An intellctual conversation with my folks-now I question my beliefs

[RedMarxist]

I had a few days back a rather intellectual conversation with my parents that have made me question my choice to call myself a "Communist."

They threw out the "we worked hard so we deserve this and that..." line. I found myself being reduced to countering by saying how has Capitalism helped the rest of the population. They countered by saying how, in a nutshell, not everyone is helped by Capitalism. that's the way it is and always will be.

When saying resiliently that I am indeed a Communist, I got pleas from mostly my mother(and my dad), saying they worry that people will harm you for your beliefs.

I countered by saying 'well, I guess I will have to be prepared then.'

Oh, They didn't like that.

Along the way I was holding in my hands some Christian book(can't remember its title but it had a fish symbol with a ? mark on it). I was reading the bit about how atheist regimes were worse then Christian ones.

it said Stalin killed 20 Million, and Mao Killed 70 million.

Is that true(I thought Stalin killed 1-2 million!)

anyways, My Mother got in this tirade about how I don't know what Atheism even is(its the rejection of a God, right?!?) and how she worries I will go to Hell.

I said Hell does not exist.

She said it does and she thinks I will go there. I said got proof?

She had none, But said she believes.

My dad said the same thing. I must note my dad was an agnostic/atheist until very late in their marriage.

Can someone help me refute these claims. Or at least offer advice.

[#FF0000]

"THERE IS A GOD YOU ARE GOING TO HELL"

Prove it.

The Stalin/Mao thing won't even be a thing to you if you recognize that these folks weren't running communist ships in the first place lol

[RedMarxist]

how many did they actually kill.

I hate when they say they just believe so my pleas for them to prove it means nothing.

Can some tell me by what/who they mean by THEY will harm me?

[Jimmie Higgins]

1. You can't refute faith and I wouldn't try. All you can really do if you are an atheist is just to stand by that and let people know they can't "make you belive" in something you don't. I think in personal relationships, that's the best way to go "agree to disagree" because trying to convince someone out of their faith through reason, will probably only entrench them more and cause them to equally try and convince you.

2. Your parents probably did work hard and do deserve whatever they could eek out and probably more. But so do people who worked hard and got laid-off, people who worked hard and had their lives ruined by the housing bubble or had their retirements evaporate in the stock market crash. Working hard does not protect people from capitalism even if they were compensated OK at one time.

3. You don't have to be a communist to be harmed for your beliefs or harmed by the capitalist system.

4. Stalin and Mao did head regimes that brutalized and killed people. (Though I don't think their brutality had anything to do with communism and socialism, so you may be on your own with that one). But capitalism IS killing people as we speak though imperialist wars, through starvation, through ecological destruction which could potentially cause an end to civilization as we know it. Not doing anything about capitalism in a crisis like this could lead to wars between China and the US or Europe or Russia or India etc which could lead to nuclear exchanges.

[black_tar_heroin]

That doesn't sound like an intellectual conversation.

Anyway, who cares what your parents think? Grow some integrity.

You're your own person, with your own ideas which you should form through your independent learning. Follow your own path and let others talk.

[CommunityBeliever]

1. You say you are questioning your beliefs. What is your source of doubt? I don't think that your parent's opinions (rather then any good reasons) should change your beliefs unless they were poorly grounded in the first place. That is to say I don't think you can just choose to believe in something, you have to actually believe it is true/false.

2. Maybe you shouldn't discuss this with your parents - it may be too personal and they seem to have conflicting beliefs.

3. Comrade Mao contributed to the most liberating struggle in human history - which improved the lives of hundreds of millions of people and doubled the life expectancy in China. He did not deliberately kill any workers/peasants/common people, let alone seventy million of them, that is ridiculousness brought to a new extreme. Anyone who spends even a moment actually studying this will find that most surviving Chinese still have a good opinion of Mao.

Maoism is the best guideline for liberation struggles of today, so it is no wonder that the bourgeoisie slanders him by reffering to him as "the most prolific mass murderer ever", as well as by referring to the main communist revolutionary groups of today such as the Naxals as "terrorists."

[ArrowLance]

Don't even bother getting into a conversation about how many people were killed by who. Not only are deaths as a statistic rather meaningless as they are without context but it does not matter how many are killed.

Unless there is some argument that is based on those numbers they are meaningless. It is likely they do have some argument in secret at the very least that is based on their numbers so you may have to read into the way they talk about it and then address that question.

[thefinalmarch]

Atheism was not the primary factor at play when it came to the repression in the USSR, et al. It was political interests.

[graymouser]

I must note that it's very ironic that they condemn Stalin and Mao for killing X number of people (and these are inflated "Black Book of Communism" type numbers rather than realistic ones), but they don't condemn God for sending at minimum billions of people to eternal torture in Hell. I mean, I dislike Stalin and Mao as much as the next Trotskyist but I find that there is some real cognitive dissonance at work when you consider that the God they believe would be a monster to put all the monsters of the 20th century to shame.

[RedMarxist]

Well, it was a Christian book written for the sole purpose to make Christians realize why they should believe in God(and Atheists, which it tries to convert), so of course its biased.

My first response when it says Mao killed 70 Million people was to chuckle in disbelief, as I have studied that period of history well.

Do you think the Christian book was purposely inflating the numbers to make "Atheistic Regimes" look bad?

So its impossible to argue with my parents about faith, now is it.

And what kind of groups/people exist that want to "Harm Communists?" that my parents say exist. Fascist hate groups? your boss?

[Smyg]

First: Communist =/= Atheist. Atheist =/= Communist.

Secondly: Naturally the numbers were inflated. They're always either inflated or deflated. For example, ask pretty much anyway how many died in the Holocaust.

Thirdly: From the threads I've seen on Revleft, my own theory has been essentially confirmed: You're not getting harmed for your beliefs unless you either live in a dictatorship or openly confront people about your beliefs.

[FuzzypegX]

To pick up on the points that have been made by ArrowLance and CommunityBeliever, I think you're coming at this from the wrong angle.

The question of "how many people did [x] kill" has to be placed in a broader context. Christianity is a metaphysical and idealist philosophy which is based on the notion of "absolute truths" (e.g. "it is always wrong to kill" etc.) which is quite at odds with a dialectical and materialist philosophy, such as that of Marxism, which refutes the very notion of absolute truths. Furthermore, to describe any Communist regime as "atheistic" is to imbue it with a particular relationship towards theism, which I do not believe is accurate. As Lenin explained, Marxism is opposed to the notion of God on a philosophical level, but a Marxist state/party is not defined by an antagonistic relationship towards belief.

Moving back to the subject of "how many deaths", bare in mind that the primary sources on this subject are invariably bourgeois and quite often have motive, means and opportunity to falsify information. If you really are concerned about this topic, then you have to engage in careful study in your own time and with a critical eye towards your source-material. It's not a question that anybody on this forum will be able to definitively answer for you, not least because there are so many conflicting opinions and positions.

Without wishing to be too presumptuous, it strikes me that you probably need to do more basic reading into both Marxism and history - on your own initiative, and not based on prompting from either your parents or anyone on here - before you start taking a position as a "Communist" or anything else.

[Nox]

it said Stalin killed 20 Million, and Mao Killed 70 million.

Stalin killed no more than 10 million. I'd say he killed 5-6 million.

And virtually all of those were either not his fault or were justifiable.

As for Mao, I'm not knowledgable enough on China to give an estimate, but I can tell you it's alot less than 70 million.

