Godless Communism

[The Machine]

Atheism could be the defining difference between life under communism and life under other idealogues. In a state where nobility of individual is minored and power of mankind is majored, a child is taught:


"from the beginning of his life that it is a human being whose only importance is its contribution to the state-that they are wards of the state-that they exist only for that purpose, and that there is no God, they are just an accident of nature. The result is they have no respect for human life, for the dignity of an individual...the Communist party has substituted Karl Marx for God"

Note that this is not a religous point. This is the exploitation of atheism from the communist idea.

[Sabocat]

.......

[The Machine]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 3 2005, 08:25 PM
Note that this is not a religous point.
...

[RevolutionaryLeftist]

cartoons rule

[The Machine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:40 PM
cartoons rule
yes they do

[NovelGentry]

"from the beginning of his life that it is a human being whose only importance is its contribution to the state-that they are wards of the state-that they exist only for that purpose, and that there is no God, they are just an accident of nature. The result is they have no respect for human life, for the dignity of an individual...the Communist party has substituted Karl Marx for God"

On the contrary, the state does not exist under communism, as such there can be no "ward of the state."

What you propose is fascism, which holds the state as the realization of individual freedom, by suppressing the "enemy to the state." Quite contrary to Marx's ideology which holds human life and freedom above that of God. Very simply, we are not to impose a false idea of God to supercede our necessity of life. Simply materialism. When God supercedes the individual, when we are held "wards of God." Then the individual is respected only so far as we respect them as servants of God. This poses a large problem for those who disagree with the type of God of the majority, as Christian holy wars and inquisitions have proven.

We aim to make society, which whether you want to believe so or not, is composed of individuals, as what we are wards of. We do so in light that man benefits from the labor of other men under communism. Those other men in turn benefit from your labor. Without the individual respect, no respect for that society can form. It'd be interesting to see what kind of "respect" high level members of the bourgeoisie have for African diamond miners, certainly they lack enough respect to allow them to work in safe and dignified environments. The apparent lack of respect is made even more clear by the very common use of sweatshops, in which the "greatly respected" women and children working long hours for some of the worst exchange, are tied to their machines both literally and figuratively.

If this is not a religious issue, then you would apparently like to make it a non-religious issue. Thus I can agree, the problem is not specifically religion, but capitalism. The question is of course whether or not religion abstracts the reality of the situation by holding the widely religious belief of life after death above life before death. Even if this existence is not an absolute reality, it is the reality for us so long as we are here, and for this time, it is all that matters.

[The Machine]

On the contrary, the state does not exist under communism, as such there can be no "ward of the state."

A fascist state is needed to impose communism through socialism


What you propose is fascism, which holds the state as the realization of individual freedom, by suppressing the "enemy to the state." Quite contrary to Marx's ideology which holds human life and freedom above that of God.

Marx believes in the power of man over the power of God. Once again, this leaves no room for freedom. There is no room for a religous communism. Communism cannot co-exist with religion, and so religion is superseded by the power of the commune or the state or the mob. That is not freedom.


Very simply, we are not to impose a false idea of God to supercede our necessity of life.

Since when has the idea of God superseded necessities? This sounds more like a fear of an alternate power.


When God supercedes the individual, when we are held "wards of God." Then the individual is respect only so far as we respect them as servants of God.

People can still respect human life while respecting ourselves as servants of God. When we become servants of the state, it is taught that our only allegience is to the state. Not the individual. Not society. This is the road to your communism.


This poses a large problem for those who disagree with the type of God of the majority, as Christian holy wars and inquisitions have proven.

Respect of God. Respect of others.
Respect of state?


We aim to make society, which whether you want to believe so or not, is composed of individuals, as what we are wards of. We do so in light that man benefits from the labor of other men under communism. Those other men in turn benefit from your labor. Without the individual respect, no respect for that society can form. It'd be interesting to see what kind of "respect" high level members of the bourgeoisie have for African diamond miners, certainly they lack enough respect to allow them to work in safe and dignified environments. The apparent lack of respect is made even more clear by the very common use of sweatshops, in which the "greatly respected" women and children working long hours for some of the worst exchange, are tied to their machines both literally and figuratively.

As history's signature prooves, this is not possible as it takes fascism to create your stateless utopia.

As for the respect for the miners and the children and the women, they are given equal rights to those whom employ them. What is disrespectful about employment and equal rights?


If this is not a religious issue, then you would apparently like to make it a non-religious issue. Thus I can agree, the problem is not specifically religion, but capitalism. The question is of course whether or not religion abstracts the reality of the situation by holding the widely religious belief of life after death above life before death. Even if this is not an absolute reality, it is the reality for us so long as we are here, and for this time, it is all that matters.

According to atheists, religion is faux. Thus it must just be a human institution. Equal to your human institution of reason and logic.

[NovelGentry]

A fascist state is needed to impose communism through socialism

Communism is not imposed, and while socialism does have a state, it is a workers state. Legislative power and executive veto power are completely in the hands of the workers. It is a necessity of socialized production, as the state is also to uphold the production. The state itself is thus the old "working class" of capitalism. The bourgeoisie are excluded from the right to vote and the right to participate in economic and thus political decisions.


