Culture and Revolution

[Milk Sheikh]

Not cultural revolution but how culture influences revolutionary politics. Islam has always been a progressive force, so no wonder revolutions are taking place in Islamic countries one after another.

But a revolution is impossible in a country like India where a primitive religion like Hinduism is the most dominant. So I believe that not only economic conditions but also culture plays a role in developing revolutionary consciousness.

The Islamic religion is very spiritual, so naturally Muslims are more inspired to fight for equality, social justice, and all that. Hinduism, on the other hand, is materialism clothed in religious jargon, so the Hindu people are only going to move toward capitalism (as their materialistic religion complements a profit-based capitalism).

Perhaps, that's why socialism has always been a failure in countries that have primitive religions.

Your views?

[RGacky3]

Islam has always been a progressive force, so no wonder revolutions are taking place in Islamic countries one after another.



Really has it? So Afghanistan was less progressive BEFORE the Taliban, and Iran was less progressive BEFORE the mullahs (and the king for that matter)?

Your full of it.

MAYBE revolutions are taking place in those countries because they are horrible dictatorships that leave the population empoverished while a few elites enrich themselves.


But a revolution is impossible in a country like India where a primitive religion like Hinduism is the most dominant.

Brillient analysis, honestly, you just hate hindus don't you.

One of the most revolutionary anti-colonial movements in the 20th century, was lead by a Hindu, you ever heard of Ghandi? He's a symbol for many revolutionaries.


The Islamic religion is very spiritual, so naturally Muslims are more inspired to fight for equality, social justice, and all that. Hinduism, on the other hand, is materialism clothed in religious jargon, so the Hindu people are only going to move toward capitalism (as their materialistic religion complements a profit-based capitalism).


EVERY RELIGION IS VERY SPIRITUAL, thats the whole point of religions.

EVERYONE, dispite their religions want to fight for equality, social justice "and all that" because its a universal desire.

India is moving towards Capitalism for the same reason China is moving towards Capitalism, it has NOTHING to do with Hinduism, India was in the past on of the great examples of democratic socialism.


Perhaps, that's why socialism has always been a failure in countries that have primitive religions.

Your views?

My view is that your a bigot and a bumbling moron, and this theory is shit.

Ever heard of the Zapatistas? Many of them hold on to what bigots like you would call "primitive" religions (whatever the hell that means, how is one religion more primative than another, they are all spritiual and faith based), How about the Indigenous movement in Bolivia, the same.

Those were amung the 2 most influencial and successfull socialist revolts in the last 25 or so years.

This thread is nothing more than religions bigotry, and idiocy on display.

[Milk Sheikh]

Brillient analysis, honestly, you just hate hindus don't you.

One of the most revolutionary anti-colonial movements in the 20th century, was lead by a Hindu, you ever heard of Ghandi? He's a symbol for many revolutionaries.

Both he and Tolstoy admitted that Prophet Mohammed was their hero, which is probably why they were attracted to concepts like disobedience, to fight for the poor etc. etc. So even if Gandhi was born Hindu, he was somewhat Islamic in his attitude in that he always kept the poor in mind.


EVERY RELIGION IS VERY SPIRITUAL, thats the whole point of religions.

All religions are spiritual, but some religions are more spiritual than the rest.;) Meaning, Hinduism is materialism garbed in religious jargon.


EVERYONE, dispite their religions want to fight for equality, social justice "and all that" because its a universal desire.

True, but their idea regarding equality, social justice would vary. In Islam, justice means justice for the poor, whereas in Hinduism, it's justice only for the upper-caste.


India is moving towards Capitalism for the same reason China is moving towards Capitalism, it has NOTHING to do with Hinduism

Aside from economics, culture could play a role. That's all I am saying.

[Bud Struggle]

Perhaps, that's why socialism has always been a failure in countries that have primitive religions.

Your views?

Well since Revolutions have been going on in Christian countries since 1500 does that mean that Christianity is a much more progressive and spiritual religion than Islam?

[Revolution starts with U]

Paganism had the first revolutions
Hey animism/shaminism was stateless and revolution-ness :thumbup:

[Bud Struggle]

Paganism had the first revolutions
Hey animism/shaminism was stateless and revolution-ness :thumbup:

That's true. It seems Islam is late to the party. (Communist Party that is. :D)

[RGacky3]

he was somewhat Islamic in his attitude in that he always kept the poor in mind.

No, thats not being Islamic in mind, thats being empathetic in mind, and he was a hindu, there are christians, muslims, atheists, hindu's, jews and so on that are empathetic, and some that are dicks, there is no corrolation.

Except your trying to make one, because your a bigot.


All religions are spiritual, but some religions are more spiritual than the rest.;) Meaning, Hinduism is materialism garbed in religious jargon.


Aka .... your a bigot, you don't know whats more spiritual your just making stuff.


True, but their idea regarding equality, social justice would vary. In Islam, justice means justice for the poor, whereas in Hinduism, it's justice only for the upper-caste.

in Islam, it means many things, in hinduism it means many things too.

The reason your brushing it all like that is because your a bigot.


Aside from economics, culture could play a role. That's all I am saying.

What your saying is that Hinduism sucks and Islam is awesome, becasuse your a bigot.

[hatzel]

This is literally one of the most stupid OPs I've ever seen in my entire life...if I were a mod, I'd trash this bullhonk...

[Omsk]

Islam has always been a progressive force
:confused: If you ask me,no.

so no wonder revolutions are taking place in Islamic countries one after another.
These happening's are much like the revolutions in Europe,only these ones are a bit late.

But a revolution is impossible in a country like India where a primitive religion like Hinduism is the most dominant

Perhaps we should not condemn and classify different religions,:unsure: And religion based discusison can take many turns,so i dont think we should burden ourselves with that type of argue.

The Islamic religion is very spiritual, so naturally Muslims are more inspired to fight for equality, social justice, and all that.


