was "built" on the backs of rich women that took the Christians into their homes and moved it along through the empire.

I'm not a big fan of christianity. Just Jesus :thumbup1:


And Peter? He was an ass and a traitor. Jesus founded his Church on him because it never was (or more correctly--shouldn't have been) about earthly dominion--it was about treasures in heaven.

[/QUOTE]
I agree. I don't think Jesus was saying as much that he was choosing Peter. It seems he was more predicting that material, un-faithful Peter would build a church around Jesus.

[Bud Struggle]

"It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven. Share your wealth, yes. But to be a full follower, he advocated a full rejection of material possessions; i.e. the first time he sends the apostles out on their own.

I'm not a big fan of christianity. Just Jesus :thumbup1: The Eye of the Needle is a gate into the city of Jerusalem. I have PERSONALLY passed through it ;) --and camels can definitely pass through--but maybe not with a full pack (I didn't have a camel with me at the time. :rolleyes:) It's not about HAVING posessions--it's about how your view your posessions.



I agree. I don't think Jesus was saying as much that he was choosing Peter. It seems he was more predicting that material, un-faithful Peter would build a church around Jesus. I take a slightly different tact. Jesus's church would be built--around a crappy guy doing crappy things--because Peter is who we all are.

But it is Jesus that makes it work.

[RGacky3]

The Eye of the Needle is a gate into the city of Jerusalem. I have PERSONALLY passed through it ;) --and camels can definitely pass through--but maybe not with a full pack (I didn't have a camel with me at the time. :rolleyes:) It's not about HAVING posessions--it's about how your view your posessions.

That interpritation came about in the 9th century, and there is no actual archeological evidence that any gate was called the "eye of a needle."

But again, the attitude, of the weak are lambs and they deserve what they get, and the rich and powerful deserve what they have, how is that compatible.

[Bud Struggle]

But again, the attitude, of the weak are lambs and they deserve what they get, and the rich and powerful deserve what they have, how is that compatible.

I never said DESERVE. I said that this is just the way things are--you are free to change it if you so desire. And while I may not join you on the barrcades--if your Revolution is successful I will do my best to see that its aims are not corrupted (as they have been so many times in the past) in the afterwords.

[Revolution starts with U]

(Your) apathy is what creates the corruption

[Bud Struggle]

(Your) apathy is what creates the corruption

I'm not a Communist. I think Communism is a really good idea, but I just think it would work in the real world. I do think it is a good idea, though.

[Dean]

I'm not a Communist. I think Communism is a really good idea, but I just think it would work in the real world. I do think it is a good idea, though.
You're in the CPUSA... What should we call you? ;)

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm not a Communist. I think Communism is a really good idea, but I just think it would work in the real world. I do think it is a good idea, though.
It doesn't matter what your ideology is. The less people involve themselves with their own governance (and/or are allowed to), the more corrupt it will be.
Also, "but I just think it would work in the real world"
Freudian slip?

[Bud Struggle]

You're in the CPUSA... What should we call you? ;) A Democrat, of course! :D



It doesn't matter what your ideology is. The less people involve themselves with their own governance (and/or are allowed to), the more corrupt it will be.
Also, "but I just think it would work in the real world"
Freudian slip?

That is a bit Freudian. I came here a while ago, by mistake. I was raised during the Cold War and my beliefs on Communism was the same as probably 99% of Americans: Communism was the other bookend of Nazism, all murder and mind control.

I was more than pleasently surprised by the ideas expressed on RevLeft. You people mean well for the human race. I can't argue with that. I have some real issues on the practical side of getting the entire world to agree on something like this--but the end you have in mind--isn't a bad idea at all.

I sometimes argue the other end of the political spectrum from you folks to make OI a bit interesting, but if you could pull off a Revolution and end up with a better, freer, more equal system than we have now withort resorting to Stalinist (yea, I know there is no such thing :rolleyes:) tactics. I say go for it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well that requires we get people to stop being passive on the sidelines and stickin their hand in the proverbial pot. :thumbup1:

[Bud Struggle]

Well that requires we get people to stop being passive on the sidelines and stickin their hand in the proverbial pot. :thumbup1:

We all have out parts to play. You and the other RevLefters job will be to die for the glorious Revolution fighting the forces of Reaction and Capitalism. Some might say that you have the easier part.

