A quick summary of things..

[VonClausewitz]

Just a few things that have come to my attention whilst active in some and perusing various areas of the site, most of which are unaccessible for me to post in.

I Do you agree that objective morals [good or evil etc] have no place in your vision for society, for they were originally religious concepts ?

II Do you agree that religion and its material, practitioners etc should get either 'education' or removed ?

III Do you think that, despite current technology, there is a risk that your revolution could fail whichever socitey and lead it into famie and civil war, [insert national emergency here], like many historical attempts ?

IV Finally, would you personally actually be happy just to live under such a system, or would you 'do a Che' and go off to make trouble for other governments ?

[Dyst]

I. No, of course not. I think these "objective morals" are human creations and are easily taught to children without bringing up religion.

II. I believe that religion is on the way out, and I know that in capitalist societies fewer and fewer people are religious. IMO it will not be a big problem after the revolution, but if there are any religious groups, scientific education is the way to deal with them.

III. The reason previous "attempts" have failed is that these have been non-capitalist societies trying to find an alternative to capitalism. Communism is not an alternative, it is the next step in history. I think the revolution will come because of it being a necessity, so the human race will not die out. Thus, it will not fail.

IV. This depends on if you are rich or poor. If you are rich you would probably, at first, not appreciate being reduced to what you would now call "middle class". If you are poor, I can think of no better dream. Personally I doubt I will get to experience it, but I envy those that do.

[Orthodox Marxist]

I Do you agree that objective morals [good or evil etc] have no place in your vision for society, for they were originally religious concepts ?

II Do you agree that religion and its material, practitioners etc should get either 'education' or removed ?

III Do you think that, despite current technology, there is a risk that your revolution could fail whichever socitey and lead it into famie and civil war, [insert national emergency here], like many historical attempts ?

IV Finally, would you personally actually be happy just to live under such a system, or would you 'do a Che' and go off to make trouble for other governments ?


I. Morals can have nothing to do with the church I was brought up in a non religious family yet I still know its wrong to steal.

II. I agree that religion should be reformed I respect an individuals right to believe in what they wish.

III.If preventative measures are taken ahead of time I see no reason why a revolution could not succeed.

IV.Yes I would be happy to live under a system Che went off to encourage revolutions in other parts of the world.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 11:39 AM
Just a few things that have come to my attention whilst active in some and perusing various areas of the site, most of which are unaccessible for me to post in.

I Do you agree that objective morals [good or evil etc] have no place in your vision for society, for they were originally religious concepts ?

II Do you agree that religion and its material, practitioners etc should get either 'education' or removed ?

III Do you think that, despite current technology, there is a risk that your revolution could fail whichever society and lead it into famine and civil war, [insert national emergency here], like many historical attempts ?

IV Finally, would you personally actually be happy just to live under such a system, or would you 'do a Che' and go off to make trouble for other governments ?
I. Agree.

II. My proposal is to remove all traces of religion from public life. People's private delusions are of no interest to me unless they make a public nuisance of themselves.

III. The "fine details" of history are always contingent. I think Marx's hypothesis of an enduring communist society will ultimately be confirmed...regardless of set-backs "along the way".

But, of course, I could be wrong.

IV. Too many "unknowns" to answer that question now. In my opinion, Che's decision was a mistake for several reasons. But there might be circumstances in which such a decision would be entirely correct.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Delirium]

I. I think that there should be guaranteed human rights for all people.

But 'morals' like these, have no place in a communistic society.

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."

"Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"

II. I agree with redstar2000

III. It's possible with our current technological state but i cannot predict what civilization will look like when the revolution suceeds.

IV. If i had the opportunity to help crush capitalism of course i would do it, what leftist wouldn't! :D

[Zak]

I. I don't think morals are a religious concept, I think they are an essential part of being human. If you read the book The Mating Mind he explains evolution through sexual selection. Morality evolved as a sortof tool to benifit early human society. By cooperating humanity becomes much more effective than an every man for himself, for a lack of a better word, anarchy.

II. Material practicioners? if you mean priest riding around in limos, yeah they should be "removed." Private practice that dosen't interfeer with anyone else is fine.

III. Well yeah it's possible for any government to fail. Is it likely? Most do, but I think the aim here is to change the philosophy behind government. If it proves effective it will last. At times capitilism reverts to mercantilism. Communism could revert to capitilism.