Perhaps, that's why socialism has always been a failure in countries that have primitive religions.

Perhaps we should not condemn and classify different religions,:unsure: And religion based discusison can take many turns,so i dont think we should burden ourselves with that type of argue.

My view:Culture can be a valuable asset in the fight against capitalism and imperialism,but what was the proleteriat culture and socialist culture?the October Revolution made these theoretical questions vitally important the new order, faced with creating socialist consciousness in its citizens.The Bolsheviks needed new cultural advances to replace the old ones,left from the opressing rule,such as the replacement of the old Tsarist hymne with a new one,the building of many cultural centers,sport and culture buildings,theathers,cinemas,everything that concerned the socialist structure,so the cultural change was nessecary and it usaly happend fast,for instance,the cultural jump in architecture,under socialism,many-a styles have been born,each with its grand idea,and those are just some of the examples of culture in the revolution.
As for the culture and its impact on the revolution before the change of the leading force,i have a few words - depends,depends on the culture,some are warriour like,some are peacefull,some cultures are rich and different,and they provide place for socialist change,while some are ancient,and the change is not likely.While some cultural symbols may provide exelent paroles and symbolica for the revolutionaries,like when old symbols provided a starting point for new revolutionarist symbols.

And yes,as the other member's said- your first post was rather discriminating and uncorect,we want comradery here. :( Why do you even expect answer with remarks as these you posted.
*Disapointed comrade.:(

[Obs]

But a revolution is impossible in a country like India where a primitive religion like Hinduism is the most dominant. So I believe that not only economic conditions but also culture plays a role in developing revolutionary consciousness.
Please explain how you believe culture comes to be. Since it's apparently completely separate from material conditions, what is it? Magic? Individuals willing it into existence?

I'd also like to know how you manage to classify some religions (Hinduism in particular) as primitive, and how you'd explain the success of the CPIM in Hindu-majority areas, if Hinduism makes revolution impossible.

[ComradeMan]

Islam has always been a progressive force, so no wonder revolutions are taking place in Islamic countries one after another.

No offence to individual muslims, but was Islam progressive in Iran or Indonesia? Didn't old Ghaddafi come to power on "Islamic Socialism"?


But a revolution is impossible in a country like India where a primitive religion like Hinduism is the most dominant. So I believe that not only economic conditions but also culture plays a role in developing revolutionary consciousness.

Hinduism is not "a" religion, do you mean the Vedic religions and the schools of "Hinduism"?

If so, why are they primitive?

[Milk Sheikh]

This is literally one of the most stupid OPs I've ever seen in my entire life..

Stick around opposing ideologies for a while, and you'll change your mind.;)

[Milk Sheikh]

No offence to individual muslims, but was Islam progressive in Iran or Indonesia? Didn't old Ghaddafi come to power on "Islamic Socialism"?

That's the wonder. Even a bad "Islamic" regime seems to be better than the rest. How would you explain that?


Hinduism is not "a" religion, do you mean the Vedic religions and the schools of "Hinduism"?

If so, why are they primitive?

They're not monotheistic, that's why. At least, monotheism makes one spiritual in that anything other than God isn't worthy of worship. But primitive religions encourage all kinds of worship, including the worship of wealth etc. All this indirectly complements capitalism, doesn't it?

[#FF0000]

That's the wonder. Even a bad "Islamic" regime seems to be better than the rest. How would you explain that?

I would explain that by saying that you're fucking crazy and probs. more than a little bigoted towards Hindus and, as conjecture on my part, Sikhs.

You're from India, correct?


They're not monotheistic, that's why. At least, monotheism makes one spiritual in that anything other than God isn't worthy of worship. But primitive religions encourage all kinds of worship, including the worship of wealth etc. All this indirectly complements capitalism, doesn't it?

Value judgements spotted. Who says that this is the difference between Primitive and "Modern" religions? And are you telling me that monotheistic religions don't have the same phenomena going on? Judaism, for example, teaches that wealth is sort of a gift from God that should be appreciated (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Rabbi K), and Christians, especially in America, are FAMOUS for the "Gospel of Wealth" bullshit they spread.

And, please, don't tell me that Islam is somehow more "socialistic" than Hinduism or any other religion. Muslim kings made a ransom off of the Silk Road and from trade. And isn't one of the lingering stereotypes of Muslims the one that they're supposed to be shrewd businessmen and merchants?

[Skooma Addict]

The West is superior to the Middle East and practically every aspect. This is largely thanks to capitalism.

[#FF0000]

The West is superior to the Middle East and practically every aspect. This is largely thanks to capitalism.

this must be a joke post.

[Skooma Addict]

Tis not. I am serious.

[#FF0000]

Do you have any background in or are you know anything at all about Middle-Eastern/South Asian history?

EDIT: I'm seriously asking. Your post has me puzzled.

[Bardo]

You heard it here, Islam is the key to progressive social change.

Unlike like regressive and reactionary Hinduism :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

Well, you know what Skooma-san, I'm just going to go ahead and explain what's wrong with your post. It's ridiculously simplistic and shows literally 0 understanding of the past 200-300 years of Middle Eastern or South Asian history.

Let me put it simply. Capitalism has fuck all to do with the state of the Middle East right now and everything to do with having its wealth siphoned off by the British for two-hundred years and America for about fifty (not as brazenly and completely in the latter case, obviously)

Also, India is where it is right now (referring to its status as a growing player on the international scene in things like the BRIC and the whole "We wanna be on the UN Security Council" thing) as a direct result of the social democratic system that was set up by the (I believe it was) INC-- because as much as you like your free-market dogma, it ain't a sound plan when you're a brand new nation with an economy that's trying to compete in an arena with folks who've been developing theirs for 200+ years.