Point out to them how Stalin and Mao totally transformed the USSR and China into superpowers, how they brought hundreds of millions out of poverty, and how without Stalin it's likely that they would be living in a Nazi occupied world.

Also tell them about the hundreds of millions who have died as a result of Capitalism, and the ZERO people who have died as a result of Communism.

[Smyg]

I've always had a hard time, despite how anti-stalinist and anti-authoritarian I am, to blame Stalin for many of those deaths. In my mind, you can't really compare deaths caused by a bullet to the head with deaths caused by famine through administrative imcompetence.

[black_tar_heroin]

[QUOTE=RedMarxist;2230972]
it said Stalin killed 20 Million, and Mao Killed 70 million.

[QUOTE]

Stalin killed no more than 10 million. I'd say he killed 5-6 million.

And virtually all of those were either not his fault or were justifiable.

Key word being 'virtually',

because its place is in the distorted virtual reality which murderous Stalinist justify their reaction.

[Nox]

Well, it was a Christian book written for the sole purpose to make Christians realize why they should believe in God(and Atheists, which it tries to convert), so of course its biased.

My first response when it says Mao killed 70 Million people was to chuckle in disbelief, as I have studied that period of history well.

Do you think the Christian book was purposely inflating the numbers to make "Atheistic Regimes" look bad?

So its impossible to argue with my parents about faith, now is it.

And what kind of groups/people exist that want to "Harm Communists?" that my parents say exist. Fascist hate groups? your boss?

Try and show them how Christians should be Socialists, because most of the stuff in the Bible is very Socialistic and that Capitalism goes against the Bible.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Try and show them how Christians should be Socialists, because most of the stuff in the Bible is very Socialistic and that Capitalism goes against the Bible.Heh, actually yeah. If they say something about people harming you for your beliefs, just "Oh my beliefs might cause me harm... hmmm.... what would Jesus do?":lol:

No, don't say that, I was just joking.

[Tjis]

And what kind of groups/people exist that want to "Harm Communists?" that my parents say exist. Fascist hate groups? your boss?

There's definitely a risk involved with being a communist. Maybe not right now, while we're a rather small fringe group in society, but the moment a communist group starts getting influence there will be a crackdown by the state and corporate interests, from imprisonment to assassinations. This happens all the time. It's called class war and the bourgeoisie is very good at it.

But don't think that doing nothing will mean that you'll be fine. As can be clearly seen right now, the burden of the economic recession is being placed on the shoulders of the workers as much as the bourgeoisie can get away with, and this will continue either until every last shred of dignity is gone or until workers take a stand and start fighting back. It's not a pretty reality but it's the one that we are in unfortunately.

[ZeroNowhere]

Advice: Change your username.

[Kotze]

I don't know how I couldn't get all smug in such a situation. There is a good remark about Christianity and Atheism, dunno who came up with that: There are so many gods, think about Hinduism and Ancient Greece and all those tiny cults, thousands of gods that Christians don't believe in. With Atheism, there's just 1 more to add to that list :P

Be warned though that snappy comebacks usually don't work well for winning over those they are directed at. Your parents seem to have undergone the usual indoctrination about what communism is, but what do you mean when you refer to yourself as a communist?

The argument about human nature and the need to reward contribution often comes up. Is it your opinion that people should be rewarded for working harder or longer than others? If your answer is no, I think you will be shit out of luck. If your answer is yes, you will have to say how this is different from capitalism, that under capitalism the income of the ultra-rich comes for the most part not from productivity, but controlling certain assets (eg. there is a minority which can live on rental income alone without ever lifting a finger).

As for estimating death tolls of various regimes: One doesn't really know whether this or that individual in a group of millions died in a famine. What is done instead is that you have to make an estimate of what the number of deaths would have been without the famine and compare that to the actual data about deaths. Here the conservative authors want to have their cake and eat it: To make the numbers big, they first grant some amazing health improvements without being very explicit about that, so that the number of people alive after the famine makes a bigger plunge. But anyway, do historical regimes play much of a role for you being a communist today? Does it really play a role for your convictions whether Mao killed a brazillion people rararah then?

[CommunityBeliever]

Remind them that Mao thought of people as incredibly valuable and he never introduced any population controls like the capitalist roader Deng Xiaoping's reactionary "One child per family policy" which may have prevented as much as 400 million Chinese births so far. Mao allowed China's population to bloom, he never reduced it by tens of millions of people.

[RedMarxist]

I am a Communist because I am opposed to Capitalism. What sickens me and drives me forward each day is the knowledge that people each waking day are rising up against the system-from Egypt to Greece. What further sickens me is China's new "super" Rich population, which make up around 1% of the Chinese population. It sickens me that said 1% in China is now celebrated by the BBC and other news outlets as being not only a good thing, but they are treated as mini-celebrities in China and the world over. Eff the super-rich Chinese population! What ever happened to giving a shit about the rural Chinese poor by the government? What ever happened to Maoism?

What drives me forward is the knowledge that one day I may use my education to aid the Proletariat. I so badly want to use my education to help my fellow man overthrow the f------ rich class! I don't want to help the poorer classes by delivering supplies and working in a soup kitchen as my parents suggested I should do(they laughed about how I'd make no money and not be successful.)

What drives me forward is the knowledge that one day hopefully True Democracy will replace that rotten system of parliament/Congress.

What drives me forward is that we have A World To Win.


My parents are being overprotective and want me to be safe like any good parents would.

[rednordman]

I would ask your parents, why it is that we know so much about hell, yet hardly anything about heaven?

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't see how this could possibly make you doubt your beliefs. What did they really argue? Stalin and Mao killed people? God and hell exists because I believe they do?

Those are hardly even arguments.

EDIT: Also, I wouldn't qualify this as "intellectual", just sayin'.

[RedMarxist]

Its because I feel like I have to be a Christian to make my parents feel better because they say they worry about my soul/morality because I'm an atheist(because all Atheists are amoral jerks!)

I'm still a Communist, and will be one til the day I die.

But I feel like I have to do something, rather then sit here keeping my beliefs to myself. I don't want to die a closet Communist. I have to get in on the Communist scene, give the poor a helping hand/spread Socialist ideals, etc. etc.

And I do agree with the notion of a vast and open workers vanguard party in the democratic sense.

I have a mission to from(myself, not God!) to help work with other Reds to organize that party.

[black_tar_heroin]

Grow a back-bone. Who cares what your parents think? Get some integrity ffs.

If the "intellectual" arguments of your parents (:lol:) convince you to change your whole world-view, then maybe you don't really have a grasp of what you supposedly stand for in the first place.

[rednordman]

To be honest they did say something to take note of in your argument, at that was that people may try to harm you for your beliefs. Its a fucked up work we live in, and full of hypercrytes too.

You may want to ask them that if Christianity is so perfect and godly, why are there people willing to harm you because you don't agree with them? what does that make them?

[DarkPast]

I had a few days back a rather intellectual conversation with my parents that have made me question my choice to call myself a "Communist."

They threw out the "we worked hard so we deserve this and that..." line. I found myself being reduced to countering by saying how has Capitalism helped the rest of the population. They countered by saying how, in a nutshell, not everyone is helped by Capitalism. that's the way it is and always will be.

That's easily countered, because capitalism isn't something that has always existed. It was preceded by feudalism, which was in turn preceded by "primitive communism". If anything, you can argue that the "natural" state of human society had much more in common with communism than capitalism.

Also, point out that there were many people who thought feudalism would "always be".


When saying resiliently that I am indeed a Communist, I got pleas from mostly my mother(and my dad), saying they worry that people will harm you for your beliefs.