IV. If it was truely, "from each according to his ability to each according to his need", whats not to be happy about?

[VonClausewitz]

Zak:


II. Material practicioners? if you mean priest riding around in limos, yeah they should be "removed." Private practice that dosen't interfeer with anyone else is fine.

Literally I meant Material (buildings, priests, books etc), and practitioners (the people doing the worshipping).

It is interesting the amount of difference between replies, some people are more liberal than others, some (well, redstar2000) so far, seem to have gotten what my first question was actually asking, and some haven't. Still on the subject of morals, I'll take a look at the book Zak, thanks very much.

[Zak]

Well as for the material of the religions, I think churches and temples should serve the needs of the people. So I think they should be used as housing for the homeless. How could the clergy object to that?

I think the Vadicant mocks the poor by amassing hordes of wealth while people go hungary. I think this material should be public distributed. Lets see a few vagrants wearing papal robes. After all the book of mathew 5:38-47

5:38
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
5:39
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
5:40
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
5:41
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
5:42
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
5:43
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
5:45
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
5:46
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
5:47
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

I think the pope needs to study up a bit eh? Not to mention Bush


As for that book yeah its a good one. Its an interesting read too, well writen. For more info clickhere (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038549517X/103-4323135-6825436?v=glance&n=283155)

[violencia.Proletariat]

Yes, go and pull a good christian move there. You left out the parts where it tells you to stone non-believers to death, oppress women, oppress and make slaves, etc.

We dont need to listen to a book writte two thousands years ago for advice on distribution of resources, afterall our means of production are LIGHT YEARS ahead of what they were at that time.

Use churches to house the homeless? Why? Theres plenty of housing space, if not we can build more. We wouldnt want those people to get hurt when we knock the churches down. :lol:

[Hegemonicretribution]

nate; I think the point was to show the hypocrisy of the church. Bush chooses elements of the bible, but only those that serve a particular agenda. The pope no doubt has an agenda also, and the bible is a tool again.

The wasn't that because the bible was so important that we should do what it says, it was that the people who say it is should at least be coherent.

[Hiero]

III Do you think that, despite current technology, there is a risk that your revolution could fail whichever socitey and lead it into famie and civil war, [insert national emergency here], like many historical attempts ?

Such as?

Every socialist revolution has lead from a argiculture that was seasonal and could easily fall into famine if one season was bad, to a country that overcame famines.

Look at the USSR and China, in the early days they faced famines, they had a long history of famines. Not more then 20 years after the begining of revolution and these countries had moved out of seasonal argriculture into the beginning of industrial argiculture and no longer suffering from famines. Im not saying these countries reached good nutrition values, im saying they made great leaps.

Your claim that revolutions will cause famine shows your bias. I am not denying famine never occured under socialist planing. What im saying is that socialist planing solved this and ended a long history of famines. If you can't accept this, then your just crazy and not serious.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 12:32 PM
nate; I think the point was to show the hypocrisy of the church. Bush chooses elements of the bible, but only those that serve a particular agenda. The pope no doubt has an agenda also, and the bible is a tool again.

The wasn't that because the bible was so important that we should do what it says, it was that the people who say it is should at least be coherent.
That was rather obvious...

But then he quotes the things in the bible they should be listening to. I have a problem with that.

[VonClausewitz]

Hiero;


Your claim that revolutions will cause famine shows your bias. I am not denying famine never occured under socialist planing. What im saying is that socialist planing solved this and ended a long history of famines. If you can't accept this, then your just crazy and not serious.

I never claimed that revolution caused anything, I mereley asked 'what if ?'. It shows absolutely anything about me, asking a question shows nothing. If you read history, these things happened both pre and post revolution. The question was, do you think that your revolution could result in the same problems. (I also included other problems, and an open spot, so that everything from mass genocide to instability could be included).

I did not anywhere state that it would. I just asked your opinion, since you're all the educated people in this way of world-changing.

(A question to you though, what do you think that my bias is ?)

[Zak]

Originally posted by nate+Mar 4 2006, 05:18 PM--> (nate @ Mar 4 2006, 05:18 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 12:32 PM
nate; I think the point was to show the hypocrisy of the church. Bush chooses elements of the bible, but only those that serve a particular agenda. The pope no doubt has an agenda also, and the bible is a tool again.