[Skooma Addict]

Well, you know what Skooma-san, I'm just going to go ahead and explain what's wrong with your post. It's ridiculously simplistic and shows literally 0 understanding of the past 200-300 years of Middle Eastern or South Asian history.

Let me put it simply. Capitalism has fuck all to do with the state of the Middle East right now and everything to do with having its wealth siphoned off by the British for two-hundred years and America for about fifty (not as brazenly and completely in the latter case, obviously)

Also, India is where it is right now (referring to its status as a growing player on the international scene in things like the BRIC and the whole "We wanna be on the UN Security Council" thing) as a direct result of the social democratic system that was set up by the (I believe it was) INC-- because as much as you like your free-market dogma, it ain't a sound plan when you're a brand new nation with an economy that's trying to compete in an arena with folks who've been developing theirs for 200+ years.

For much of its history the Middle East was just as or more powerful and wealthy than the west. I know the West is able to dominate the Middle East, but the important question is why could this happen to begin with, given that historically the West would not have been able to do this.

"The Middle East fell behind the West because it failed to produce commercial institutions—most notably joint-stock companies—that were capable of mobilising large quantities of productive resources and enduring over time.

Europeans inherited the idea of the corporation from Roman law. Using it as a base, they also experimented with ever more complicated partnerships. By 1470 the house of the Medicis had a permanent staff of 57 spread across eight European cities. The Islamic world failed to produce similar innovations. Under the prevailing “law of partnerships”, businesses could be dissolved at the whim of a single partner. The combination of generous inheritance laws and the practice of polygamy meant that wealth was dispersed among numerous claimants.


None of this mattered when business was simple. But the West’s advantage grew as it became more complicated. Whereas business institutions in the Islamic world remained atomised, the West developed ever more resilient corporations—limited liability became widely available in the mid-19th century—as well as a penumbra of technologies such as double-entry book-keeping and stockmarkets"


http://www.economist.com/node/18008627

[#FF0000]

Welp, can't really disagree with you because I think the way you put it right here is more or less right (it's also the story of just about every single instance of European imperialism from the 1400s on, with Europeans taking advantage of in-fighting and atomization and divisions).

I just think "WELL BECAUSE CAPITALISM" is a stupid way to put it.

[Skooma Addict]

Welp, can't really disagree with you because I think the way you put it right here is more or less right (it's also the story of just about every single instance of European imperialism from the 1400s on, with Europeans taking advantage of in-fighting and atomization and divisions).

I just think "WELL BECAUSE CAPITALISM" is a stupid way to put it.

I think there was more infighting in Europe compared to the Middle East, and Imperialism isn't the answer because the question is how was Europe able to conquer to begin with?

(Also there is a new Skyrim gameplay trailer out.)

[#FF0000]

I think there was more infighting in Europe compared to the Middle East

I really, really don't think so. I mean, of course, Britain and France were always going at it but France and England existed. Meanwhile borders and "states" in the East in general were hella fluid even up until the British left in the 20th century.


and Imperialism isn't the answer because the question is how was Europe able to conquer to begin with?Taking advantage of regional instability and adapting to local conditions.

(What's the new engine like? I know they're done with Gamebryo but if the new game runs anything like Oblivion and Fallout 3 then I'm gonna have to pass on Skyrim)

[Milk Sheikh]

I would explain that by saying that you're fucking crazy and probs. more than a little bigoted towards Hindus and, as conjecture on my part, Sikhs.

Huh? Since when did personal attacks become part of a discussion?


Value judgements spotted. Who says that this is the difference between Primitive and "Modern" religions? And are you telling me that monotheistic religions don't have the same phenomena going on? Judaism, for example, teaches that wealth is sort of a gift from God that should be appreciated (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Rabbi K), and Christians, especially in America, are FAMOUS for the "Gospel of Wealth" bullshit they spread.

In monotheism, you're not supposed to worship anything but God as God. Ten commandments makes that clear, plus Muslims also say there is no God but Allah. In polytheistic cultures, anything goes. No rules. If you're in a good mood, even a stone becomes god. If you're greedy, wealth becomes your god, and so forth. Nothing good can come out of a social structure built upon such values.


And, please, don't tell me that Islam is somehow more "socialistic" than Hinduism or any other religion. Muslim kings made a ransom off of the Silk Road and from trade. And isn't one of the lingering stereotypes of Muslims the one that they're supposed to be shrewd businessmen and merchants?

I am talking about religion and how it shapes people's thoughts and behavior, whereas you're talking about stereotypes. Need I say more?

[RGacky3]

Huh? Since when did personal attacks become part of a discussion?


It became part of the discussion when religious bigotry became part of it.


I am talking about religion and how it shapes people's thoughts and behavior, whereas you're talking about stereotypes. Need I say more?

No, you really don't need to say more.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

On a side note, hasn't it been said many times that the beautiful thing about these revolutions is that they offer an alternative to political islam as the sole opposition? The whole "Mubarak/Ben Ali/Insert Tyrant Here needs to be supported because otherwise al Qaeda/Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood is going to take over and nuke Israel immediately" argument has kinda been murdered over the last couple months.

[Bud Struggle]

And on even a further side not--isn't it time for the Palestinians to get going? It seems like the moment is right.

[RGacky3]

They've been doing it for a while, the palestinian situation is a lot different, the palestinians problem is not THEIR government, its an outside government. Its kind of like Iraqis protesting against the US, its a different situation.

Honestly right now I don't know what the palestinians CAN do, they have to resist, but its a different situation.

[Bud Struggle]

They've been doing it for a while, the palestinian situation is a lot different, the palestinians problem is not THEIR government, its an outside government. Its kind of like Iraqis protesting against the US, its a different situation.

Honestly right now I don't know what the palestinians CAN do, they have to resist, but its a different situation.

I know there are defferences--but some strong demonstrations might start some processes going. And they can get some solidarity from other people in the reagon. Right now Egypt is holding with Mubarak and Sedat's peace agreement with Israel--it would be a good time for the Palestinians to shake things up.