I countered by saying 'well, I guess I will have to be prepared then.'

Oh, They didn't like that.

That's understandable. They're your parents and they're concerned from your health. But there's always going to be danger if you don't support your government's ideology. You could point out to them that, historically, people were harmed for opposing slavery, or for being Jewish. Doesn't mean that their causes weren't just.


Along the way I was holding in my hands some Christian book(can't remember its title but it had a fish symbol with a ? mark on it). I was reading the bit about how atheist regimes were worse then Christian ones.

it said Stalin killed 20 Million, and Mao Killed 70 million.

Is that true(I thought Stalin killed 1-2 million!)

Both religious and non-religious regimes committed horrifying atrocities (if they don't believe Christians did, remind them of the inquisition, forced conversions of native populations, crusades etc.).

Stain and Mao were indeed responsible for many deaths (not as many as that propaganda says, it was millions), but there's more to communism than Stalin and Mao. Besides, those countries were
a) poor
b) politically isolated and subjected to capitalist sabotage
c) not really socialist, but state capitalist


anyways, My Mother got in this tirade about how I don't know what Atheism even is(its the rejection of a God, right?!?) and how she worries I will go to Hell.

I said Hell does not exist.

She said it does and she thinks I will go there. I said got proof?

She had none, But said she believes.

My dad said the same thing. I must note my dad was an agnostic/atheist until very late in their marriage.

Remind her that beliefs are a personal thing. Also, tell her that socialism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. As I've written in another thread:

The Christian Church exists for the sole purpose of saving the human race. So far she has failed, but I think that Socialism shows her how she may succeed. It insists that men cannot be made right until the material conditions be made right. Although man cannot live by bread alone, he must have bread. Therefore the Church must destroy a system of society which inevitably creates and perpetuates unequal and unfair conditions of life. These unequal and unfair conditions have been created by competition. Therefore competition must cease and cooperation take its place.
-Franklin Spencer Spalding, a Christian bishop

[Smyg]

Also, tell her that socialism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

Point this out over and over again, I say.

[Susurrus]

The point that socialism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive should not be the cornerstone of your argument unless you are actually planning to become a christian.

[Geiseric]

Ask them how many people winston churchill killed in india

[Geiseric]

Ask them how many people winston churchill killed in india. or how many indians and natives the colonialisation of america ended up killing, or how many people died as a result of the western funded russian civil war, or how many strikers and protesters have been killed in 1st world countries. Say that stalin's or even Lenin's USSR was on par with 3rd world countries, and with isolation from the outside world economically, brought upon them by the capitalists, it was impossible in capitalism, fascism, or socialism for those people not to die. And then say that Stalin's government wasn't even remotely socialist, and the socialist population of russia won WW2 after taking huge sacrifices, and having a big chunk of their population killed by hitler, who many capitalists (i.e. henry ford) supported.

[Rafiq]

Tell them there is a war going on, a class war.

You are either with the progressive class or the reactionary slave owners.

[Geiseric]

just a heads up, i think for the health of your familly life, I wouldn't talk about politics much. Parents will worry regardless of their religeon or ideology, and if it comes up DON'T MENTION STALIN, MAO, OR THEIR GOVERNMENTS. In order to persuade anybody, you need to clear the conception to yourself that these men and their states abandoned socialism. Don't make any attempt to justify stuff like the great purges, because that isn't what true socialists would do. Say that Lenin's oppression of the bourgeois armies possible saboteurs was a result of the whites goal of an elimination of anybody who supported the Reds, even slightly, in a genocide of the revolutionaries.

[Nox]

Key word being 'virtually',

because its place is in the distorted virtual reality which murderous Stalinist justify their reaction.

I think you misunderstand the way I used virtually. I meant virtually as in almost every one.

I'm not saying Stalin was perfect, people who shouldn't have died did die. But at the end of the day, when you look past Western propaganda and look at the facts, you find that the vast majority of deaths supposedly 'caused by Stalin' were either not his fault, or justifiable to an extent.

[ColonelCossack]

I don't know how I couldn't get all smug in such a situation. There is a good remark about Christianity and Atheism, dunno who came up with that: There are so many gods, think about Hinduism and Ancient Greece and all those tiny cults, thousands of gods that Christians don't believe in. With Atheism, there's just 1 more to add to that list :P

Be warned though that snappy comebacks usually don't work well for winning over those they are directed at. Your parents seem to have undergone the usual indoctrination about what communism is, but what do you mean when you refer to yourself as a communist?

The argument about human nature and the need to reward contribution often comes up. Is it your opinion that people should be rewarded for working harder or longer than others? If your answer is no, I think you will be shit out of luck. If your answer is yes, you will have to say how this is different from capitalism, that under capitalism the income of the ultra-rich comes for the most part not from productivity, but controlling certain assets (eg. there is a minority which can live on rental income alone without ever lifting a finger).

As for estimating death tolls of various regimes: One doesn't really know whether this or that individual in a group of millions died in a famine. What is done instead is that you have to make an estimate of what the number of deaths would have been without the famine and compare that to the actual data about deaths. Here the conservative authors want to have their cake and eat it: To make the numbers big, they first grant some amazing health improvements without being very explicit about that, so that the number of people alive after the famine makes a bigger plunge. But anyway, do historical regimes play much of a role for you being a communist today? Does it really play a role for your convictions whether Mao killed a brazillion people rararah then?

I saw a TV show where this evangelical christian was arguing with an atheist. His argument was that the many "Different theories in evolution" against "One solid theory of creation" proved evolution wrong.

This is, of course, the worst BS ever because all people that agree with atheism are basically relatively like-minded and agree on most things related to that (e.g. the theory of natural selection), whereas that goes against hundreds of religions "religious theories", if you will, that oppose evolutionary theories) that have existed throughout history- it's not like evangelical protestantism is the only religion ever XD.

So It's like there's been hundreds of religions but only a few main theories of evolution.

What's worse is that the atheist guy didn't even react to this and said, "yeah, yeah.", and this was coming from Richard Dawkins. :cursing:

[DarkPast]

The point that socialism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive should not be the cornerstone of your argument unless you are actually planning to become a christian.

Yeah but it can be used to counter arguments that communism is harmful for his spiritual well-being. In other words, the point is to show that communism isn't inherently anti-Christian, like his parents seem to believe.

Hopefully they aren't among those people who believe that anyone who doesn't subscribe to their religion will end up in hell... (and even then it's easy to counter their argument by asking them do people like Gandhi deserve to go to hell simply because they weren't Christians).

[Rusty Shackleford]

me and a friend argued once. He was saying his mom worked 3 jobs at a time to get where she was today. (shes not a capitalist, shes not super wealthy) and i said "she should have only needed to work one job to be able to live comfortably"

and the argument still goes on somehow.

some people you just cant argue with.

people will harm you for your beliefs? so what! i expect to get my ass kicked at some point.

if you need to reinforce your atheism then may i suggest picking up a copy of "Materialism and the Dialectical Method" by Maurice Cornforth or even just read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

even then, dont feed that question. it goes no where.

[piet11111]

It always worries me when christians say you can not be a moral person without being a christian because to me it follows they are complete and utter psychopaths that just happen to follow the bible and as such are not cutting off my head at that time.

because obviously its the bible that keeps people from murdering raping and pillaging (unless its in the name of god)

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

I had a few days back a rather intellectual conversation with my parents that have made me question my choice to call myself a "Communist."