The wasn't that because the bible was so important that we should do what it says, it was that the people who say it is should at least be coherent.
That was rather obvious...

But then he quotes the things in the bible they should be listening to. I have a problem with that. [/b]
Why do you have a problem with that? Just because there is a lot of nonsense in the Christian bible doesn’t mean it doesn’t have anything good to say. It's like Stephen Bachalor said, "I don't believe in god anymore than I believe in Hamlet, but that doesn’t mean I don't think they have anything good to say."

Your signature demonstrates your attitude about this. There is nothing to suggest that Jesus did not follow what he preached, after all he did die for it. If there were any true followers of any religion, they would be advocating the same sort of equality and classlessness that communists preach about. That is exactly what these passages are about.

If you condemn Jesus for the actions of Christians, do you condemn Marx because of Stalin, or even Hitler because he also used the name Socialist? There is nothing socialist about Hitler and there is little to nothing Christian about the Pope and Bush.

Why would you want to tear down churches? I thought the left was about creating a better society, not wanton destruction out of vengeance. My post was also anti-Christian but I just thought there things should be put to some use instead of needlessly destroyed. Clearly there is not enough housing because we still have homeless.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:36 PM
II. My proposal is to remove all traces of religion from public life. People's private delusions are of no interest to me unless they make a public nuisance of themselves.
Even such things as holding, say, a Christian Discussion Group, in a public setting? I will say that I do agree with Marx that religion is the "opiate of the masses," and that ultimately it creates counter-revolutionary sentiment, but publically banning it?

It seems to me that when you outlaw something or push something down, you ultimately create an underground. You can oulaw public religion all you want, but that can never stop people from finding ways to come together to do whatever religious stuff applies to their beliefs.

It seems to me that alot of religious people can become religious out of hardship, and needing "something" to fall back on. Socialism ultimately destroys economical hardship. It seems to me that you would find, in a productive and well established socialist society, far less people would feel the need to use this "opiate" any longer. It would essentially whither.

And they are "of no interest to you?" It seems a bit absurd to ban things from public like because they are "of no interest to you."

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zak+--> (Zak)Just because there is a lot of nonsense in the Christian bible doesn’t mean it doesn’t have anything good to say.[/b]

It's a tainted source. There is so much deliberate fabrication in it (and in all "holy books") that you'd be extremely foolish to believe a word of it.

Suppose you were unfortunate enough to find yourself working with someone who was repeatedly caught lying...how long before you or any sensible person would cease to believe a word the bastard said?

Same thing with "holy books".


Your signature demonstrates your attitude about this. There is nothing to suggest that Jesus did not follow what he preached, after all he did die for it.

He "died for" the right to have his feet rubbed with expensive ointments? :lol:

Come on, Zak. All we really "know" about the "life of Jesus" is a bunch of stuff written down forty or more years after the "events" supposedly "took place".

And a good deal of that is obviously fabricated.


f you condemn Jesus for the actions of Christians, do you condemn Marx because of Stalin, or even Hitler because he also used the name Socialist? There is nothing socialist about Hitler and there is little to nothing Christian about the Pope and Bush.

Typical evasion. "Communism" during Stalin's period of power was defined by his words and actions.

Christianity today is defined by people like the Pope and Bush.

As far as that goes, "Jesus" wasn't even a "Christian" at all...he was a reforming Jewish rabbi -- a "country preacher" with a serious dislike of "big city Judaism".

"Christianity" was almost certainly invented by Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul").

Stalin's vision of "communism" has become obsolete...as has, for that matter, the entire Leninist paradigm.

Modern communists think a lot of Marx's ideas were pretty good ones...but we are not obligated to "defend Marx" when he was wrong and the ideas and practices of Lenin or Stalin or Trotsky or Mao are only of interest now to historians.

And a few slow-learning groupies. :lol:


Why would you want to tear down churches?

Because they are "propaganda in stone".

We will trash them for the same reason that we will trash all the monuments of the old regime...they are symbols of ignorance and oppression and murder -- which we find deeply offensive. :angry:

Much as the allied forces after World War II deliberately destroyed the monuments and much of the surviving architecture of the Third Reich...to demonstrate to everyone that they didn't want to see that shit around any longer!


MeetingPeopleIsEasy
Even such things as holding, say, a Christian Discussion Group, in a public setting? I will say that I do agree with Marx that religion is the "opiate of the masses," and that ultimately it creates counter-revolutionary sentiment, but publicly banning it?