[RGacky3]

Absolutely, maybe this will humbe Isreal a little and have them pull thier settlements and blockaid.

[hatzel]

If I could just let everybody know that Milk Sheikh's ramblings about bricks and Hindus being totally incapable of having a remotely good social structure aren't necessarily shared by all followers of monotheistic and / or Abrahamic religions, I'd be very pleased :)

[ComradeMan]

Why are people attacking or singling out Hinduism here?

It seems rather out of place- there are many schools of thought within Hinduism ranging from practically atheistic to monistic, monotheistic, polytheistic (moot) and so on? Which Hinduism? Why?

It also seems strange given that Vedic religion(s), culture and philosophy has contributed so much- including mathematics and, perhaps, the roots of Middle-Eastern monotheism through Zoroastrianism etc. In fact there are many interesting parallels and some evidence that there may have been borrowing- for example, the Flood Myth may well have come from ancient India.

[RGacky3]

Why are people attacking or singling out Hinduism here?


Only one person is, and thats because he's a bigot, theres no reason to pay any attention to this clown.

[Milk Sheikh]

So much animosity here.:(

All I am saying is that most of Hinduism (and pagan faiths in general) is idolatry, and capitalism is the ultimate idolatry. Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, are quite strict in their monotheism, and this in turn helps them turn away from capitalism.

:)

[#FF0000]

So much animosity here.:(

All I am saying is that most of Hinduism (and pagan faiths in general) is idolatry, and capitalism is the ultimate idolatry. Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, are quite strict in their monotheism, and this in turn helps them turn away from capitalism.

:)

And all we're saying is that you're a dumb bigot.

Also there's a difference between polytheistic religions like Hinduism and pagan religion.

[Lt. Ferret]

all religion is fucking stupid. hinduism is stupid as shit. bigot away.

[ComradeMan]

all religion is fucking stupid. hinduism is stupid as shit. bigot away.

What do you exactly know about Hinduism? :rolleyes: How many Hindus do you know? What do you know about Vedic civilisation(s)?

FFS- this thread is just turning into who can flame and/or come out with the most ignorance in general.

Best Mod- you are ill-advised to go around calling people "dumb" all the time when some of your historical wisdom is questionable. Milk Sheikh, your pro-Islam and anti-non-Islam bias shows in practically all of your posts and in a rather unsubtle way it seems that you are saying that fundamentally "Islam" is better than the religions you denigrate.

Come on guys, let's keep the discussion above cesspit level, at least 1/2 a mm. :lol:

[Omsk]

And all we're saying is that you're a dumb bigot.
He may be infantile and probably flaming,but you still should not start even more hatred discussions.

So much animosity here.
What the hell were you hoping for?You started the thread with an post full of hate,and lack of knowledge,and in turn you expect people to have a nice conversation with you about this matter?I dont think so.Next time choose your words more careful.

[hatzel]

Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, are quite strict in their monotheism, and this in turn helps them turn away from capitalism.

Really? Really?! C'mon now...don't be silly...at least try to apply some logic to all this...

[RGacky3]

Come on guys, let's keep the discussion above cesspit level, at least 1/2 a mm. :lol:

A discussion like this does'nt belong anywhere above cesspit level.


FFS- this thread is just turning into who can flame and/or come out with the most ignorance in general.


This thread is a bigot trying to raise his faith above others, and his culture above others, and everyone else acting ABSOLTELY appropriately, a OP like this deserves nothing more than being called a idiotic bigot.

So much animosity here.:(

All I am saying is that most of Hinduism (and pagan faiths in general) is idolatry, and capitalism is the ultimate idolatry. Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, are quite strict in their monotheism, and this in turn helps them turn away from capitalism.

:)

Animosity is what happens when your a bigot, especially at revleft.

As for your second paragraph, look up what the word "idolatry" means. (also technically Hinduism is not polytheistic, considering all gods are just representations Brahman).

Also there are many different forms of hinduism and many different traditions. ALso Capitalism is not idolatry, its an economic system.


He may be infantile and probably flaming,but you still should not start even more hatred discussions.


If someone comes on revleft promoting what amounts to hate speach, you should expect everything that comes to him after.

[Omsk]

This discussion should have ended after the first 3-4 post's,the rest are mostly his flaming post's and negative feedback on them.

[Revolutionair]

Why didn't this thread get closed already? If I made a thread saying that Catholicism is somehow the most advanced culture on the earth and that all other cultures are of a 'lower value' and counter-revolutionary and that they should be opposed, I would be banned.

[Lt. Ferret]

What do you exactly know about Hinduism? :rolleyes: How many Hindus do you know? What do you know about Vedic civilisation(s)?

FFS- this thread is just turning into who can flame and/or come out with the most ignorance in general.

Best Mod- you are ill-advised to go around calling people "dumb" all the time when some of your historical wisdom is questionable. Milk Sheikh, your pro-Islam and anti-non-Islam bias shows in practically all of your posts and in a rather unsubtle way it seems that you are saying that fundamentally "Islam" is better than the religions you denigrate.

Come on guys, let's keep the discussion above cesspit level, at least 1/2 a mm. :lol:

i know 1 its based on shit that doesnt exist and 2. women have been forced to throw themselves on bonfires.

dont mistake your anti-imperialism with anti-westernist values.

[Rafiq]

The West is superior to the Middle East and practically every aspect. This is largely thanks to capitalism.

The Middle East was superier than the west a thousand years ago in every single fucking way.

Ancient China arguably was superier than everyone in every way too.

So it has fucking nothing to do with Capitalism you colossal fuck, the power moves to all regions on Earth.

If Anything, Capitalism is taking AWAY the superiority from the west.