They threw out the "we worked hard so we deserve this and that..." line. I found myself being reduced to countering by saying how has Capitalism helped the rest of the population. They countered by saying how, in a nutshell, not everyone is helped by Capitalism. that's the way it is and always will be.

When saying resiliently that I am indeed a Communist, I got pleas from mostly my mother(and my dad), saying they worry that people will harm you for your beliefs.

I countered by saying 'well, I guess I will have to be prepared then.'

Oh, They didn't like that.

Along the way I was holding in my hands some Christian book(can't remember its title but it had a fish symbol with a ? mark on it). I was reading the bit about how atheist regimes were worse then Christian ones.

it said Stalin killed 20 Million, and Mao Killed 70 million.

Is that true(I thought Stalin killed 1-2 million!)

anyways, My Mother got in this tirade about how I don't know what Atheism even is(its the rejection of a God, right?!?) and how she worries I will go to Hell.

I said Hell does not exist.

She said it does and she thinks I will go there. I said got proof?

She had none, But said she believes.

My dad said the same thing. I must note my dad was an agnostic/atheist until very late in their marriage.

Can someone help me refute these claims. Or at least offer advice.

stalin killed approx 1 million people. that is it. my source is livre noir du communisme.
the other 19 million over the next 70 years where killed because of famines and things outside of their control

ever heard of the crusades?

ever heard of the united states?

atheism is not having a belief in anything, and if she says you get go to hell, tell her "well i guess along with 2 billion other people, plus all of my favorite people. marx, engles, stalin, che, moa etc."

parents think your rebelling against them more often than not, so just ignore them

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

oh and i completely forgot.

ever heard of the black book of capitialism? neither have i. it hasent been translated into english (i wonder why?), it is called le livre noir du capitalisme, and it states that capitalism in the 20th century has killed 147 million people. compared to the equivalent the black book of communism, (le livre noir du communisme), states that leftism killed 100 million people.

so?
and on top of that le livre noir du capitalisme is impossible to find, as on FNAC.fr, or on amazon.fr and amazon.ca, it is sold out

[Geiseric]

An ideology doesn't kill people, people who claim to advocate an ideology do.

[Commissar Rykov]

I thought you said you had an intellectual conversation with your parents? It sounded more like emotional blackmail to me.

[RedMarxist]

it was pretty much emotional blackmail in my eyes.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

AS the others have said you need to A:Grow a sense of self, B:fuck what your bourgeois parents say as they have been brainwashed by capitalism,and finally C:Get to reading socialist writers-Marx,Lenin,Engles.

Those are the most important things to remember.

There are always people who will harm you for your beliefs but this is irrelevant.The alternative to this is living within the most deadly system in the world and not doing anything about it.For instance,I might come under attack because I am gay,but nonetheless I still chose to lead an open life. It is about the life you wanna live,do you want to contribute to terrorism (capitalism) or do you want something better?

I laughed when I heard what your parents said about hell....honestly,it was funny...yeah,you are going to go to a place which doesn't exist and what's more they are using this imaginary place as emotional blackmail-wonderful! Try telling them about the hundread of other religions and supernatural beliefs systems-try telling them that the story of Jesus has been repeated many times before Jesus himself actually lived (See Religoius for this,the documentary by Bill Mayer).

In short: Stalin and Mao did not kill that many people,it is asinine to think so.The people that did die under their policies were either justified or uncontrollable.

I would also suggest reading up on history: A Peoples History of the United States,Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America, and the Zinn Reader are all great places to start.

[Old Man Diogenes]

anyways, My Mother got in this tirade about how I don't know what Atheism even is(its the rejection of a God, right?!?) and how she worries I will go to Hell.

I said Hell does not exist.

She said it does and she thinks I will go there. I said got proof?

She had none, But said she believes.

My dad said the same thing. I must note my dad was an agnostic/atheist until very late in their marriage.

Can someone help me refute these claims. Or at least offer advice.

If this were my parents I would ask them if they're honestly comfortable believing in something that will send their son to a world of pain and suffering and anguish for eternity, purely for thinking differently. To paraphrase Bakunin, if that state of affairs existed I would call for it's hasty abolition.

[W1N5T0N]

Am i glad my parents are atheists :cool:

No offense, right? But the going to hell bit seems a bit harsh.

[Aurora]

Meh i dunno man, tell your parents that you respect their religious beliefs and ask them to respect yours, also tell them that you don't know everything about communism or capitalism but that there's nothing wrong in learning about them.

I mistake a lot of young communists make is to try and 'convert' others around them including their family and friends i'd recommend you stay away from this because it can cause tension and put distance between you and them, settle for respecting who they are and maybe they'll return it.

[RedSunsZenith]

Stalin's Russia cannot be considered an "atheist regime," as Stalinism itself was really nothing short of a state religion. Atheists oppose all dogmatic assertions, not just those pertaining to a creator.

[Red Future]

You are your own person ...you have a right to your beliefs..what you are experiencing is difficult ..I wont deny this.But your parents need to learn to accept Right wingers and religious individuals are possibly the worst to do this since they have a black/white "your wrong I am right" mentality.

You are 15-16 right? ....old enough to have your own views any-day.Make it clear to them , you are Communist and want to be Communist and there is nothing they can do to change your views.

(If they really give you grief over it just pretend to agree with their demands and continue learning about leftist thought anyway.)

[Misanthrope]

You're not a communist anymore because your moms said you were going to hell?

[xub3rn00dlex]

You're not a communist anymore because your moms said you were going to hell?

I remember my parents pulling that one on me. Told them if they were right, I couldn't wait to converse with all the other commies/atheists/comedians/etc. down there in the tropics. They never brought up the subject again.

[Susurrus]

There's probably already been a revolution in hell.

[Invader Zim]

anyways, My Mother got in this tirade about how I don't know what Atheism even is(its the rejection of a God, right?!?) and how she worries I will go to Hell.No. Based on what you have stated, with the 'prove it' line, your derivative of atheism is not a 'rejection' of God. To 'reject' a God would be to imply that it exists, and that you choose, for whatever reason, to irrationaly deny that fact. This is know as 'dogmatic atheism' or 'hard atheism' (a stupid, if popular, term), and is a load of intellectually bankrupt nonsense that is no better or rational than the religious beliefs shared by your mother.

By bringing proof into the equasion, it seems clear that you are what is a rational atheist or soft atheist (again a highly foolish, and indeed insulting, label). This a position that applies the rules, grounded in logic and empiricism, which we as a society apply to just about every other issue of this nature. It is the same logic we apply to debate, law, science, history and indeed all questions which posit a hypothesis.

To provide an example. If I accused you of murdering an individual, the logical obligation would be on me to A. prove that a murder had been committed, and B. that it was you who committed that murder. The burden of proof would not rest on the accused. Or, if I were to contend that I had captured a mythical beast, say a unicorn, what rational basis would their be to invest belief in my story unless I could deliver concrete evidence to substanciate that story?

This is the logical basis of empiricism, the philosophy at the heart of all scientific and scholarly advancement, which dictates that knowledge is born of experience. To elaborate, you have to be able to demonstrate, show or experience something to rationally understand it. To return to the unicorn example, unless you have seen it or seen evidence that it exists, there is no basis for you to believe in it.

So to return to the issue of a deity. Atheism is not the rejection of that deity. It is the rejection of the hypothesis that the deity in question exists on the basis that 1. there is not a shred of evidence to substanciate the hypothesis. 2. That the hypothesis directly contradicts that evidence which we do have.