Marx believes in the power of man over the power of God. Once again, this leaves no room for freedom. There is no room for a religous communism. Communism cannot co-exist with religion, and so religion is superseded by the power of the commune or the state or the mob. That is not freedom.

Agreed that Marx believes in the power of man (a very material reality) over the power of God, and also that Communism cannot co-exist with religion. The problem as you see it is that communism forces religion out of peoples minds. This is not the case. There is no "reeducation" there is simply education. Your willing to accept it or not depends completely on whether you find what we say logical. We are attempting to educate you right now, whether you believe so or not. You obviously do not wish to accept what we're trying to teach, and that is fine.

Communism will not progress from the forced destruction of religion from the peoples mines, it will develop as religion naturally becomes, at the most, secondary to material reality. If they actually can co-exist, and I am wrong, then there is no doubt they will.

Even under an advanced socialist state which may very much resemble communism in a single geographical region, it is the decision of people, through democracy focused on the local (communal) leve that determines their progression. All political power is in their hands as a consequence of socialized production.


Since when has the idea of God superseded necessities? This sounds more like a fear of an alternate power.

There was this guy called Jesus who supposedly sacrificed his life (avoiding death is not a necessity for life?) for God. There's Islamic fundamentalists willing to blow themselves up for God or at the very least put themselves in the crosshairs of death for God. There are religious protestors who will starve themselves to death to uphold their beliefs. Others who will light themselves on fire in such protest. All of these examples are people who hold God, or at least some form of all powerful spirituality above the necessity of their own life, and in fact, life itself.


People can still respect human life while respecting ourselves as servants of God.

I was told this was not a religious point, obviously you were lying as it is a religious point. Maybe we can respect human life while respecting ourselves as servants of God, but I've never seen it proven indefinitely. "God's word" seems to have a funny way of conding disrespect for certain human life, particularly under Christianity, namely: Homosexuals, Women, Heathens.


When we become servants of the state, it is taught that our only allegience is to the state. Not the individual. Not society. This is the road to your communism.

MY road to communism does not imply we do become servants of the state. It implies we become servants to no one, but it asks very kindly that you contribute to society. You still seem to be thinking fascism and communism are one in the same. Mussolini would be mad at you.


Respect of God. Respect of others.
Respect of state?

What about respect of state? It's stupid to hold respect of state above respect of the people who make society work, which is indeed a respect of others and in turn a respect of society. Assuming of course that society is respectful to you. I would never ask a black person to be respectful of KKK members.


As history's signature prooves, this is not possible as it takes fascism to create your stateless utopia.

Actually, as history proves even once socialists, with fascist tendencies, such as Mussolini, or what you're probably proposing, Stalin, does not create a stateless utopia. This is precisely why I don't support either of their actions nor do I claim they would ever achieve a stateless society. Particulary interesting is your tie in of fascism with socialism. Socialism looks to destroy class antagonisms and thus destroy the necessity for the state. Fascism upholds the state above everything else, regardless of whether or not class antagonisms would be destroyed, in order to do so it seeks to CREATE class antagonisms, even from non-socio-economic background. It creates classes based on nationality, religion, creed, etc.

Histories signature proves that even the tiniest influence of fascism destroys the possibility of a stateless society. Maybe you should read the "That's not Communism" thread I made.


As for the respect for the miners and the children and the women, they are given equal rights to those whom employ them.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Really though, that's not funny.


According to atheists, religion is faux. Thus it must just be a human institution. Equal to your human institution of reason and logic.

Religion is an establishment of faith, Reason and logic are an establishment of science.

[Veritas]

Have you heard of Biblical Communism?

[progressive thinker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 12:35 AM

"from the beginning of his life that it is a human being whose only importance is its contribution to the state-that they are wards of the state-that they exist only for that purpose, and that there is no God, they are just an accident of nature. The result is they have no respect for human life, for the dignity of an individual...the Communist party has substituted Karl Marx for God"

On the contrary, the state does not exist under communism, as such there can be no "ward of the state."

What you propose is fascism, which holds the state as the realization of individual freedom, by suppressing the "enemy to the state." Quite contrary to Marx's ideology which holds human life and freedom above that of God. Very simply, we are not to impose a false idea of God to supercede our necessity of life. Simply materialism. When God supercedes the individual, when we are held "wards of God." Then the individual is respected only so far as we respect them as servants of God. This poses a large problem for those who disagree with the type of God of the majority, as Christian holy wars and inquisitions have proven.

We aim to make society, which whether you want to believe so or not, is composed of individuals, as what we are wards of. We do so in light that man benefits from the labor of other men under communism. Those other men in turn benefit from your labor. Without the individual respect, no respect for that society can form. It'd be interesting to see what kind of "respect" high level members of the bourgeoisie have for African diamond miners, certainly they lack enough respect to allow them to work in safe and dignified environments. The apparent lack of respect is made even more clear by the very common use of sweatshops, in which the "greatly respected" women and children working long hours for some of the worst exchange, are tied to their machines both literally and figuratively.