[Rafiq]

For much of its history the Middle East was just as or more powerful and wealthy than the west. I know the West is able to dominate the Middle East, but the important question is why could this happen to begin with, given that historically the West would not have been able to do this.

"The Middle East fell behind the West because it failed to produce commercial institutions—most notably joint-stock companies—that were capable of mobilising large quantities of productive resources and enduring over time.

Europeans inherited the idea of the corporation from Roman law. Using it as a base, they also experimented with ever more complicated partnerships. By 1470 the house of the Medicis had a permanent staff of 57 spread across eight European cities. The Islamic world failed to produce similar innovations. Under the prevailing “law of partnerships”, businesses could be dissolved at the whim of a single partner. The combination of generous inheritance laws and the practice of polygamy meant that wealth was dispersed among numerous claimants.


None of this mattered when business was simple. But the West’s advantage grew as it became more complicated. Whereas business institutions in the Islamic world remained atomised, the West developed ever more resilient corporations—limited liability became widely available in the mid-19th century—as well as a penumbra of technologies such as double-entry book-keeping and stockmarkets"


http://www.economist.com/node/18008627


The west did beat Islam to Capitalism while the middle east stayed in Feudalism for religious reasons.

But today Capitalism is far from successful. We don't have feudalism anymore. Why don't you compare the before and after effects of 'Socialism' in any country, and tell me capitalism works.

[Rafiq]

Fuck both Islam and Hindusim. How bout that for ya?

Almost all religion is primitive.

[Omsk]

The Middle East was superier than the west a thousand years ago in every single fucking way.
Medicine.
Have you got any idea how much the Balkans suffer because of Islam and the Otoman invaders?They literaly pulled us back another 100 in the past.


So it has fucking nothing to do with Capitalism you colossal fuck, the power moves to all regions on Earth.
Fuck fuck fuck comrade,no need to be hostile toward other people,even if you disagree with them in every way,keep it civil.


If Anything, Capitalism is taking AWAY the superiority from the west.
Capitalism is a sickness on its own,but i'd rather bee under a capitalist than under an religious leader-monarchist/islamist.

[Diello]

islam has always been a progressive force

bahahahahahahahahaha!!

[Skooma Addict]

The Middle East was superier than the west a thousand years ago in every single fucking way.

Ancient China arguably was superier than everyone in every way too.

So it has fucking nothing to do with Capitalism you colossal fuck, the power moves to all regions on Earth.

If Anything, Capitalism is taking AWAY the superiority from the west.

What you said here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You are basically agreeing with my point.

[dearest chuck]

All I am saying is that most of Hinduism (and pagan faiths in general) is idolatry, and capitalism is the ultimate idolatry. Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, are quite strict in their monotheism, and this in turn helps them turn away from capitalism
another thing to recommend islam is how there isn't a caste system, which has to be the single most reactionary religious institution in existence.

[Rafiq]

Medicine.
Have you got any idea how much the Balkans suffer because of Islam and the Otoman invaders?They literaly pulled us back another 100 in the past.


They were superior in medicine as well. And wow, am I morally justifying Islam or it's followers? No. They were like what the US is today. They invaded lands, enslaved people, murdered, ect. ect. Just like most of the "Top dogs" today. Fuck the Ottoman Empire. K?



Fuck fuck fuck comrade,no need to be hostile toward other people,even if you disagree with them in every way,keep it civil.

Well I am offended for the countless people who are victims of Capitalism, capitalism is far from successful.



Capitalism is a sickness on its own,but i'd rather bee under a capitalist than under an religious leader-monarchist/islamist.

Your point? I'm sure everyone here would rather live in Capitalism than fuedalism.

But the Middle East is almost 100% Capitalist. The reason Europe is much more successful is because of Imperialism, not because "They have better system".

Both systems suck though.

[Rafiq]

another thing to recommend islam is how there isn't a caste system, which has to be the single most reactionary religious institution in existence.

Look, the younger religions are, the less reactionary they tend to be....

I mean, look at religions like Bahai'ism, that's probably one of the most non reactionary religions I've came across.

Point being is that organized religion is a problem and it's irrelivant that we say things like "Well this Reactionary Idealogy is Less than This Reactionary Idealogy therefore it is progressive".

But what else could you expect from a Saddamist.

[Omsk]

They were superior in medicine as well. And wow, am I morally justifying Islam or it's followers? No. They were like what the US is today. They invaded lands, enslaved people, murdered, ect. ect. Just like most of the "Top dogs" today. Fuck the Ottoman Empire. K?
All right,we agree on that.

Well I am offended for the countless people who are victims of Capitalism, capitalism is far from successful.
I lost alot of dear people in the struggle against capitalism and imperialism.And i ques we agree on that matter too.

Both systems suck though.
I agree.

[#FF0000]

2. women have been forced to throw themselves on bonfires.

This is actually completely untrue.

[Lt. Ferret]

This is actually completely untrue.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28practice%29

k.

[Os Cangaceiros]

In keeping with the intellectual level of the thread thus far:

Kill priests! Burn churches! SET FIRE TO THE HOUSES OF WORSHIP!

[#FF0000]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28practice%29

k.

Yeah I know what it is but it hardly ever happened at all. Literally next to no one practiced it.

[ComradeMan]

i know 1 its based on shit that doesnt exist and 2. women have been forced to throw themselves on bonfires.

dont mistake your anti-imperialism with anti-westernist values.


Thanks for that profound insight. :crying:

Now, exactly on what shit that does not exist is "Hinduism" based on? Don't you think you're sounding a bit narrow and bigotted with statements like this?

Out of interest- do classes exist? I mean, does a class actually exist like an apple exists? Can you touch a class?:lol:

[RGacky3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28practice%29 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28practice%29)

k.

Thats like saying that burning witches is a part of cristianity though.