On that second point. Christianity, which I assume is your parents religion, demands that believers accept that an individual was bestowed with the power to rise from the grave. We know this is impossible. The Bible demands that we accept that the universe as a whole was created in six days, and that the Earth was the initial part of that creation prior to the wider universe. Yet all the evidence which man has discovered disproves this hypothesis.

So to summarise, atheism is the rejection of the God hypothesis. It is not the rejection of a 'God' per say.


tell your parents that you respect their religious beliefs and ask them to respect yours,

Why should s/he respect those beliefs? Would you 'respect' the belief of an individual who contended that an entity in their head was commanding them to kill various individuals (which, for many thousands of years is effectively what religion boiled down to) or would you attempt to have them sectioned for their protection and the protection of others? There is nothing respectable in religion.


stalin killed approx 1 million people. that is it.

Even if we assume that figure is accurate it still remains a horrendous and unforgivable travesty.

[Aurora]

Why should s/he respect those beliefs? Would you 'respect' the belief of an individual who contended that an entity in their head was commanding them to kill various individuals (which, for many thousands of years is effectively what religion boiled down to) or would you attempt to have them sectioned for their protection and the protection of others? There is nothing respectable in religion.


Religion should be a private affair and as such you can respect someones privacy. Playing militant atheist is silly, religion is inherently irrational you can't win a rational argument against it.
Religion has a social cause and role to play, the problem isn't religion itself but rather the conditions that give rise to it, the high levels of atheism in the most advanced countries compared to the backwards countries wasn't brought about by atheists winning arguments but by the all round development of society and the individual.

Perhaps 'respect' wasn't the right word maybe 'accept' would be better.

[Invader Zim]

Religion should be a private affair and as such you can respect someones privacy.

We are not discussing what religion 'should' be, rather we are discussing what it is. And it is socially harmful socio-cultural construct that at the vest best is a delusion that prevents people from facing up to the realities of the world and at the worst has been a key motivation for some of the worst behaviour all the annals of human history have to offer. In between these two unpleasant states is an entire myriad and spectrum of unpleasant sociopathic behaviour. Let us consider them, homophobia, misogyny, sectarianism, racism, and a vast catalogue of other forms of bigotry, and a ubiquitous stench of reactionary conservatism, because at the heart of religion is the notion of inferiority that demands that believers deffer to a higher power.

And what for? A baseless and delusional belief in an entity that were it not a deity, but some other mythical figment, would doubtless land the 'believer' in an asylum.

As for being 'private'. Religion is not a private matter and never had been because religious individuals insist on 'sharing the good news', and when they aren't they are out persecuting the unbeliever. And do you know why? Because the books, allegedly the product of some higher intellect, command that convert all they come across and kill, enslave and persecute those who do not cooperate. While in the modern western world the killing and enslaving have fallen out of fashion (so they are cherry picking from their holy tomes), but evangelism and persecution remain very much in vogue.

So I will 'respect' their right to privacy when they get their nonsense out of my face, off the airwaves, out of the schools, off the streets and keep it to themselves.


Playing militant atheist is silly

What do you mean by militant? Say, bombing abortion clinics, crusifying homosexuals, bombing the schools in areas that are in neighbourhoods dominated by those of other religions, executing scores of teenagers on a holiday camp, flying planes packed with people into towers packed with people? Is that what you mean by 'militant'? Because by that standard I am not militant. I don't want to hurt or imprison religious people in any way shape or form. Hell, I don't even want to disenphranchise, persecute and convert them. It is a pity that the vast majority of religious people can not say the same about people of other religions or atheists.


Religion has a social cause and role to play, the problem isn't religion itself but rather the conditions that give rise to it, the high levels of atheism in the most advanced countries compared to the backwards countries wasn't brought about by atheists winning arguments but by the all round development of society and the individual.

Religion is a social throwback to the time when humanity lived in fear of seemingly all powerful and unpredictable events entirely outside of the understanding and control. It is a tool of domination, of control and is a blight on the development of human civilisation in every respect. And yet, despite the greatest effort over the centuries by theists, humanity has developed (though how much faster we would have developed with out the ignorant and sabotaging influence of religion is quite a question) and now that ignorance that theists fight so heard to preserve is being eroded, and as our knwledge grows so too the power and appeal of religion fades (which is why those in a position of power within organised religion have faught so hard against it).



Perhaps 'respect' wasn't the right word maybe 'accept' would be better.

No. Tolerate. I tolerate their ridiculous beliefs. I do not have to respect or accept those views in any way, shape or form.

[Streetwaves]

Even in the mildest cases, religious beliefs are still something that divide people, encourage ignorance of science, and cloud judgment.

By the way, don't go on thinking you need to defend Stalin or Mao. Arguing about the number of people killed in the millions should tip you off that these two are not to be defended, nor do they have anything important to do with socialism.

Also, in your OP you said you were doubting your beliefs. A couple of pages later you claim you'll be a communist until the day you die. Why? In my opinion, as strong as your convictions are at any given time, you shouldn't pledge permanent allegiance to any ideology or political theory.

[Red_Devotchka]

I've been through this hundreds of times with my dad. No matter how effectively I can beat all his arguments (that are mainly just some dogmatic bullshit) it always ends up with him saying something like "Well, I have faith in god and you can't change it. I'll pray for your soul", which makes me always go mad and I completely lose my stoicism.
You can always try to make people change their opinions or at least make them understand better your views, but most of times you'll have to give up at some point (I'm still trying but I already know it's pointless).

[Agent Equality]

1. You say you are questioning your beliefs. What is your source of doubt? I don't think that your parent's opinions (rather then any good reasons) should change your beliefs unless they were poorly grounded in the first place. That is to say I don't think you can just choose to believe in something, you have to actually believe it is true/false.

2. Maybe you shouldn't discuss this with your parents - it may be too personal and they seem to have conflicting beliefs.

3. Comrade Mao contributed to the most liberating struggle in human history - which improved the lives of hundreds of millions of people and doubled the life expectancy in China. He did not deliberately kill any workers/peasants/common people, let alone seventy million of them, that is ridiculousness brought to a new extreme. Anyone who spends even a moment actually studying this will find that most surviving Chinese still have a good opinion of Mao.

Maoism is the best guideline for liberation struggles of today, so it is no wonder that the bourgeoisie slanders him by reffering to him as "the most prolific mass murderer ever", as well as by referring to the main communist revolutionary groups of today such as the Naxals as "terrorists."

Of course the Maoist comes to defend Mao



Stalin killed no more than 10 million. I'd say he killed 5-6 million.

And virtually all of those were either not his fault or were justifiable.

As for Mao, I'm not knowledgable enough on China to give an estimate, but I can tell you it's alot less than 70 million.

Point out to them how Stalin and Mao totally transformed the USSR and China into superpowers, how they brought hundreds of millions out of poverty, and how without Stalin it's likely that they would be living in a Nazi occupied world.

Also tell them about the hundreds of millions who have died as a result of Capitalism, and the ZERO people who have died as a result of Communism.

And of course the Stalinoid comes to defend Stalin.

How predictable :rolleyes:

[Nox]

Just don't bother arguing with them in my opinion; they're so wrapped up in their own stupid beliefs that they've lost their sense of reality.

[Nox]

And of course the Stalinoid comes to defend Stalin.

How predictable :rolleyes:


Are you going to challenge anything I said?

[FuzzypegX]

Of course the Maoist comes to defend Mao

And of course the Stalinoid comes to defend Stalin.

How predictable :rolleyes:

This seems to be a rather popular line of argument here on Rev(Ultra)Left.