Let them meet with one another in their own homes.


And they are "of no interest to you?" It seems a bit absurd to ban things from public life because they are "of no interest to you."

Religions thrive on "public legitimacy"...when they are deprived of that, they "wither away".

I propose to deprive them of that public legitimacy in any form. Even the names of streets, cities, geographical features, etc.

Goodbye San Francisco. Hello Yerba Buena! :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:06 AM
Hiero;


Your claim that revolutions will cause famine shows your bias. I am not denying famine never occured under socialist planing. What im saying is that socialist planing solved this and ended a long history of famines. If you can't accept this, then your just crazy and not serious.

I never claimed that revolution caused anything, I mereley asked 'what if ?'. It shows absolutely anything about me, asking a question shows nothing. If you read history, these things happened both pre and post revolution. The question was, do you think that your revolution could result in the same problems. (I also included other problems, and an open spot, so that everything from mass genocide to instability could be included).

I did not anywhere state that it would. I just asked your opinion, since you're all the educated people in this way of world-changing.

(A question to you though, what do you think that my bias is ?)
I will show you where im coming from.



III Do you think that, despite current technology, there is a risk that your revolution could fail whichever socitey and lead it into famie and civil war, [insert national emergency here], like many historical attempts ?

First of all that is wrong. As i said socialist revolutions overcame famines. If you believe the misconception that socialist planing caused famines then you obviously think that it always will. That is your bias.

So to answer your question, no a revolution will not lead to famine. Civil war, yes in some cases. Imperialist governments will interfere if the are going to lose a bit. From the begings of the USSR, to Vietnam to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to todays Zimbabwe. There interference can lead to civil war if the revolutionary government does not remove imperialist forces completly. In this case imperialists can also cause famine as they support reactionaries during the civil war.

[Atlas Swallowed]

1. I do not care what you call good or evil right or wrong legal or illigal but if your actions are detrimental to another humanbeing or the enviorment then it should be stopped other than that I don't care what anyone else does it is none of my concern.

2. Religion should be at a personal level and not organized. People should be free to believe in whatever they wish as long as it is not thrust onto others.

3. Of course thier is risk as thier is with anything worth doing. To radically change society will probably unfortunate as it may be cause much bloodshed anbd misery.

4. I would be very happy to.

[VonClausewitz]

QUOTE
III Do you think that, despite current technology, there is a risk that your revolution could fail whichever socitey and lead it into famie and civil war, [insert national emergency here], like many historical attempts ?


First of all that is wrong. As i said socialist revolutions overcame famines. If you believe the misconception that socialist planing caused famines then you obviously think that it always will. That is your bias.

So to answer your question, no a revolution will not lead to famine. Civil war, yes in some cases. Imperialist governments will interfere if the are going to lose a bit. From the begings of the USSR, to Vietnam to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to todays Zimbabwe. There interference can lead to civil war if the revolutionary government does not remove imperialist forces completly. In this case imperialists can also cause famine as they support reactionaries during the civil war.

Well, I was providing examples, I wasn't actually stating a personal opinion, but if you must take it as such, carry on. I don't think socialist planning causes those things, I think bad planning causes many bad things, look at the mess Uncle Joe made with his collective farms, brilliant idea on paper, bloody useless in practice.

That is an example not of socialist planning, but of bad planning. Why on earth would I hold such a stupid view as 'Socialism causes famine' ? If you're trying to find a reason to dislike me, by all means, carry on, but that (the famine bit) is a really crappy view for even American neo-con morons to hold.

Thankyou for elaborating on another of the words included in the question though, it's just a shame you didn't get the idea of it as just a general 'major disaster what if' kindof question, not an actual treatise against revolutuionary progress.

[Xiao Banfa]

We must remove from our minds that religion is a barrier to socialism.

MANY religious groups throughout history were committeed to deeply radical socialistic ideas.

Blaming the Bilble or Jesus (if indeed he existed) or blaming Mohammed for the inquisition or the Taliban is like blaming Karl Marx for the Khmer Rouge.

One can use any ideology, theology as an excuse to do anything.

Like Stalin exiling Trotsky and murdering Zinoviev in the name of democratic centralism

I would have thought this was self evident.

[MysticArcher]

I would have thought this was self evident.

What's self-evident is that when what a thing does and what it's supposedly called correspond then you have named it effectively - in way that tells you something about what's being named.