[black magick hustla]

fuck culture burn it destroiy it all i dont have culture

[resurgence]

fuck culture burn it destroiy it all i dont have culture

Funnily enough the type of person who is usually into saying that they want to destroy culture is usually the type of person most immersed in it, maybe the type of person who chooses a screen name taken from a fairly obscure proto-surrealist 19 th century novel? And maybe also the type of person who has a line from Baudelaire under that screen name?

[Baseball]

What this fellow seems to be saying is that the structure and faith of the Hindu religion is such that makes progress toward socialism impossible, whereas Islam is more compatible with socialism. He or she was immediately denounced as a bigot.

I know nothing of the Hindu faith. BUT, it is fairly ridiculous to say that religion does NOT have a cultural influence in a country and over a people and an influence in how people think. In Europe, the Protestant Reformation is considered a major economic step forward, given that the Protestant churches had a different opinion about merchants than did Catholics. Would such a view be bigoted?

Amongst revlefters and other assorted socialists, the requirement of a "worker consciousness", "class consciousness" is often stated as a necessary pre-condition for a successful revolution. Again, if people do not think a certain way, it makes for an unsuccessful revolt.

[Baseball]

I know there are defferences--but some strong demonstrations might start some processes going. And they can get some solidarity from other people in the reagon. Right now Egypt is holding with Mubarak and Sedat's peace agreement with Israel--it would be a good time for the Palestinians to shake things up.


It is entirely reasonable to suppose that that the Palestinians would garner sympathy in the Arab world should they rise up against their Hamas and Palestinian Authority oppressors.

[RGacky3]

I know nothing of the Hindu faith. BUT, it is fairly ridiculous to say that religion does NOT have a cultural influence in a country and over a people and an influence in how people think. In Europe, the Protestant Reformation is considered a major economic step forward, given that the Protestant churches had a different opinion about merchants than did Catholics. Would such a view be bigoted?

Amongst revlefters and other assorted socialists, the requirement of a "worker consciousness", "class consciousness" is often stated as a necessary pre-condition for a successful revolution. Again, if people do not think a certain way, it makes for an unsuccessful revolt.

Except he was'nt making an argument like that. He was simply saying Hinduism is less spiritual than Islam, which is baseless, and that it is primative, which is baseless, and that it somehow leaves people without proper morals, which is baseless.

His ONLY argument is based on bigotry.

[Baseball]

Except he was'nt making an argument like that. He was simply saying Hinduism is less spiritual than Islam, which is baseless, and that it is primative, which is baseless, and that it somehow leaves people without proper morals, which is baseless.

His ONLY argument is based on bigotry.

He was claiming Hindus do not have "proper morals" to be "proper" socialists.

The rest read as an attempt to claim Islam is a better path to travel.

[RGacky3]

He was claiming Hindus do not have "proper morals" to be "proper" socialists.

The rest read as an attempt to claim Islam is a better path to travel.

And how is that not being a dickhead bigot?

[hatzel]

He was claiming Hindus do not have "proper morals" to be "proper" socialists.

Which, in this case, means "HINDUS LIKE WORSHIP MONEY AND STUFF!!!111!!!11222!!!!ELEVENTYONE!!! :cursing:"

[ComradeMan]

Funnily enough the type of person who is usually into saying that they want to destroy culture is usually the type of person most immersed in it, maybe the type of person who chooses a screen name taken from a fairly obscure proto-surrealist 19 th century novel? And maybe also the type of person who has a line from Baudelaire under that screen name?

Game, set and match- penalty kick that smashes through the net and knocks the goal posts down with force!

Credit, that was one of the best "smack downs" at Revleft for a while.
:lol:

[Baseball]

And how is that not being a dickhead bigot?

Well, in the former, as I mentioned earlier, socialists hereabouts have argued that workers have to have certain "consciousness level" for an effective socialist community. Its not really any different.

As far as the latter, the fellow believes Islam is the way to go. For the devout, it makes no sense to say that ALL religions are equal. Otherwise what's the point?

[RGacky3]

socialists hereabouts have argued that workers have to have certain "consciousness level" for an effective socialist community. Its not really any different.


Pretty mean it means that workers need to understand that they are being exploited to have to do something about it ....

Thats not the same as saying "such and such religion does'nt have morals and thus can't be socialist, whereas such and such religion is super spiritual and great."

YOu can't see the difference?


For the devout, it makes no sense to say that ALL religions are equal. Otherwise what's the point?

He's not saying that Islam is the right way to go, or its the true path to God, thats whatever (first of all it belongs in the religion section, second its really his own buisiness) What he is saying is that an entire religious tradition causes a personality disorder.

You don't get how thats bigoted?

[ComradeMan]

He's not saying that Islam is the right way to go, or its the true path to God, thats whatever (first of all it belongs in the religion section, second its really his own buisiness) What he is saying is that an entire religious tradition causes a personality disorder.

You don't get how thats bigoted?

A bit like some of the militant atheists around here who like to refer to religious/spiritual people in general as mentally ill.... :crying:

[hatzel]

A bit like some of the militant atheists around here who like to refer to religious/spiritual people in general as mentally ill.... :crying:

Danke sehr :)

[Baseball]

Pretty mean it means that workers need to understand that they are being exploited to have to do something about it ....

Thats not the same as saying "such and such religion does'nt have morals and thus can't be socialist, whereas such and such religion is super spiritual and great."

YOu can't see the difference?



He's not saying that Islam is the right way to go, or its the true path to God, thats whatever (first of all it belongs in the religion section, second its really his own buisiness) What he is saying is that an entire religious tradition causes a personality disorder.

You don't get how thats bigoted?

I re-read what he wrote. I'm still seeing a claim that how Hinduism is structured makes it extremely difficult for them to be proper socialists.

[RGacky3]

I re-read what he wrote. I'm still seeing a claim that how Hinduism is structured makes it extremely difficult for them to be proper socialists.