You seem to imagine that merely pointing out that someone is a "Stalinist" or a "Maoist" (whatever either of those are, since the term is "Marxist-Leninist") invalidates any argument they could possibly make in favor of Stalin or Mao. Please could you explain the logic of this position to me because from where I'm sitting, you seem to be employing nothing more than knee-jerk reaction and an almost religious unwillingness to engage in reasoned debate.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I had a few days back a rather intellectual conversation with my parents that have made me question my choice to call myself a "Communist."

They threw out the "we worked hard so we deserve this and that..." line. I found myself being reduced to countering by saying how has Capitalism helped the rest of the population. They countered by saying how, in a nutshell, not everyone is helped by Capitalism. that's the way it is and always will be.

When saying resiliently that I am indeed a Communist, I got pleas from mostly my mother(and my dad), saying they worry that people will harm you for your beliefs.

I countered by saying 'well, I guess I will have to be prepared then.'

Oh, They didn't like that.

Along the way I was holding in my hands some Christian book(can't remember its title but it had a fish symbol with a ? mark on it). I was reading the bit about how atheist regimes were worse then Christian ones.

it said Stalin killed 20 Million, and Mao Killed 70 million.

Is that true(I thought Stalin killed 1-2 million!)

anyways, My Mother got in this tirade about how I don't know what Atheism even is(its the rejection of a God, right?!?) and how she worries I will go to Hell.

I said Hell does not exist.

She said it does and she thinks I will go there. I said got proof?

She had none, But said she believes.

My dad said the same thing. I must note my dad was an agnostic/atheist until very late in their marriage.

Can someone help me refute these claims. Or at least offer advice.

It doesn't take much to make you question your beliefs then. These aren't very difficult arguments to dismantle, but rather common ones that every Marxist needs to be ready to answer. No worries though, you are still young and will learn more as you read, observe, and communicate with others.

1) It hasn't "always been" anybody who has read a history books knows this.

2) People won't harm you. (I get this same response from my father. Who suggests I keep hush hush about my beliefs.) People get harmed everyday for a multitude of things. The fact that you are a Communist isn't a death sentence.

3) It isn't the "rejection of God" this implies you know God exists but choose not to believe out of spite. How does she know she won't go to hell. What if the Muslims are right? or the Hindus, or the Jews. You can play this game all day with "who's going to hell and why"

4)Well, so what if she believes. Belief and fact are two different things. I can believe all day that I am the king of England, however it doesn't make it true.


I suggest you, as well as your mother and father read the book "Why Marx was Right" by Terry Eagleton. It takes the most common arguments against Marxism and dismantles them quite intelligently.

[Yugo45]

[/B]it said Stalin killed 20 Million, and Mao Killed 70 million.

Is that true(I thought Stalin killed 1-2 million!)

Philippine Insurrection - 220,000 deaths
Nanking Massacre - 300,000
Desert Storm - 500,000
Invasion of the Philippines - 650,000
US War on Afghanistan - 1,200,000
US War on Iraq - 650,000
US Backed Khmer Rouge - 2,035,000
South African Apartheid - 3,500,000
US on Latin America - 6,000,000
Japanese Imperialism - 6,000,000
Vietnam War - 6,020,000
Korean War - 4,000,000
British Occupation of India - 10,000,000
Dutch East Indies - 25,000
Japan Occupation of East Timor - 70,000
Japanese Bombing of China - 71,105
Second Boer War - 75,000
Japan Massacre of Singapore - 100,000
Burma-Siam Railroad Cons - 116,000
Japan Germ Warfare in China - 200,000
Shia Killed by Saddam - 300,000
US Bombing of Serbia - 300,000
US Bombing Iraq Water Supply - 500,000
US imposed sanctions on Iraq - 100,000
US Backed General Suharto...1,200,000
Irish Potato Famine - 1,500,000
Japanese Democides - 5,964,000
Famine of 1932-33 - 7,000,000
The Bengal Famine of 1943 - 10,000,000
Famine in Held British India - 30,000,000
Great Depression (America) - 12,000,000
World War One - 16,500,000
World War Two - 60,000,000
Native American Genocide - 95,000,000
African Slave Trade - 150,000,000

Children Killed by Preventable Diseases Since 2000: 208,000,000
Children Killed by Hunger Since 2000: 235,000,000
Children Killed by Hunger during the 1990s: 100,000,000

There you go, 1 billion killed by imperialism and capitalism.

[Invader Zim]

Various bullshit figures

What nonsense is all of that? 1.5 million in the Irish potato famine? You do realise that the entire population reducion did not total that much and that is before we even consider a considerable portion of that figure emigrated?

And the 'genocide' of of indigenous Americans? What kind of joke is that. According to the schoalrly consensus the population of the entire two continents in 1492 was about half that figure, and the vast majority of the deaths were not as the result of a genocide.

As for the African slave trade. You have a figure of 150,000,000. During the entire slave trade only 20,000,000 Africans were ever shipped. In the entire period.

Why make shit up? Are you some kind of infiltrator troll trying to make us look like uninfomed morons?

[Yugo45]

lol, well no shit.

And you think that all the fancy numbers like: 50 million killed by Stalin, 100 million killed by Mao etc. are all true?

Those are all highest estimates, including mine too. Yes, by some estimates, 150 million Native Americans were killed by the Europeans. Yes, by some estimates the Potato Famine did kill 1.5 million people, though the most regular number is 1 million, which isn't far off.

[Turinbaar]

In his critique of Hegel's dialectic, Marx spoke of a worldview similar to what you are talking about where the estranged alienated mental forms that humans create (capitalism, law, religion) are accepted as unnatural and inhuman, but nonetheless also accepted as the culmination of humanity's development, and unchangeable for that reason. Such a worldview attempts to make intuitive analysis of reality, but does so from the original vantage point of abstraction, so that ideas of private property necessarily proceed the reality of private property. This, Marx explained, is the secret whereby capitalist society can boast about itself without actually fulfilling its true potential, and its a contradiction which you do not have to live with.

[Invader Zim]

And you think that all the fancy numbers like: 50 million killed by Stalin, 100 million killed by Mao etc. are all true?

No. And nobody has ever claimed that Stalin killed 60 million indviduals. That isn't a high estimate it is one you have pulled from your ass.


Those are all highest estimates, including mine too. Yes, by some estimates, 150 million Native Americans were killed by the Europeans. Yes, by some estimates the Potato Famine did kill 1.5 million people, though the most regular number is 1 million, which isn't far off.

Obviously you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Firstly, you have contradicted your self. You have gone from contending that 95 million "native Americans" were killed to 150 million. Which is it?

Of course I realise that you have confused your own fictional figures. 150 million is the figure that you cited for the African slave trade. But that is absolute shit too. Even the exceptionally high estimates approach an entire order of magnitude lower than 150 million.

And nobody has ever claimed that Euorpeans 'killed' anything like that many of the America's indigenous population. A very few (and very spurious) estimates of the entire population of the two continents have been as high as 100 million. But no right minded individual would suggest that Europeans deliberately exterminated 95 million of these individuals. What is suggested is that various European pathogens were unwittingly unleashed over a number of centuries which wiped out the vast majority of that population, and that Europeans then proceeded to committ a deliberate genocide against many of the survivors. That is not the same thing as suggesting that Europeans killed 95 million individuals.

And it is worth repeating that very few serious historians palce the population at anything like that figure. The vast majority have concluded a figure of perhaps a 40-50 million population in 1492 - if even that.