My job will come after the Revolution. Using our organization and leadership skills me and my friends will bring all the Communist under our leadership so that we can control the course history forever. We will make sure the the Revolution continues in the right direction. It will be a huge task--and maybe we will the need the use of nice dachas and fancy cars and fine food and a yacht to two (which will belong to the glorious Proletariat--and only ours to use!)--but we will be underpaid for the work we will do.

And maybe some cute Comradinas, too. ;)

We will have our parts to play in the Revolution. Your deaths will be glorious and you will be ever honored as heros of Communism. We may even name our favorite cavier after you. :D

[Revolution starts with U]

Sounds like another perversion of the system is inc ;)

[RGacky3]

My job will come after the Revolution. Using our organization and leadership skills me and my friends will bring all the Communist under our leadership so that we can control the course history forever. We will make sure the the Revolution continues in the right direction. It will be a huge task--and maybe we will the need the use of nice dachas and fancy cars and fine food and a yacht to two (which will belong to the glorious Proletariat--and only ours to use!)--but we will be underpaid for the work we will do.


Let me know when your done stroking yourself.

[Lt. Ferret]

so it can be your turn?

[Revolution starts with U]

In a real people's revolution there will be no discernable lines between the movment and it's leaders. Otherwise it is just another oligopoly.

[Lt. Ferret]

youre so utopian its utterly impossible to take you seriously.

[Dimentio]

Bud is just trolling now ^^

[Bud Struggle]

Bud is just trolling now ^^

It wasn't trolling--exactly. Just kidding around. You know, once these threads run their course---I don't see any problem with having a little joke or two at the end.

:cool:

Not some of you guys--all pretty down to business and serious. Sometimes I think there is no better advertisement for American Capitalist Democracy than RevLeft. I wouldn't be suprised if this site was sponsored by the CIA. ;) :D

[RGacky3]

Sometimes I think there is no better advertisement for American Capitalist Democracy than RevLeft.

Its based in Germany Bud :)

[Bud Struggle]

Its based in Germany Bud :)

I know that. It's the Stalinista attitude I'm talking about. The reason is Communists get no traction from (at least the American) the Communistideology. They don't like you. Have all the websites you like--I've been to most of them, and there is nothing to like. The preach, they shout, the denounce. They expose, they expostulate, they critique. But there is nothing much human about Communism as it's presented by the faithful. Nothing much that Ma and Pa America can buy into.

I'd work on that.

[Dimentio]

I know that. It's the Stalinista attitude I'm talking about. The reason is Communists get no traction from (at least the American) population is--they don't like you. Have all the websites you like--I've been to most of them, and there is nothing to like. The preach, they shout, the denounce. They expose, they expostulate, they critique. But there is nothing much human about Communism as it's presented by the faithful.

I'd work on that.

Super-ideological communists seem to be more enraged by someone misrepresenting - allegedly or not - a position said to be held by an authority, than actual human suffering. I find that attitude horrifying myself. Really, the ideology should be the normative system of what we want, and any theory of how the world is working should be at least somewhat separated from the normative goals. Otherwise, the result could be perversion.

[Bud Struggle]

Super-ideological communists seem to be more enraged by someone misrepresenting - allegedly or not - a position said to be held by an authority, than actual human suffering. I find that attitude horrifying myself. Really, the ideology should be the normative system of what we want, and any theory of how the world is working should be at least somewhat separated from the normative goals. Otherwise, the result could be perversion.

I rewrote a bit (kids and wine bothering me at first go round) but that's been my issue with Communism all along--I've always said it's a good idea in theory, but it's nothing anyone wants in real life at least the way it's presented by you people.

Communism is a private sport, kind of like polo. RevLeft is its country club.

[RGacky3]

They expose, they expostulate, they critique. But there is nothing much human about Communism as it's presented by the faithful. Nothing much that Ma and Pa America can buy into.

Thats a problem for the people that still have sickle and hammer flags and wear Che shirts.


I've always said it's a good idea in theory, but it's nothing anyone wants in real life at least the way it's presented by you people.


According to polls, quite a lot of people do actually.

[Dimentio]

Thats a problem for the people that still have sickle and hammer flags and wear Che shirts.



According to polls, quite a lot of people do actually.

The problem though is that people don't vote in communist parties. And don't tell its because of media resistance. In Sweden, the left party has not nearly got the same level of resistance as the Sweden Democrats from the mainstream media, and yet they do a better election than the left party.