When we see religion be reactionary and call it that, we've named it in a way that conveys what it really is


Blaming the Bilble or Jesus (if indeed he existed) or blaming Mohammed for the inquisition or the Taliban is like blaming Karl Marx for the Khmer Rouge.

But we can blame people for what they explicitly advocate and condone

Marx never told people to rap themselves in red flags and slaughter innocents. Jesus on the other hand, well...

"Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Tino Rangatiratanga
We must remove from our minds that religion is a barrier to socialism.

Technically speaking, religion isn't a barrier to state monopoly capitalism -- "socialism".

It's a barrier to what I want: communism!


MANY religious groups throughout history were committed to deeply radical socialistic ideas.

:lol:

The most you can dig up "throughout history" are small groups that attempted to emulate the "Jerusalem Church" c.35BCE as "described" in the Acts of the Apostles.

At best, they were simple communalists...and had no explicit critique of the societies which surrounded them.

The last remnant of any consequence is the Hutterian Brethren...the distant descendants of the great German peasant uprising of 1520-21.

They are neither "socialists" nor communists.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[leftist resistance]

I Do you agree that objective morals [good or evil etc] have no place in your vision for society, for they were originally religious concepts ?

II Do you agree that religion and its material, practitioners etc should get either 'education' or removed ?

III Do you think that, despite current technology, there is a risk that your revolution could fail whichever socitey and lead it into famie and civil war, [insert national emergency here], like many historical attempts ?

IV Finally, would you personally actually be happy just to live under such a system, or would you 'do a Che' and go off to make trouble for other governments ?



1- No.
i believe moral codes are the product of how the society reacts to problems.good or evil is a necessity to prevent undesirable characters from developing.eg. someone wants to steal from another but then he thinks "no,i'll deprive him of what he earnestly worked for".the process of good vs. evil is taking place,at which the former decision is more desirable for the benefit of all.
if,however,you're referring to the "good vs. evil" as in religious "believers vs. infidels"..then that has no place at all.

2-They should be educated

3-For the first few months,there may bound to be complications.socialism must be established quickly to settle things down

4-I would like to live under that system,although i may 'do a che' some times to liberate others



MANY religious groups throughout history were committeed to deeply radical socialistic ideas.


I disagree on that,friend.religious groups are mostly counter-radical.they prefer to accept things as they are.rather tah solve,they push the issue to the side.repressive state?oh,be patient and pray more coz its a test from God.unemployment?same answer.
Although some groups tended to be socialistic,they still practised bias and segregation.non-followers were not really cared for.


We must remove from our minds that religion is a barrier to socialism

Religion was a good idea.but creating a hierarchy and segregating people was very,very wrong.
Personally,if you tell me religion is good,i'd agree.provided you don't follow the crap that they can dish out

[Xiao Banfa]

religious groups are mostly counter-radical

Most marxists say that most marxists are not marxists but capitalists in disguise or that the interpretation of the classics by the SWP/ILO/RCP/CL is bullshit and they are misguided.

It's usually a tiny minority that get things right on anything and everyone condemns that group.
Gallileo and Darwin were examples.

It's like music- the general public are never there in the early days or they say "it's too wierd".


The most you can dig up "throughout history" are small groups that attempted to emulate the "Jerusalem Church" c.35BCE as "described" in the Acts of the Apostles

No, the Essenes, the Jesuits, Liberation theoligists, Mujahedin-e-Qalq.

The Prophet Mohammed himself advocated ideas that were, while not currently particularly radical were radical at the time.

He made it clear that humans, regardless of ethnicity were equal before God.

He taught that wealth was not a virtue and a was a potential corruptor of humanity.
In those days there was a belief in Arab society that the wealthy were somehow superior. Mohammed stipulated that this was wrong.

Mohammed also taught that women should not be treated as chattel and were equal with men before God.

Mohammed introduced social welfare.

Islam prohibits usury (making profit from lending money or buying mortgages).


They are neither "socialists" nor communists

Before Marx or Proudhon no-one could be called "socialists" or "communists" in the strict sense of today.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by .....+--> (.....)Religion was a good idea.[/b]

No it wasn't.


Tino Rangatiratanga
He made it clear that humans, regardless of ethnicity were equal before God.