Regarding the potato famine, the Irish famine, you conflate population decline (which you have actually over estimated) with death. As I told you, a vast chunk of that population decline can be accounted for by emmigration as opposed to death. The highest plausable death count for the famine rests at high figure of perhaps a million, certainly not the extra half you added onto that tally. And yes it is far off, 50% off in fact.

So instead of making yourself, and the rest of us by extension, look stupid, ignorant and innumerate why don't you try doing some research before lathering this forum with bullshit?

[Yugo45]

All of those estimates were quickly taken from Wikipedia and other internet sources. I obviously didn't bother to check are those sources legit or not. And I don't really care, since the point was that neither those estimates about how Communism killed 150 million people are true/legit. Find the wikipedia article about the Great Irish Famine. It says 1 million people. So I take that number and post it in my post.

Same with every other number.

So no, I did not pull it from my ass, and I never said did I beilive those numbers were true or not. I was making a statement that numbers can be manipulated with, just like those from that Christian book OP was talking about. Do you think those numbers had any more research then taking highest estimates and putting them all together?

No need to go all hostile on my ass jeez..

[DarkPast]

Over on necrometrics the median estimate of the Native American genocide is around 20 million: http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#America

@Invader Zim: There actually ARE estimates out there which blame 40+ million deaths on Stalin (e.g. Rummel).

[Invader Zim]

Over on necrometrics the median estimate of the Native American genocide is around 20 million: http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#America

@Invader Zim: There actually ARE estimates out there which blame 40+ million deaths on Stalin (e.g. Rummel).


If you actually read Rummel, you will note that he deliberately includes famine deaths and makes no distinction.

[ZeroNowhere]

This seems to be a rather popular line of argument here on Rev(Ultra)Left.
Um, if anything Revleft tilts predominantly towards the right wing of things.

[DarkPast]

If you actually read Rummel, you will note that he deliberately includes famine deaths and makes no distinction.

There's more claims of 30+ million than just Rummel's http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin

Pretty much all the 10+ million estimates for Stalin include the famine deaths. The main reason for Rummel's high estimate, however, is that he grossly overstates the number of Gulag deaths. Also note that his 43 million estimate for Stalin is merely the median estimate - the high end estimate is over 80 million.

But the point of all this is that, yes, there are "respected scholars" out there who pull enormous death toll numbers out of thin air and blame it on communism. Rummel does get quoted by other scholars, his estimates are accepted on Wikipedia (yeah, yeah I know about the problems of Wikipedia, but my point is he is considered a legitimate source, not a propagandist) etc.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And nobody has ever claimed that Euorpeans 'killed' anything like that many of the America's indigenous population. A very few (and very spurious) estimates of the entire population of the two continents have been as high as 100 million. But no right minded individual would suggest that Europeans deliberately exterminated 95 million of these individuals. What is suggested is that various European pathogens were unwittingly unleashed over a number of centuries which wiped out the vast majority of that population, and that Europeans then proceeded to committ a deliberate genocide against many of the survivors. That is not the same thing as suggesting that Europeans killed 95 million individuals.

And it is worth repeating that very few serious historians palce the population at anything like that figure. The vast majority have concluded a figure of perhaps a 40-50 million population in 1492 - if even that.


While I agree with your effort to keep the facts straight, I'm not so sure about this part of what you wrote.

(1) I agree that the highest estimates of residents of the Americas are probably propaganda but the population estimates you offer seem conservative. The Inca, Aztec and Mayan civilizations had many millions of residents each, the Aztecs being the highest with estimates at over 10 million. Unless there were very few living in the Amazon or North America, it would seem like the estimates would have had to have been more than 50 million. 100 million could well be too high, but 40-50 million doesn't seem to fit with estimates of the size of the major empires and city states of the ancient Americas.

(2) The Europeans did not purposefully bring the diseases to the Americas, but they did nothing to help the indigenous population once they started dropping dead. In fact, they used them as forced labor, which certainly contributed to the deaths from disease (estimates of up to if not more than 90%).


I agree that people shouldn't just make stuff up, but i think the debate over the population of the Americas is more contentious.



DarkPast-I think Stalin does deserve some blame for the famines, but what is interesting is that nobody does a similar thing with the Bengal famine. The double standard is quite evident from that fact alone.

[thriller]

My parents are proud of me being a dirty commie :D

Anyhoot, to say Atheist regimes killed more than Christian ones and so forth is such a bullshit argument

So ALL Muslim organizations are evil because a small portion of them don't give women equal rights? A white Protestant blew up the Oklahoma City Building, so obviously all white Protestants enjoy blowing up infants right? The actions of one does not define the ideals of all.

There is no God. You are not going to burn in Hell. Everything will be okay.

And btw, "That's the way it will always be" if people don't try to destroy the class based system and make a better life for themselves. To me that is such a cop-out. "Well that's the way it works" NO! It's only the way it works because your too fucking lazy and selfish to help anyone but yourself! (Not directed at your parents since I obviously do not know them, just something I say to other people who get apathetic when push comes to shove)

[chegitz guevara]

Why would you talk to your parents about communism? Seems kinda silly to me.

[DarkPast]

DarkPast-I think Stalin does deserve some blame for the famines, but what is interesting is that nobody does a similar thing with the Bengal famine. The double standard is quite evident from that fact alone.

Indeed. Very few people seem to be aware of the scale of the Indian famines, and the horrifying conditions that prevailed in most of the British colonial empire in general. And nobody writes that "Churchill killed 5 million people" or "Queen Victoria killed 50 million" or whatever. It's rare to see the famines in the Netherlands and Greece added to Fascism's totals, either. Blaming famine on ideology seems to be reserved for Communists alone.

Even in the 21st century, millions die from malnutrition-related causes in India every year. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition_in_India). But there is enough food to feed these people - it's the political will to feed them, or to enable them to acquire funds so they can buy food, that is lacking. In another example of double standards this, too, goes unmentioned.

[Frank Zapatista]

RedMarxist, ask your parents what they think of homosexuals, then maybe you'll see how righteous these Christians are. :rolleyes:

[Rufio]

Well, it was a Christian book written for the sole purpose to make Christians realize why they should believe in God(and Atheists, which it tries to convert), so of course its biased.

My first response when it says Mao killed 70 Million people was to chuckle in disbelief, as I have studied that period of history well.

Do you think the Christian book was purposely inflating the numbers to make "Atheistic Regimes" look bad?

So its impossible to argue with my parents about faith, now is it.

And what kind of groups/people exist that want to "Harm Communists?" that my parents say exist. Fascist hate groups? your boss?
People harming you, well it depends. If you're in Colombia and you go round telling people you're a communist you will probably be killed. If you're in America I would think it would go down about as well as saying you punch kittens and could get you in trouble in some situations. If you're in Britain or most of the western world it might get you a few odd looks or a snort of derision :rolleyes: You just need to be sensible about it. Obviously if you're looking for a job don't put revolutionary communist on your CV...

Worst case scenarios, you end up on some government list somewhere. If you're not doing anything bad this shouldn't worry you too much; though it's a potential future risk, you could become a political enemy of a dangerous regime.. but in that event you should be rebelling anyway, and it's not really worth worrying about abstract scenarios like this. Also, as tjis said earlier if a revolution becomes a possibility violent reaction against it is inevitable. A more immediate danger if you become a regular activist is you could end up with your picture on fascist websites, if that happens mostly nothing will come of it but obviously it can be dangerous.

But you should do what your convictions tell you. After all you can get into trouble for views a lot less radical than communism. If you really believe something than thse small risks shouldn't be a problem.

The best thing to do with the other questions you have is read. Not Chrstian pamphlets and revleft, both of which will tell you things on idealogical grounds which may not be true. Read around the histories of those countries and those regimes until you feel you have a good idea of what the truth really is. I will say that the claim of athiests killing millions is spectacularly spurious. For one thing, Stalin was a Christian (like Hitler) - but that doesn't mean Christianity was responsible for those deaths. It was not a factor either way. Also, while I'm not in the game of downplaying the crimes of Stalin's or Mao's regimes, it is worth remembering when you hear these huge death tolls thrown around (a lot of people did die under these regimes no matter who is counting) that the standard for a death being attributed to 'communism' is massively lower than the same counter would apply capitalism. A lot of people are dying now. While you're learning what happened under these regimes you should also learn what they did, what they stood for. What they were - and whether this is what you think socialism, communism, Marxism, is and should be.

For a lot of people it isn't, but a lot of people do still support these regimes too. Make up your own mind.

Reading up on philosophy and athiesm can't hurt either, but to be honest most religious arguments are pretty easy to refute and dismantle anyway.

I assume they think it's because you're an athiest you'll go to hell. If they think you'll go to hell for being a commie, you might want to consider moving out :scared:

Your parents may well have worked hard for what they have. Lots of people work hard and get fuck all - and that's spreading. Even if the current crisis gets no worse the future is bleak, for middle class kids in rich countries, even. Communism isn't about denying anyone's right to a decent standard of living. It's a decent standard of living for everyone.

[Invader Zim]

While I agree with your effort to keep the facts straight, I'm not so sure about this part of what you wrote.

(1) I agree that the highest estimates of residents of the Americas are probably propaganda but the population estimates you offer seem conservative. The Inca, Aztec and Mayan civilizations had many millions of residents each, the Aztecs being the highest with estimates at over 10 million. Unless there were very few living in the Amazon or North America, it would seem like the estimates would have had to have been more than 50 million. 100 million could well be too high, but 40-50 million doesn't seem to fit with estimates of the size of the major empires and city states of the ancient Americas.

(2) The Europeans did not purposefully bring the diseases to the Americas, but they did nothing to help the indigenous population once they started dropping dead. In fact, they used them as forced labor, which certainly contributed to the deaths from disease (estimates of up to if not more than 90%).


I agree that people shouldn't just make stuff up, but i think the debate over the population of the Americas is more contentious.



DarkPast-I think Stalin does deserve some blame for the famines, but what is interesting is that nobody does a similar thing with the Bengal famine. The double standard is quite evident from that fact alone.


The population of North America was around 10 million. 40 in central and south.

[Revolution starts with U]

The other thing about the death tolls of hte last century everyone seems to forget; population rates were exponentially higher in the 20th century than in any previous regime. The question shouldn't be "did Stalin kill more than Queen Victoria" but rather "did Stalin kill more of population per capita than Andrew Jackson."
Actually the question should be "why do leaders kill the population" but you get my point :lol:

[Redacrouse]

They threw out the "we worked hard so we deserve this and that..." line. I found myself being reduced to countering by saying how has Capitalism helped the rest of the population. They countered by saying how, in a nutshell, not everyone is helped by Capitalism. that's the way it is and always will be.The "we worked hard so we deserve this and that..." line is actually in favor of communism, note the "miner vs factory owner" argument. Now it really depends on what your father and/or mother work as and with that knowledge you could have yourself quite a respectable debate with them. I do not know why you even had to refer to a pro-Capitalism argument to even argue on that point. Turns out they provided an "anti"-Capitalist argument in the end.


When saying resiliently that I am indeed a Communist, I got pleas from mostly my mother(and my dad), saying they worry that people will harm you for your beliefs.Although I have never been reproached or attacked for my beliefs, you may be attacked by those who disagree with you such as anti-Communists, Fascists, Neo-Nazis, the police (as an organization), the state, and even by those who you are debating with. Truthfully though, that is not much of a problem and exists in almost every ideology as a consequence for supporting it.


Along the way I was holding in my hands some Christian book(can't remember its title but it had a fish symbol with a ? mark on it). I was reading the bit about how atheist regimes were worse then Christian ones.

it said Stalin killed 20 Million, and Mao Killed 70 million.A pro-Christian source speaking of "evil godless commies", what did you expect? That is as reliable and as credible as reading up on Anarchism or even Communism from a state-issued source (school books for instance). And yes, these numbers are highly exaggerated and are under much debate and scrutiny.


anyways, My Mother got in this tirade about how I don't know what Atheism even is(its the rejection of a God, right?!?) and how she worries I will go to Hell.Anti-theism is the rejection of god, atheism is the belief that there is no god.
I said Hell does not exist.

She said it does and she thinks I will go there. I said got proof?

She had none, But said she believes.

My dad said the same thing. I must note my dad was an agnostic/atheist until very late in their marriage.Irrelevant nonsense. That's the same baseless argument as believing that Christians are going to hell for being Christians, just because the Koran (or other random book) says so.


Can someone help me refute these claims. Or at least offer advice.Advice? Stop debating with your parents.

[Seresan]

Stalin killed no more than 10 million. I'd say he killed 5-6 million.

And virtually all of those were either not his fault or were justifiable.

Um... you can pretty much 'justify' anything with self intrest, but beyond that not much is going for the great purges.

[Iron Felix]

What is the future of the Left when we can't even convince our parents?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What is the future of the Left when we can't even convince our parents?

I think the future of the left is mobilizing workers and convincing the young people who haven't been heavily influenced by the Cold War.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

They threw out the "we worked hard so we deserve this and that..." line. I found myself being reduced to countering by saying how has Capitalism helped the rest of the population. They countered by saying how, in a nutshell, not everyone is helped by Capitalism. that's the way it is and always will be.

This isn't really that glaring of a critique of Socialism further whether they themselves have worked "hard," to get where they are "at," is ultimately irrelevant. Further, the claim "that's the way it's always been and will be," is silly, capitalism has not existed all throughout time and has come into prominence/being due to the socio-economic evolution of society and was for example a more efficient and 'better' mode of production than feudalism. It doesn't take that big of intellectual stretch to assume the same will happen to capitalism.


When saying resiliently that I am indeed a Communist, I got pleas from mostly my mother(and my dad), saying they worry that people will harm you for your beliefs.

Absurd, it is a possibility but you could hit by a bus while crossing the street or contract prostate cancer. Again, not a valid critique of Socialism.


it said Stalin killed 20 Million, and Mao Killed 70 million.

Bullshit but really, how many people have died directly or indirectly due to capitalism? Fascism? Etc?


anyways, My Mother got in this tirade about how I don't know what Atheism even is(its the rejection of a God, right?!?) and how she worries I will go to Hell.

I said Hell does not exist.

She said it does and she thinks I will go there. I said got proof?

She had none, But said she believes.

My dad said the same thing. I must note my dad was an agnostic/atheist until very late in their marriage.

All Communists are not Atheists and religion is ultimately irrelevant to Socialism and Socialist praxis. Again, not a valid critique of Socialism.


Can someone help me refute these claims. Or at least offer advice.

This is what I do, I listen to everything but I accept nothing meaning if I find myself where I am unable to debate, refute, etc. something further then I will either state so or remain silent and then research the matter further. You're political beliefs shouldn't be so faulty that one "intellectual," conversation(s) with your parents (or anyone) would shake this. If there person involved is genuinely interested in having an on going intellectual conversation or dialogue with you then will understand the need to research matters related to the conversation and to respond later if not then they are only interested in "converting," you.