If this is not a religious issue, then you would apparently like to make it a non-religious issue. Thus I can agree, the problem is not specifically religion, but capitalism. The question is of course whether or not religion abstracts the reality of the situation by holding the widely religious belief of life after death above life before death. Even if this existence is not an absolute reality, it is the reality for us so long as we are here, and for this time, it is all that matters.
So essentially what you're saying is that the state is the dictator of our rights since they do not come from God. "Society" aka the State, is what we would be wards of. Your rights granted to you by God are what allow you the freedom of speech you have today. The state cannot supercede those rights. And this hogwarsh about a necessity of life. Who decides what is a necessity of life? The "society" I suppose. No one is a servant of God, you chose that yourself. If you chose to make yourself more important than God then you are a servant to yourself.

And stop blaming Christian ideology for the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. They are not representative of the ideology which Christ put forth. Christ did not say convert everyone to my religion by pain of death. As such you can no longer use the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades as representative of the Christian faith.

As for the last paragraph you wrote, is it not dangerous to assume that this is all that we live for? If this life is all that matters and we have nothing to answer to, then whats the point of doing good? That is I'm sure the "non"Communist leaders wrestled with this idea for a while. As for your examples of how other countries operate with working conditions, is that not the fault of the countries themselves? What countries do those kind of working conditions exist in? Aren't they "non"Communist countries like Vietnam and China? I suppose that your model falls apart when you have to provide examples from only capitalist countries.

[NovelGentry]

So essentially what you're saying is that the state is the dictator of our rights since they do not come from God.

No. We are the dictators of our rights, that's the idea of democracy.


"Society" aka the State, is what we would be wards of.

Under socialism society is not the state. The old members of the bourgeoisie would be members of society, but not the state. As such, socialism infringes on some people's freedoms, yes. However, it infriges on people's freedoms no more than a capitalist state, and in fact, less so. As it only infringes on the freedoms of the old minority, the working class majority keeps total democracy.


Your rights granted to you by God are what allow you the freedom of speech you have today.

No, my rights are granted to me, at the very least by nature, not God, as I don't believe in God. Even still "natural" rights are not really the same as freedom. I have the theoretical freedom to leap 2000 feet into the air, but my actual freedom to do so is limited by my own existence as a physical being with physical limitation.

A quote from my book:



The nature of freedom is that of dual meaning. In simplest terms the freedom of men is bound on two levels -- first by the nature of man himself as both a physical and metaphysical presence, and second by terms of survival, which have been placed on man by nature, but also by other men. To be truly free is to return to the true nature of man, whereby we are limited only by our own personal incapacity and that which is lent to us by natural survival.

Capitalism is indeed an infringement on the freedom of all men. It is first and foremost an infringement on the freedom of the working class, who must recognize wage-slavery as an order of survival. It is too, however, an infringement on the freedoms of the ruling class who are forced to uphold the mechanisms of capitalism or face the same fate as the working class. Subsequently the infringement on the freedom of the ruling class looks to extend the infringement on the freedom of the working class, i.e. the members of the ruling class are no more free to stop exploiting those of the working class than those of the working class are to be free from that exploitation, by chance that if they did, they too would be subjected to such exploitation.


Indeed socialism is too an infringement upon certain freedoms, namely the freedoms of the old bourgeoisie, but also the freedoms of workers by their willful acceptance of democracy. Indeed anyone can ignore the democratic rules of a society and is "free to kill," for example. However, I would hope it would be the decision of the people not to allow killing and thus having some consequence of murder.


The state cannot supercede those rights.

The "state" is gone under communism. As for socialism, we are not looking to supercede material freedom (our freedom allowed as a physical presence), that would, in fact, be impossible. We are only looking to supercede the supposed right of someone forcefully subjugate the labor of another through control of material necessity.


And this hogwarsh about a necessity of life. Who decides what is a necessity of life? The "society" I suppose.

Necessity of life: That which is needed to live.

Much of this is set in stone, food, water, are such examples. As I have pointed out on the other thread questioning Marx's "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need." These issues are not subjective, ability and need are not subjective and are certainly calculable.

Under communism people would decide their own needs, which is often why we attribute need + wants to the sentence. Where need extends beyond the idea of necessity for life alone. Under socialism there is little requirement to determine either, as the economic production and consumption is balanced by other attributes.


No one is a servant of God, you chose that yourself. If you chose to make yourself more important than God then you are a servant to yourself.

No one is a servant to God in my book. In my book God doesn't exist though. But in someone elses book they may very well believe everyone is a servant of God, and they may seek to push that onto others. God, as defined by the various religions remains subjective as there is no proof of it's existence or it's form, so if your God believes you're the only person allowed to live on earth it would look like your "religious freedom" gives you the right to kill everyone else.

[bed_of_nails]

Hey, maybe "substituting" Karl Marx for God wasnt a step down. Have you ever heard of this really weird little thing... It was about oppressing people because they werent of the same religion as the oppressors... It was called "The Crusades".