Thats because your not very bright and you can't read what people mean and motivations for what they right, its not even based on fact, its just bigotry. Anyway, whatever, if you do'nt see how thats bigoted then somethings wrong with you.

[ComradeMan]

Thats because your not very bright and you can't read what people mean and [the] motivations for what they right, its not even based on fact, its just bigotry. Anyway, whatever, if you do'nt see how thats bigoted then somethings wrong with you.

It's not very nice insulting people's intelligence all over the place. Try to give people some benefit of the doubt too, they may not be using their own language. Question what someone means first and ask them to explain before you jump in with insults. Otherwise, make sure you don't make the grammatical/spelling mistakes highlighted (in your own language) if you are going to accuse others of stupidity.

Let's be nice! ;)

[Viet Minh]

India has more revolutionary groups than most other countries, however a revolution is not necessarily progression. For example Yugoslavia, a leftist country now divided into reactionary states based on national/ racial and religious differences, not to mention decades of vicious civil war. And the reason for it is bigotry and ignorance.

[RGacky3]

It's not very nice insulting people's intelligence all over the place. Try to give people some benefit of the doubt too, they may not be using their own language. Question what someone means first and ask them to explain before you jump in with insults. Otherwise, make sure you don't make the grammatical/spelling mistakes highlighted (in your own language) if you are going to accuse others of stupidity.

Let's be nice! ;)

I'm questioning his intelligence because he does'nt get why the OPs post is not bigoted, it has nothing to do with language.

[ComradeMan]

I'm questioning his intelligence because he does'nt get why the OPs post is not bigoted, it has nothing to do with language.

Well it obviously does have something to do with language if he doesn't understand why it's bigotted! :lol:

So, when someone doesn't understand they are stupid.... well done!

[Baseball]

Thats because your not very bright and you can't read what people mean and motivations for what they right, its not even based on fact, its just bigotry. Anyway, whatever, if you do'nt see how thats bigoted then somethings wrong with you.

As I have bever seen this person before on this thread, I cannot evaluate his motivations. All I can fall back upon is the fact that religion influences culture. Based upon this, can a culture thus be a hindrance in the development of socialism? Considering the affirmation of this by revlefters over the months on this board, I can hardly dissagree. Thus we are left with the proposition of the OP that culture spawned by Hinduism is a hindrance to the development of socialism. Is he or she correct? i have absolutely no idea, and quite frankly, I don't give a damm. But to dismiss it out of hand as bigotry... nah. Not buying it.

[RGacky3]

Well it obviously does have something to do with language if he doesn't understand why it's bigotted! :lol:

So, when someone doesn't understand they are stupid.... well done!

Nope, its not the language, this guy speaks english pretty well.

ANd yeah, if you don't understand something as basic and simple as this ... your stupid, theres no language problem here.

[RGacky3]

But to dismiss it out of hand as bigotry... nah. Not buying it.

If I say black people can't self organize because they have a bad culture and bad morals inherently and white people are actually better because they have better morals and a better culture, and I don't actually present any proper facts or historical evidence to the claim (which might possible, although very unlikely, make the motivation a simple honest really bad attempt at an evaluation of culture), what other motivation could there be??? Its simply bigoted.

He's trying to prove that Hindus are inferior, thats pretty much what he's saying, now if you don't get how thats a bigoted statement then yeah, your dumb.

[ComradeMan]

Nope, its not the language, this guy speaks english pretty well.

ANd yeah, if you don't understand something as basic and simple as this ... your stupid, theres no language problem here.

Well you must be pretty stupid by your own definition then. He was saying that Hindusim as a religious culture has produced a society in which there are obstacles to socialism- which is a fair comment, see caste system etc. What I found unacceptable was more the assertion in the OP that Islam is "superior" and that we can even make such a value judgement- coupled with the sweeping generalisations.

[Omsk]

ANd yeah, if you don't understand something as basic and simple as this ... your stupid, theres no language problem here
This is simply not true,just because someone failed to see your point does not mean he is stupid,maybe you didnt present your opinion in a way that he could understand it.
Or maybe he is just playing with you?

[black magick hustla]

Funnily enough the type of person who is usually into saying that they want to destroy culture is usually the type of person most immersed in it, maybe the type of person who chooses a screen name taken from a fairly obscure proto-surrealist 19 th century novel? And maybe also the type of person who has a line from Baudelaire under that screen name?

hahahaha ouch

it doesn't matter though. i would never come politically to the defense of lautremont or baudelaire:



Culture: the working class do not have a culture. There is no asian culture, there is no black culture, there is no 'people's' culture. All culture is bourgeois culture and its products are fashioned for specialised markets. Into its very refinement is folded its barbarity. How much suffering of others purchases one unit of freedom for a patron to feel rich enough to pass it on to the artist so that he may create? All artworks are bought with blood and sweat. Tie special freedom of the artist is an ugly thing when considered in context of the slavery of others, and yet it is a freedom, the freedom of the dirty face pressed up against the window of opulence, there is beauty and fascination in it. The very best capitalist society may produce is mired and dragged down by its basic structure. No matter that our first instinct for our favourite pieces is to defend them, preserve them, involve ourselves in them. We have had our say about DaDa and pop music but we must, in the end, admit to their ultimate worthlessness and declare that we are prepared not to raise a finger in their defence or their salvage.

you don't know me. i grew up in an enviroment that as a token ethnic dude, i've been pressured to be "one of them", to come into the defense of those things that "weight like a nightmare on the brain of the living" in the name of preserving my heritage.. whatever i find in this miserable historical situation enjoyable because i can identify through means of my misery and alienation does not mean i am going to raise a finger for its political defense if the alternative is to delete it in the name of the new human community. i like opioids, it does not mean i am going to defend them.

[Bud Struggle]

Says it all:

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/CHE_Turban_anniversary.gif

[resurgence]

hahahaha ouch

it doesn't matter though. i would never come politically to the defense of lautremont or baudelaire.