Mohammad's "God" divides humans into the "saved" and the damned"...and promises a rather different treatment of them in the "afterlife". :lol:


Mohammad also taught that women should not be treated as chattel and were equal with men before God.

No he didn't.


Islam prohibits usury (making profit from lending money or buying mortgages).

Muslim banks don't "charge" interest...instead you are expected to make a monetary "gift" to the bank equal in value to what the commercial interest "would have been" had the bank been "allowed" to "charge interest".

If you fail to make the appropriate "gift", then you go on the "shit list" and no Muslim bank will ever lend you any money again.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

PS: "Liberation theology" was a scam!

[Xiao Banfa]

I was aware that modern muslim bankers have weasely little scams to get around usury, that has nothing to do with the point. In fact I knew you were going to bring that up.

Supposed "marxists" violate marxism all the time.

I could go and get my Qur'an to quote you that women are indeed equal with men before God according to Islam but I can't be bothered.

Redstar you've obviously already decided religion is distasteful.

Hopefully your anti-dialectical Marxism will never get you anywhere near a Church, Mosque or Synagogue with a bulldozer.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Tino Rangatiratanga+--> (Tino Rangatiratanga)I could go and get my Qur'an to quote you that women are indeed equal with men before God according to Islam but I can't be bothered.[/b]

I'm happy to save you the bother...


4:34
Men have authority over women because God has made /the/ one superior to the other...


Redstar you've obviously already decided religion is distasteful.

Not "distasteful"...reactionary! :angry:


Hopefully your anti-dialectical Marxism will never get you anywhere near a Church, Mosque or Synagogue with a bulldozer.

As we have seen in Iraq recently, the contentious Muslim sects may save me a lot of extra work...by blowing up each other's mosques.

Go to it, guys! :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hiero]

I don't think socialist planning causes those things, I think bad planning causes many bad things, look at the mess Uncle Joe made with his collective farms, brilliant idea on paper, bloody useless in practice.

Stalin's collectivisation were a great success, it greatly improved the argiculture sector during Stalin's time.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 07:48 AM
Stalin's collectivisation were a great success, it greatly improved the argiculture sector during Stalin's time.
Tell that to the peasants he slaughtered. Fuck Stalin.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:10 AM
As we have seen in Iraq recently, the contentious Muslim sects may save me a lot of extra work...by blowing up each other's mosques.


Did not know the British SAS had mosques :rolleyes:

Preaching atheism could be concidered reactionary since reactionary is such a subjective term. I prefer to use fucking annoying it much more accurate and alot less anal :)

Its hard to carry explosives with a walker old man. Since I despise organized religion I might give you a hand :) Since I believe in equality it will have to include a church, synagoge, mosque, temple, and the Raelians space pad.

[VonClausewitz]

Did not know the British SAS had mosques

I smell a conspiracy theory, care to elaborate ?

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Stalin's collectivisation were a great success, it greatly improved the argiculture sector during Stalin's time. :lol: :rolleyes: ohh god, need to say more?


Did not know the British SAS had mosques

huh? :blink: , do you mean they have? as in posetion in some Islamic country? or that they have mosques in their training grounds for islamic SAS members? lmao that's highly highly unlikely.

[Hiero]

Anyone who does not acknowledge that collevtisation under Stalin's leadership greatly improved argiculture needs to learn some history, or at least cut out the very reactionary anti-Stalin to atleast accept reality.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 05:18 AM

Did not know the British SAS had mosques

I smell a conspiracy theory, care to elaborate ?
Love to. The British SAS were in fact caught in Baghdad setting up explosives and shooting Iraqi policemen. They pulled this same sort of shit with ther IRA. I would not call it a conspiracy theory but an assumption based on past actions by the British SAS.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CAUGHT_RED__0923.html

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=32

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:08 AM
Anyone who does not acknowledge that collevtisation under Stalin's leadership greatly improved argiculture needs to learn some history, or at least cut out the very reactionary anti-Stalin to atleast accept reality.
The improvments of argriculture could have been done without the oppression of the peasants. Stalins methods had much to be desired as all dictators.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 11 2006, 06:03 AM
huh? :blink: , do you mean they have? as in posetion in some Islamic country? or that they have mosques in their training grounds for islamic SAS members? lmao that's highly highly unlikely.


No silly, the point was that they are possibly blowing up the mosques, not that they belong to them. A civil war would serve the coalition of the idiots well. Divide and conquer pretty basic strategy. See post above :)

[Revolution 9]

Von Clausewitz?