Who was politically attacking either (though I might get around to politically attacking Lautremount there are a lot more pressing issues) or who was saying that the alternative was between literature and a new community? Do you believe that all books, plays, paintings, etc from the "old world" should be consumed in flames the day after the revolution and humanity should start culturally from stratch? A cultural year zero so to speak?

[Lt. Ferret]

Thanks for that profound insight. :crying:

Now, exactly on what shit that does not exist is "Hinduism" based on? Don't you think you're sounding a bit narrow and bigotted with statements like this?

Out of interest- do classes exist? I mean, does a class actually exist like an apple exists? Can you touch a class?:lol:


youre telling me that not believing a vast pantheon of polytheistic gods rules our earth makes me a bigot? that decrying such ignorance is bigotry? utter foolishness on your part.

classes exist, but they dont exist as narrowly as defined in the 1840s.

[RGacky3]

Well you must be pretty stupid by your own definition then. He was saying that Hindusim as a religious culture has produced a society in which there are obstacles to socialism- which is a fair comment, see caste system etc. What I found unacceptable was more the assertion in the OP that Islam is "superior" and that we can even make such a value judgement- coupled with the sweeping generalisations.

Are you just trying to be the Anti-Gacky here? Sometimes it kind of feels like that, your not actually disagreeing with me.

What I'm saying is the OPs entire point was just that Hinduism sucks, its not spiritual, its primative and Islam is better, that point is Bigoted, as far as the culture, its never proved to be an obsticle in the past, also the modern caste system does'nt really have to do with the Hindu faith.

But anyway, if you don't get that what the OP said was offensive, then your pretty stupid. If that pisses you off then so be it.


This is simply not true,just because someone failed to see your point does not mean he is stupid,maybe you didnt present your opinion in a way that he could understand it.
Or maybe he is just playing with you?

If someone fails to see such a simple and basic point that something which is CLEARLY offensive to everyone else is offensive, yeah, thats stupid.

If he's just playing with me it would be suprising because its pointless.


youre telling me that not believing a vast pantheon of polytheistic gods rules our earth makes me a bigot? that decrying such ignorance is bigotry? utter foolishness on your part.

No, who the hell said that? Your just making up arguments no one ever made.

[ComradeMan]

Are you just trying to be the Anti-Gacky here? Sometimes it kind of feels like that, your not actually disagreeing with me.

What I'm saying is the OPs entire point was just that Hinduism sucks, its not spiritual, its primative and Islam is better, that point is Bigoted, as far as the culture, its never proved to be an obsticle in the past, also the modern caste system does'nt really have to do with the Hindu faith.

Read my comments on the OP and his subsequent wording. I have stated where I disagree it with and look at my follow-up posts. He also did attempt to make it clear that he was talking about the religion and not individual people- but you must be pretty stupid if you can't read/understand that.


But anyway, if you don't get that what the OP said was offensive, then your pretty stupid. If that pisses you off then so be it.

So be it Gacky, it's irritating reading through your ungrammatical, badly spelt and ill-thought out rantings in which you have the audacity to accuse people of being stupid.

It's also ironic, and that is what I believe some members here have seen, that the OP is using argumentation that the militant atheists use against religious/spiritual people as a whole.

As far as the caste system is concerned you are completely wrong- the caste system dates back to the dawn of recorded Vedic history. The Manu Smriti codified the caste system in laws around the 1st century BCE.

[RGacky3]

He also did attempt to make it clear that he was talking about the religion and not individual people- but you must be pretty stupid if you can't read/understand that.


Ok how about this, black people are dirty ... No I'm talking about the race, not individual people. Thats a rediculous distinction.


So be it Gacky, it's irritating reading through your ungrammatical, badly spelt and ill-thought out rantings in which you have the audacity to accuse people of being stupid.


Does it bother you that I spell bad? Really? Also when I write something ill thought out, point out where I'm wrong and I'll address it.


As far as the caste system is concerned you are completely wrong- the caste system dates back to the dawn of recorded Vedic history. The Manu Smriti codified the caste system in laws around the 1st century BCE.

Thats not the modern caste system which is different and not really based on the hindu texts, the hindu texts talk about the different roles and classes however within Hinduism there are different interpritations about the meaning of Varna or the castes, its not more inherent to Hinduism than the pope is to christianity.

[ComradeMan]

Ok how about this, black people are dirty ... No I'm talking about the race, not individual people. Thats a rediculous distinction.

But he didn't say that- you threw that "strawman" into the argument.


Does it bother you that I spell bad? Really? Also when I write something ill thought out, point out where I'm wrong and I'll address it.

No but itt does'nt help you're case when your saying people is stuppid-


Thats not the modern caste system which is different and not really based on the hindu texts, the hindu texts talk about the different roles and classes however within Hinduism there are different interpritations about the meaning of Varna or the castes, its not more inherent to Hinduism than the pope is to christianity.

The caste system in one form or another is as old as the Vedic civilisation and the idea of caste is common to Indo-Europeans cultures as well as other ones in Southern Asia. No one is denying that it hasn't developed over the course of 3000 years but to assert that it is a modern phenomenon is entirely ahistorical.

[RGacky3]

But he didn't say that- you threw that "strawman" into the argument.


ITs basically the same argument, juts replace black with Hindu, its not a strawman.


No but itt does'nt help you're case when your saying people is stuppid-


I don't need to make a case, his own posts are the case.


No one is denying that it hasn't developed over the course of 3000 years but to assert that it is a modern phenomenon is entirely ahistorical.

Thats not what I said, I said that the MODERN SYSTEM, the way it is set up now, is not based on hindy texts.

[ComradeMan]

You just talk nonsense.

That's basically not what he was saying and he tried to make it clear. Let's get this right- I don't agree with him, but your arguments are just strawmen.