Aren't you that over-egotistical NS that thinks he is German on Stormfront?

:rolleyes:

[LoneRed]

well did you know that many "he" killed, were rich peasants, in the kulaks, give em hell stalin! :D

[VonClausewitz]

Love to. The British SAS were in fact caught in Baghdad setting up explosives and shooting Iraqi policemen. They pulled this same sort of shit with ther IRA. I would not call it a conspiracy theory but an assumption based on past actions by the British SAS.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CAUGHT_RED__0923.html

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=32


Interesting, most interesting. It's surprising I've not seen this on the news, I use international channels like Reuters, so it's not really biased either way. I'll have a read though, thanks for the links.




Von Clausewitz?

Aren't you that over-egotistical NS that thinks he is German on Stormfront?

No, I've never actually signed up on Stormfront, they all strike me as slightly delusional, and perhaps a little insane. My name is in tribute to my favourite military thinker.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:35 PM
well did you know that many "he" killed, were rich peasants, in the kulaks, give em hell stalin! :D
Many were just people trying to survive :angry: Stalin apologists got to love them :blink:

[Zak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:14 AM

Typical evasion. "Communism" during Stalin's period of power was defined by his words and actions.

Christianity today is defined by people like the Pope and Bush.

By that argument should communism not be defined by the People's Republic of China? After all they are the largest organization calling themselves Communists. What you consider Communist is a definition only accepted by a small minority. If the current practitioners, not the original philosophy are what define something, then communism really is the evil thing the conservative media makes it out to be.

I'm not defending Christianity; I don't agree with it, I don't like it. I just think that when we condemn something we ought to get our facts strait and do it for the right reasons. I was pointing out that true Christianity probably doesn’t have a single real practitioner.

I still think it's ridiculous to tear down everything built by Christianity simply because it is representative of it. Should we not then tear down and destroy every major city in the world? After all, they are monuments to the evils of Capitalism that allowed individuals to amass the wealth to finance the building of such huge structures.

If you're going to argue for the destruction of something because you disagree with the ideology that built it, you're going to have a lot more than churches to tear down.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zak
By that argument should communism not be defined by the People's Republic of China?

No...because people in general and communists in particular no longer accept China's self-description as "communist". Indeed, on the increasingly rare occasions when slow-learning rightists denounce "communist" China, it simply provokes mirth amongst us.

I imagine it gets a pretty good laugh in China as well!

In Stalin's day, things were different...he was considered then, by most of his enemies and all of his supporters, as "the world's leading communist".

Mao, prior to his meetings with Nixon, approached this status...you'd have found a lot of people in the 60s and 70s who would have freely predicted that Maoism was "the future of communism".

Late 60s left joke: Entry from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia of 2068: Khrushchev, N., prominent art critic of the Mao Era. :lol:

In our era, communism is "officially dead"...so we are enormously freer to re-think the whole idea and decide for ourselves what we mean by communism.

Christianity has no such "freedom"...and can't until it likewise "officially dies".


I was pointing out that true Christianity probably doesn’t have a single real practitioner.

Then it follows that "true Christianity" doesn't exist and need not concern us. It's the Christianity that does exist that is our intransigent enemy.

And that existing Christianity is defined by reactionaries like the pope and Bush.


I still think it's ridiculous to tear down everything built by Christianity simply because it is representative of it. Should we not then tear down and destroy every major city in the world? After all, they are monuments to the evils of Capitalism that allowed individuals to amass the wealth to finance the building of such huge structures.

Not quite the same thing...though there are what could be reasonably called architectural "monuments to capitalism" as such.

We might, for example, demolish the New York Stock Exchange...as a kind of "object lesson". :)

And I think a good argument could be made for completely abandoning Washington, D.C....simply because its imperial architecture symbolizes so much that is repugnant in recent history.

If, for some arcane reason, we still needed a "national capital" at all (I can't imagine why!), I think Wichita, Kansas is the closest city to the approximate geographical center of the present-day United States.

That's if there still is a "United States" at all...there may not be.


If you're going to argue for the destruction of something because you disagree with the ideology that built it, you're going to have a lot more than churches to tear down.

Well, the urban landscape is polluted with many statues of assholes...which will certainly be pulled down and used for landfill or some other useful purpose. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif