Religion and Communism

[FidelCastro]

Lenin, Stalin, Castro, and Mao. These guys were and are some of the top dogs when it comes to Communism. Some of these cats didn't get along either I.E. Stalin and Mao. Besides a love of Communism, these men also shared another thing in common. None of these men believed in God, in fact, Castro was excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

These events, lead people to believe that there is no room for religion in Communism. I disagree. I am a hardcore Marxist and I believe in some form of higher power or being. Hugo Chavez is a practicing Catholic. Some may argue that Communists don't follow religion because it is often Conservative but that statement is in the eye of the beholder. Look at the Bible, I find that the Old Testament is Conservative, while the New Testament is very Socialist.

I think it's dumb when people choose their Religion because of their Political Affiliation. I believe that the too should never meet and I support the seperation of Church and State.

[violencia.Proletariat]

This is getting REALLY OLD. But it has to be done,



I am a hardcore Marxist and I believe in some form of higher power or being.

Then you are not a Marxist. Marxists are materialists meaning they accept material reality, if you believe in god you do not except material reality.


Hugo Chavez is a practicing Catholic.

An anti-imperialist bourgeois politician is a Catholic, so what? This has nothing to do with the compatability of revolutionary politics and theism.


Some may argue that Communists don't follow religion because it is often Conservative but that statement is in the eye of the beholder.

Yeah because homophobia, sexism, racism, classism isn't conservative nor reactionary :rolleyes:


I find that the Old Testament is Conservative, while the New Testament is very Socialist.

The new testament is not socialist. Following jesus has NOTHING to do with socialism.

[nickdlc]

Who gives a shit how "socialist" the bible is. You have to understand religion in a historcial context and understand that religion is an outgrowth of material circumstances that includes christianity!


I think it's dumb when people choose their Religion because of their Political Affiliation.

It's dumb when self proclaimed marxists come on here not having done any research on the topic and still cling to religion most likely for emotional reasons.

Think!

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Most communists don't support Stalin, Mao, or Castro. In fact, many (including myself) don't support Lenin - although I wouldn't through him into the same pile as the other three.

Regardless, communists are against religion because of theory - not because some "cool" person we admire was. Religion itself is reactionary and promotes obedience to an authority figure. Obedience is a characteristic that is in opposition to revolutionary activity.

[Connolly]

I am a hardcore Marxist and I believe in some form of higher power or being.

Why do you believe in a higher power or being?

What do you base this on?

It cant possibly be Science; History; Observation; or experience;

So what then?


religion because it is often Conservative but that statement is in the eye of the beholder

That is one of religions main faults - it has so many possible interpretations (because its badly written, blunt, untrue and reactionary) that conflicts will occur until the end of it existance.

It is conservative and reactionary. Unless you are suggesting that history is in the eye of the beholder too?


I think it's dumb when people choose their Religion because of their Political Affiliation.

Generally we here dont. Rather, come round to the reality of it.

[Goatse]

Religion and Communism

Do not mix. Ever.

Any religious moron is no comrade of mine.

[FidelCastro]

I do not cling to religion. I am not a practicing Catholic or Protestant (they have some major problems). I'm saying I believe in a higher being. I never said God, Allah, Buddah, Xenu or whoever. Keep in mind that religion is one of the oldest things that humanity has. It's been around since the Republic of Rome and even earlier (Religion not Christianity mind you). The Mayans belived in god, the ancient Egyptians, the Chinese etc. Perhaps, this concept of God that has been found in every corner of the world, is more than a coincidence. Now those who say Christianity promotes Racism, Sexism and other horrible things, are correct to a point. The ten commandments aren't a set of rules that apply to Christians and Jews. They're codes of behavior that every single fucking person on the fucking planet can benefit from. I see nothing wrong with religion preaching those not to steal, kill, commit adultry, and honoring thy father and mother.

Please, don't accuse me of supporting a racist or sexist religion. I think their ideas are retarded because if God loves everyone (which he most likely does, given that he exists) then it does not matter if one is Gay, a Woman or Black. What is wrong with believing in higher power, but also believeing that Capitalism is wrong.

[FidelCastro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:40 PM

Religion and Communism

Do not mix. Ever.

Any religious moron is no comrade of mine.
No comrade of yours? So you don't like religious people? I know of another person who didn't like some religions either. His name was Adolf Hitler. I'm not saying you're as bad as him, but fundementally, you discriminating against someone based on a belief they have.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:40 PM

Religion and Communism

Do not mix. Ever.

Any religious moron is no comrade of mine.
that's funny, because no pompous teenager is a comrade of mine. lolz.

[Connolly]

I'm saying I believe in a higher being.

As I asked you above, what do you base this on?

It cant possibly be Science; History; Observation; or experience;

So what then?


Keep in mind that religion is one of the oldest things that humanity has. It's been around since the Republic of Rome and even earlier (Religion not Christianity mind you). The Mayans belived in god, the ancient Egyptians, the Chinese etc. Perhaps, this concept of God that has been found in every corner of the world, is more than a coincidence.

A particular concept or idea will come about depending on particular material conditions.

The Jet engine was being thought up by many at the same time, so was TV, so was radio, so was the first powered aircraft, so was the first car.

Isnt that a coincidence that over the tens of thousands of years of human existance, these ideas were being thought up by people of the same generation?

Its not coincidence, but the outcome of material circumstances. "Being determines consciousness". We can explain these things without mystical unknowns.

Just like the concept/idea of the Jet engine came about through certain material conditions, so does the concept of a God.

When the first TVs were being invented, the idea of a plasma screen had not manifested yet - it needed something to build upon.

Just like this, the concept of God, or Gods, developed throughout the ages coming in different forms and numbers and adapting to various conditions.

Religion comes into being to try explain things people can not come to terms with, such as birth, disease and death. The first farmers wanted good harvests each year, and probably asked for help from nature Gods such as the Moon and the Sun.

Now, with modern production techniques - we dont need to pray to the moon, or sacrifice a thousand virgins to the sun - its unnecessary.

Just like these primitive religions - Christianity and all the other unprovable bollox will fade into the background as they become unnecessary and outdated to modern life. New religions might form, such as fucking scientology and what not - I bet my chips such belief in mystics become unnecessary - you never know though - there might be some gullible punters out there who will follow it like sheep.

Just because primitive civilisations have come to the idea of a God - or Gods, dosnt make it any more valid - there is still no proof.

The ancient Sumerians believed a great flood was sent to punish men who had made the gods angry. They warned a man called Napish, and ordered him to build a boat. Everything on earth was destroyed except for the boat itself. He then sent out birds to find any available land. The birds returned and his family was saved.

This was 5000bc.

Does this little fairy tale sound familiar? - Noahs Ark?

With your logic - this happened - since its "coincidence".

Marxists use historical materialism to explain why people come to their ideas, what their circumstances there were and what effects these ideas have on society.

We reject God because we have seen what manifests it - suffering and the unexplainable. We are slowly overcoming such problems and are discovering our "creation" and environment.

Materialism rules out notions of a God, as Marxists are materialists - we are strictly atheist.


They're codes of behavior that every single fucking person on the fucking planet can benefit from.

And, as we know, our "behavior" has changed through out the ages - and will continue to do so.

Therefore - those "codes of behavior" are reactionary and conservative.


I see nothing wrong with religion preaching those not to steal, kill, commit adultry, and honoring thy father and mother.

You dont agree with stealing? :huh: .........how christian of you, its alright for the bourgeois bastards to steal from the plebs then aint it.

Kill? more moral bullshit.

Commit adultry? How about fuck marriage and we all have one great big gangbang. Its happening and on the increase you know.

Honoring thy father and mother?.............that depend then dont it. The definition of the "family unit" has changed throughout time. Some cultures in remote China today remove the existance of the father altogether, infact the child dosnt even know or relate to their father. Or would you like to impose Gods rule on this "primitive" culture like your religious high command caused bloodshed in south america. If Benidicto had his chance, I dont think hed refrain from spreading Gods love :lol:


Please, don't accuse me of supporting a racist or sexist religion.

I will accuse you of it. But I know your just naieve and dont mean to actually support such a horrible doctrine.


I think their ideas are retarded because if God loves everyone (which he most likely does, given that he exists) then it does not matter if one is Gay, a Woman or Black.

You have yet to prove the existance of God and his Love.


What is wrong with believing in higher power, but also believeing that Capitalism is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with it. Its just that any serious understanding of society, capitalism and our existance (such that Marxism provides) requires a rational understanding.

Religion is irrational and not materialist.

You are not a Marxist until you renounce your ridiculous beliefs - im sorry to say.

[FidelCastro]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 20 2006, 12:55 PM

I'm saying I believe in a higher being.

As I asked you above, what do you base this on?

It cant possibly be Science; History; Observation; or experience;

So what then?


Keep in mind that religion is one of the oldest things that humanity has. It's been around since the Republic of Rome and even earlier (Religion not Christianity mind you). The Mayans belived in god, the ancient Egyptians, the Chinese etc. Perhaps, this concept of God that has been found in every corner of the world, is more than a coincidence.

A particular concept or idea will come about depending on particular material conditions.

The Jet engine was being thought up by many at the same time, so was TV, so was radio, so was the first powered aircraft, so was the first car.

Isnt that a coincidence that over the tens of thousands of years of human existance, these ideas were being thought up by people of the same generation?

Its not coincidence, but the outcome of material circumstances. "Being determines consciousness". We can explain these things without mystical unknowns.

Just like the concept/idea of the Jet engine came about through certain material conditions, so does the concept of a God.

When the first TVs were being invented, the idea of a plasma screen had not manifested yet - it needed something to build upon.

Just like this, the concept of God, or Gods, developed throughout the ages coming in different forms and numbers and adapting to various conditions.

Religion comes into being to try explain things people can not come to terms with, such as birth, disease and death. The first farmers wanted good harvests each year, and probably asked for help from nature Gods such as the Moon and the Sun.

Now, with modern production techniques - we dont need to pray to the moon, or sacrifice a thousand virgins to the sun - its unnecessary.

Just like these primitive religions - Christianity and all the other unprovable bollox will fade into the background as they become unnecessary and outdated to modern life. New religions might form, such as fucking scientology and what not - I bet my chips such belief in mystics become unnecessary - you never know though - there might be some gullible punters out there who will follow it like sheep.

Just because primitive civilisations have come to the idea of a God - or Gods, dosnt make it any more valid - there is still no proof.

The ancient Sumerians believed a great flood was sent to punish men who had made the gods angry. They warned a man called Napish, and ordered him to build a boat. Everything on earth was destroyed except for the boat itself. He then sent out birds to find any available land. The birds returned and his family was saved.

This was 5000bc.

Does this little fairy tale sound familiar? - Noahs Ark?

With your logic - this happened - since its "coincidence".

Marxists use historical materialism to explain why people come to their ideas, what their circumstances there were and what effects these ideas have on society.

We reject God because we have seen what manifests it - suffering and the unexplainable. We are slowly overcoming such problems and are discovering our "creation" and environment.

Materialism rules out notions of a God, as Marxists are materialists - we are strictly atheist.


They're codes of behavior that every single fucking person on the fucking planet can benefit from.

And, as we know, our "behavior" has changed through out the ages - and will continue to do so.

Therefore - those "codes of behavior" are reactionary and conservative.


I see nothing wrong with religion preaching those not to steal, kill, commit adultry, and honoring thy father and mother.

You dont agree with stealing? :huh: .........how christian of you, its alright for the bourgeois bastards to steal from the plebs then aint it.

Kill? more moral bullshit.

Commit adultry? How about fuck marriage and we all have one great big gangbang. Its happening and on the increase you know.

Honoring thy father and mother?.............that depend then dont it. The definition of the "family unit" has changed throughout time. Some cultures in remote China today remove the existance of the father altogether, infact the child dosnt even know or relate to their father. Or would you like to impose Gods rule on this "primitive" culture like your religious high command caused bloodshed in south america. If Benidicto had his chance, I dont think hed refrain from spreading Gods love :lol:


Please, don't accuse me of supporting a racist or sexist religion.

I will accuse you of it. But I know your just naieve and dont mean to actually support such a horrible doctrine.


I think their ideas are retarded because if God loves everyone (which he most likely does, given that he exists) then it does not matter if one is Gay, a Woman or Black.

You have yet to prove the existance of God and his Love.


What is wrong with believing in higher power, but also believeing that Capitalism is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with it. Its just that any serious understanding of society, capitalism and our existance (such that Marxism provides) requires a rational understanding.

Religion is irrational and not materialist.

You are not a Marxist until you renounce your ridiculous beliefs - im sorry to say.
You're comparing the belief of a god to T.V. and Radios. T.V. was not something that was thought of in 1000 B.C. The Romans had bigger stuff on their plate. When you wake up in the morning and you look out your window and see the Sun, you know that the Sun is a star, and will eventually burn out. You also know that the Sun and the stars are the same things. You know this because we live in the age of information. 1000 years ago, people didn't know this but they knew what they saw. What they saw was a massive fireball in the sky that brought them sunlight. At night, they saw a bunch of little glistening specs that formed the shape of creatures. There is your science behind Religion however, God does not have to be proven by scientific fact, to exist. There is no carbon dating machine, archaelogical dig, or form of physics that will prove his existence because God, if he exists, is not of this Universe. What I am getting at, is that people believe in god, because they have Faith.

[Connolly]

You're comparing the belief of a god to T.V. and Radios. T.V. was not something that was thought of in 1000 B.C. The Romans had bigger stuff on their plate.

I was just stating where and why ideas come about.

The radio is an Idea. God is an idea. One is valid, the other is not.


What they saw was a massive fireball in the sky that brought them sunlight.

And what people see now, at least they think they see, are miracles, the power of Jesus and Prayer.

All of which are equally as invalid as the sun being a God. There is no progress of ideas unless things are taken into a scientific an historical context.


There is your science behind Religion however, God does not have to be proven by scientific fact, to exist.

Im sorry, but he does.

I can equally say that the tooth fairy does not have to be proven by scientific fact. do you believe?

I can say that my cat can talk, and that does not need to be proven by scientific fact. Do you believe me when I say my cat can talk?

I am Jesus. Do you believe me?

If you are going to dismiss science, history and your own experience and follow something without a shred of evidence, why not believe in every supernatiral possibility?

Santa clause?
Walking pencils?
Cats talking English?
Tooth fairy?
God?
A million Gods?
A creator?
I am Jesus?
I can Fly?
I can talk to the dead?
Prayer works?
Dogs that live on the moon?

None of these have basis. So why not believe in all, why select just the belief in a higher power - equally as invalid as the rest.

I really cant see your argument.

[violencia.Proletariat]

that's funny, because no pompous teenager is a comrade of mine. lolz.

Whats your purpose here? I've seen you insult members because of their age ever since you've been here. It's a shitty arguement.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by FidelCastro+Jun 20 2006, 02:53 AM--> (FidelCastro @ Jun 20 2006, 02:53 AM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 07:40 PM

Religion and Communism

Do not mix. Ever.

Any religious moron is no comrade of mine.
No comrade of yours? So you don't like religious people? I know of another person who didn't like some religions either. His name was Adolf Hitler. I'm not saying you're as bad as him, but fundementally, you discriminating against someone based on a belief they have. [/b]
Hmm, Hitler was a vegetarian too. A lot of the forummers here are nazis then. What colour is your hair? If it's black, I guess you're a nazi then. Do you own a dog? Do you kill Jews? If so, I guess you're a nazi then.

Jesus Christ, get a grip. Stop with the Hitler comparisons, please. They chose to believe in what they believe. Plus, there are some differences:

Hitler:

Discriminated certain religions.
Persecuted people because of the religion their parents had, not one they necessarily followed.

Me:

I dislike any religious person.

Not favouring any superstitious nonsense over other superstitious nonsense - I hate nonsense fullstop.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:16 PM
Lenin, Stalin, Castro, and Mao. These guys were and are some of the top dogs when it comes to Communism.
Fuck you.
This nonsense tells us enough about your level of intelligence.

[FidelCastro]

Originally posted by ScottishPinko+Jun 20 2006, 06:48 PM--> (ScottishPinko @ Jun 20 2006, 06:48 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 02:53 AM

[email protected] 19 2006, 07:40 PM

Religion and Communism

Do not mix. Ever.

Any religious moron is no comrade of mine.
No comrade of yours? So you don't like religious people? I know of another person who didn't like some religions either. His name was Adolf Hitler. I'm not saying you're as bad as him, but fundementally, you discriminating against someone based on a belief they have.
Hmm, Hitler was a vegetarian too. A lot of the forummers here are nazis then. What colour is your hair? If it's black, I guess you're a nazi then. Do you own a dog? Do you kill Jews? If so, I guess you're a nazi then.

Jesus Christ, get a grip. Stop with the Hitler comparisons, please. They chose to believe in what they believe. Plus, there are some differences:

Hitler:

Discriminated certain religions.
Persecuted people because of the religion their parents had, not one they necessarily followed.

Me:

I dislike any religious person.

Not favouring any superstitious nonsense over other superstitious nonsense - I hate nonsense fullstop. [/b]
What I'm trying to get at, is that you are hating someone due to 1 aspect of their life. If you treat people that way, you will find out soon that you shall miss out. My best friend in the entire world is conservative. I don't hate him, he's my best friend. I may not share his beliefs but that is no reason to hate someone.

[Goatse]

OK, thanks for the advice on my social life and its future.

Now, religion and communism - they just don't mix. I'm sorry, but believing in the need to obey some nonexistant entity is incompatible with communism.

[FidelCastro]

Of course, you're right, my bad. I forgot, there are no exceptions to rules ever. Boy what an idiot I was to think the concept of a God which has been around for 100 million years, is just not as superior as the Communist Theory which has been around for less than 200 years and hasen't had the greatest sucsess. Don't get me wrong, I love Socialism to death, but one must realize the concept of God, whether or not God exists, is incredibly powerful. In a Marxist society, one would be able to harness much power from that belief and therefore, could manipulate people eaiser because let's face it, not everyone believes in Marxism or Socialism.

[Connolly]

You are seriously having a laugh with us <_<


Boy what an idiot I was to think the concept of a God which has been around for 100 million years, is just not as superior as the Communist Theory which has been around for less than 200 years and hasen&#39;t had the greatest sucsess.

If thats sarcasm, its void of anything legit.

Communism has basis.

God does not.

No comparison therefore.


Don&#39;t get me wrong, I love Socialism to death, but one must realize the concept of God, whether or not God exists, is incredibly powerful. In a Marxist society, one would be able to harness much power from that belief and therefore, could manipulate people eaiser because let&#39;s face it, not everyone believes in Marxism or Socialism

I think you should go back to the drawing board with your ridiculous ideas.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:29 PM
Of course, you&#39;re right, my bad. I forgot, there are no exceptions to rules ever. Boy what an idiot I was to think the concept of a God which has been around for 100 million years, is just not as superior as the Communist Theory which has been around for less than 200 years and hasen&#39;t had the greatest sucsess.
So for something to be true it just has to be old? hahaha


Don&#39;t get me wrong, I love Socialism to death, but one must realize the concept of God, whether or not God exists, is incredibly powerful. In a Marxist society, one would be able to harness much power from that belief and therefore, could manipulate people eaiser because let&#39;s face it, not everyone believes in Marxism or Socialism.

Manipulate people? wow your a complete stalinist fuck.

[overlord]

Manipulate people? wow your a complete stalinist fuck.


Can you think of a better way to maintain the gains of revolution other than mental manipulation and Stalinism, comrade?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:36 PM
Can you think of a better way to maintain the gains of revolution other than mental manipulation and Stalinism, comrade?
Comrade, Kim Jong Ill will use his magical powers to make sure everybody obeys.

[BobKKKindle$]

I certainly can - if a revolution requires the manipulation of the people it is suppossed to be emancipating - the proletariat, then is it really worth fighting for? It is only through establishing a revolutionary consciousness that the proletariat can be made aware of their exploitation and their potential to establish a new society. Manipulation and Consciousness are mutually exclusive - they cannot coexist.

Surely a revolution should always be conducted from the bottom upthrough a mass uprising - as oppossed to through the action of a small vanguard party - so that the society that is forged wil be run on democratic grounds, as oppossed to the concentration of power in a small politburo?

Many Socialists feel that the type of revolution that occurs will determine the society that is brought about by the revolution.

One look at the soviet union will reveal the dangers of revolution through vanguard. Following the civil war - the period of defense - power was not restored/given to the Soviets, rather, Stalin went on to construct a powerful centralised state planning board run by state managers. In some ways this was somewhat excusable since there was an urgent need for industrialisation - but there was no reason why &#39;Gosplan&#39; could not be democratically accountable.

The period in which the Revolution is defended - the dictatorship of the proletariat - must be conducted through the workers themselves - in the form of workers councils - so that when the revolution is assured a democratic and social mode of production and a stateless society can emerge. Even lenin admitted - "The Workers must be the class of their own emancipation" even if, in my honest opinion, this was oppossed to the concept of the vangaurd party.

EDIT (Upon seeing the remark about Kim) : The Only means by which manipulation can be ensured is through a personality cult. I am not quite sure why a personality cult is wrong, now i think of it....but it just is. Other comrades will present plausable arguments no doubt.

[overlord]

I certainly can
Didn&#39;t you like the Juche idea of Kim and son? Weren&#39;t you pro naitonal-communism? Are you turning into one of these libertarian communists or were you always?


if a revolution requires the manipulation of the people it is suppossed to be emancipating - the proletariat, then is it really worth fighting for? It is only through establishing a revolutionary consciousness that the proletariat can be made aware of their exploitation and their potential to establish a new society. Manipulation and Consciousness are mutually exclusive - they cannot coexist.


This is true, but isn&#39;t this revolutionary conciousness only going to come about in like 300 years as Redstar states since the capitalisms of today are still semi-feudal? If so, what if you&#39;re one of the impatient guys who wants a revolution now? And if so, can&#39;t we just force one through so we experience it in our own lifetimes? Otherwise this site may as well be shut down if we have to wait the old fashioned way for capitalism to progress.


Many Socialists feel that the type of revolution that occurs will determine the society that is brought about by the revolution.
Are you having second thoughts about bayonetting? Have you gone soft comrade?


One look at the soviet union will reveal the dangers of revolution through vanguard. Following the civil war - the period of defense - power was not restored/given to the Soviets, rather, Stalin went on to construct a powerful centralised state planning board run by state managers. In some ways this was somewhat excusable since there was an urgent need for industrialisation - but there was no reason why &#39;Gosplan&#39; could not be democratically accountable.


I don&#39;t like Stalin but i&#39;ve always admired certain 20th century &#39;Stalinist&#39; communist states for their &#39;panache&#39;. Stalin was a historical accident responsible for stopping Hitler&#39;s bastardry. I don&#39;t think his rapid industrialisation could have been democratically feasible. Consider the complete lack of consumer good production for instance. Would not the people have something to say? Was his urgent vangaurd industrialisation &#39;bad&#39; considering the resulting victory for the USSR?


The period in which the Revolution is defended - the dictatorship of the proletariat - must be conducted through the workers themselves - in the form of workers councils - so that when the revolution is assured a democratic and social mode of production and a stateless society can emerge. Even lenin admitted - "The Workers must be the class of their own emancipation" even if, in my honest opinion, this was oppossed to the concept of the vangaurd party.


I think every system needs a leader. Classical thought states democracy tends to anarchy. My thought says Anarchy will result in feudalism followed by centralisation, government and capitalism. I think communism is crying out for dictatorship.


The Only means by which manipulation can be ensured is through a personality cult. I am not quite sure why a personality cult is wrong, now i think of it....but it just is. Other comrades will present plausable arguments no doubt

Its wrong from your standpoint because Kim is more equal than all the others. Yet I think communism requires a poweful leader/leadership to prevent collapse.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is true, but isn&#39;t this revolutionary conciousness only going to come about in like 300 years as Redstar states since the capitalisms of today are still semi-feudal? And if so, can&#39;t we just force one through so we experience it in our own lifetimes?

I do not intent to &#39;wait&#39; for the material conditions of Capitalism to be so bad that the system collapses, or a Consciousness develops through desperation. The Way to achieve a revolution sooner, and ensure that the ensuing society does not collapse into dictatorship, is to encourage, even impose the formation of a revolutionary proletarian consciousness. By doing so, the proletariat themselves will question the Capitalist system and will be able to acknowledge their position in the Capitalist relations of production. To conduct revolution through vangaurd is to deny Consciousness, and in doing so prevents the eventual goal of a stateless and classless society due to the existance of heirachy and control - hostility to Socialism. This is what you are advocating.


I don&#39;t think his rapid industrialisation could have been democratically feasible. Consider the complete lack of consumer good production for instance.

This is a fair Statement. But remember that Socialism is &#39;designed; for States in which the Forces of production have developed to such an extent that the needs of all can be satisfied fairly without undue Scarcity. The USSR was not such a state. However, rapid industrialisation could have been achieved through highly centralised democratic government - in place of decentralised Soviets - instead of dictatorship. Do not presume that the people are so naive that they would place their immiediete short term needs above the needs of the revolution - just as Citizens have buckled their belts in many countries in times of austerity - so Proletarians will learn to do without commodities during the dictatorship of the proletariat.


I think every system needs a leader

Communism is a Stateless and Classless Society. By very definition, a Society without classes is one in which all are equal, and by being stateless, there is no source of central authority. If you support heirachy and leadership, you are a reactionary.


Didn&#39;t you like the Juche idea of Kim and son? Weren&#39;t you pro naitonal-communism? Are you turning into one of these libertarian communists or were you always?

I support selective parts of Juche. The Concept of national independence or the restriction of trade to a socialist bloc can be applied within a libertarian and Councilist framework, even if the Juche doctrine does place great emphasis upon leadership. The Construction of a nationally independent economy would become an object of necessity, and therefore be favorable to the Worker&#39;s councils, when it becomes clear that the Capitalist states will be unwilling to economically assist a Socialist State in any way. Cuba&#39;s Embargo?


Are you having second thoughts about bayonetting? Have you gone soft comrade?

Please dont adress me as Comrade Yet. And no, my committement to the destruction of the Capitalist class remains as steadfast as ever.

[overlord]

I do not intent to &#39;wait&#39; for the material conditions of Capitalism to be so bad that the system collapses, or a Consciousness develops through desperation. The Way to achieve a revolution sooner, and ensure that the ensuing society does not collapse into dictatorship, is to encourage, even impose the formation of a revolutionary proletarian consciousness. By doing so, the proletariat themselves will question the Capitalist system and will be able to acknowledge their position in the Capitalist relations of production. To conduct revolution through vangaurd is to deny Consciousness, and in doing so prevents the eventual goal of a stateless and classless society due to the existance of heirachy and control - hostility to Socialism. This is what you are advocating.


I agree with your sentiments. A more effective and longer lasting revolution will certainly be established if the people themselves enact it.


This is a fair Statement. But remember that Socialism is &#39;designed; for States in which the Forces of production have developed to such an extent that the needs of all can be satisfied fairly without undue Scarcity. The USSR was not such a state. However, rapid industrialisation could have been achieved through highly centralised democratic government - in place of decentralised Soviets - instead of dictatorship. Do not presume that the people are so naive that they would place their immiediete short term needs above the needs of the revolution - just as Citizens have buckled their belts in many countries in times of austerity - so Proletarians will learn to do without commodities during the dictatorship of the proletariat.


This will take quite some effort. More so than if revolution is led by a vangaurd. Not only do you have to get people be Marxist - and lets face it, no-one is, but they must make decisions in the long term interests of a Marxist state. But does not short term sacrifice lead to long term gain? How can people be convinced to economise when it is human nature to splurge - particularly is resources are distributed according to need.


Communism is a Stateless and Classless Society. By very definition, a Society without classes is one in which all are equal, and by being stateless, there is no source of central authority. If you support heirachy and leadership, you are a reactionary.

Thanks to human nature a stateless and classless society cannot remain so for long. A vanguard needs to impose it. You must accept this at least.


I support selective parts of Juche. The Concept of national independence or the restriction of trade to a socialist bloc can be applied within a libertarian and Councilist framework, even if the Juche doctrine does place great emphasis upon leadership. The Construction of a nationally independent economy would become an object of necessity, and therefore be favorable to the Worker&#39;s councils, when it becomes clear that the Capitalist states will be unwilling to economically assist a Socialist State in any way. Cuba&#39;s Embargo?


But once communism occurs in the most advanced, (and richest?), capitalist countries, who cares about the rest of the world? They can trade or perish.


Please dont adress me as Comrade Yet

Fair enough comrade. I understand it will take time to build trust.

[overlord]

I do not intent to &#39;wait&#39; for the material conditions of Capitalism to be so bad that the system collapses, or a Consciousness develops through desperation. The Way to achieve a revolution sooner, and ensure that the ensuing society does not collapse into dictatorship, is to encourage, even impose the formation of a revolutionary proletarian consciousness. By doing so, the proletariat themselves will question the Capitalist system and will be able to acknowledge their position in the Capitalist relations of production. To conduct revolution through vangaurd is to deny Consciousness, and in doing so prevents the eventual goal of a stateless and classless society due to the existance of heirachy and control - hostility to Socialism. This is what you are advocating.


I agree with your sentiments. A more effective and longer lasting revolution will certainly be established if the people themselves enact it.


This is a fair Statement. But remember that Socialism is &#39;designed; for States in which the Forces of production have developed to such an extent that the needs of all can be satisfied fairly without undue Scarcity. The USSR was not such a state. However, rapid industrialisation could have been achieved through highly centralised democratic government - in place of decentralised Soviets - instead of dictatorship. Do not presume that the people are so naive that they would place their immiediete short term needs above the needs of the revolution - just as Citizens have buckled their belts in many countries in times of austerity - so Proletarians will learn to do without commodities during the dictatorship of the proletariat.


This will take quite some effort. More so than if revolution is led by a vangaurd. Not only do you have to get people be Marxist - and lets face it, no-one is, but they must make decisions in the long term interests of a Marxist state. But does not short term sacrifice lead to long term gain? How can people be convinced to economise when it is human nature to splurge - particularly is resources are distributed according to need.


Communism is a Stateless and Classless Society. By very definition, a Society without classes is one in which all are equal, and by being stateless, there is no source of central authority. If you support heirachy and leadership, you are a reactionary.

Thanks to human nature a stateless and classless society cannot remain so for long. A vanguard needs to impose it. You must accept this at least.


I support selective parts of Juche. The Concept of national independence or the restriction of trade to a socialist bloc can be applied within a libertarian and Councilist framework, even if the Juche doctrine does place great emphasis upon leadership. The Construction of a nationally independent economy would become an object of necessity, and therefore be favorable to the Worker&#39;s councils, when it becomes clear that the Capitalist states will be unwilling to economically assist a Socialist State in any way. Cuba&#39;s Embargo?


But once communism occurs in the most advanced, (and richest?), capitalist countries, who cares about the rest of the world? They can trade or perish.


Please dont adress me as Comrade Yet

Fair enough comrade. I understand it will take time to build trust.

[overlord]

I do not intent to &#39;wait&#39; for the material conditions of Capitalism to be so bad that the system collapses, or a Consciousness develops through desperation. The Way to achieve a revolution sooner, and ensure that the ensuing society does not collapse into dictatorship, is to encourage, even impose the formation of a revolutionary proletarian consciousness. By doing so, the proletariat themselves will question the Capitalist system and will be able to acknowledge their position in the Capitalist relations of production. To conduct revolution through vangaurd is to deny Consciousness, and in doing so prevents the eventual goal of a stateless and classless society due to the existance of heirachy and control - hostility to Socialism. This is what you are advocating.


I agree with your sentiments. A more effective and longer lasting revolution will certainly be established if the people themselves enact it.


This is a fair Statement. But remember that Socialism is &#39;designed; for States in which the Forces of production have developed to such an extent that the needs of all can be satisfied fairly without undue Scarcity. The USSR was not such a state. However, rapid industrialisation could have been achieved through highly centralised democratic government - in place of decentralised Soviets - instead of dictatorship. Do not presume that the people are so naive that they would place their immiediete short term needs above the needs of the revolution - just as Citizens have buckled their belts in many countries in times of austerity - so Proletarians will learn to do without commodities during the dictatorship of the proletariat.


This will take quite some effort. More so than if revolution is led by a vangaurd. Not only do you have to get people be Marxist - and lets face it, no-one is, but they must make decisions in the long term interests of a Marxist state. But does not short term sacrifice lead to long term gain? How can people be convinced to economise when it is human nature to splurge - particularly is resources are distributed according to need.


Communism is a Stateless and Classless Society. By very definition, a Society without classes is one in which all are equal, and by being stateless, there is no source of central authority. If you support heirachy and leadership, you are a reactionary.

Thanks to human nature a stateless and classless society cannot remain so for long. A vanguard needs to impose it. You must accept this at least.


I support selective parts of Juche. The Concept of national independence or the restriction of trade to a socialist bloc can be applied within a libertarian and Councilist framework, even if the Juche doctrine does place great emphasis upon leadership. The Construction of a nationally independent economy would become an object of necessity, and therefore be favorable to the Worker&#39;s councils, when it becomes clear that the Capitalist states will be unwilling to economically assist a Socialist State in any way. Cuba&#39;s Embargo?


But once communism occurs in the most advanced, (and richest?), capitalist countries, who cares about the rest of the world? They can trade or perish.


Please dont adress me as Comrade Yet

Fair enough comrade. I understand it will take time to build trust.

[tambourine_man]

Look at the Bible, I find that the Old Testament is Conservative, while the New Testament is very Socialist.


i don&#39;t think so...
both the old and new testaments are so old and outdated and conservative
communism has nothing to do with obedience, self-sacrifice, or "moral purity."
in fact, it has everything to do with total liberation, the pursuit of pleasure, and the destruction of tradition...



The ten commandments aren&#39;t a set of rules that apply to Christians and Jews. They&#39;re codes of behavior that every single fucking person on the fucking planet can benefit from. I see nothing wrong with religion preaching those not to steal, kill, commit adultry, and honoring thy father and mother.


how can you say this and claim to be a communist??
most of us here would say: steal from the rich&#33; kill the bosses&#33; love freely&#33; run away from home&#33;

religion and god are really just old and boring and should be thrown out as fast as possible.

[tambourine_man]

Look at the Bible, I find that the Old Testament is Conservative, while the New Testament is very Socialist.


i don&#39;t think so...
both the old and new testaments are so old and outdated and conservative
communism has nothing to do with obedience, self-sacrifice, or "moral purity."
in fact, it has everything to do with total liberation, the pursuit of pleasure, and the destruction of tradition...



The ten commandments aren&#39;t a set of rules that apply to Christians and Jews. They&#39;re codes of behavior that every single fucking person on the fucking planet can benefit from. I see nothing wrong with religion preaching those not to steal, kill, commit adultry, and honoring thy father and mother.


how can you say this and claim to be a communist??
most of us here would say: steal from the rich&#33; kill the bosses&#33; love freely&#33; run away from home&#33;

religion and god are really just old and boring and should be thrown out as fast as possible.

[tambourine_man]

Look at the Bible, I find that the Old Testament is Conservative, while the New Testament is very Socialist.


i don&#39;t think so...
both the old and new testaments are so old and outdated and conservative
communism has nothing to do with obedience, self-sacrifice, or "moral purity."
in fact, it has everything to do with total liberation, the pursuit of pleasure, and the destruction of tradition...



The ten commandments aren&#39;t a set of rules that apply to Christians and Jews. They&#39;re codes of behavior that every single fucking person on the fucking planet can benefit from. I see nothing wrong with religion preaching those not to steal, kill, commit adultry, and honoring thy father and mother.


how can you say this and claim to be a communist??
most of us here would say: steal from the rich&#33; kill the bosses&#33; love freely&#33; run away from home&#33;

religion and god are really just old and boring and should be thrown out as fast as possible.

[FidelCastro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:16 AM

Look at the Bible, I find that the Old Testament is Conservative, while the New Testament is very Socialist.


i don&#39;t think so...
both the old and new testaments are so old and outdated and conservative
communism has nothing to do with obedience, self-sacrifice, or "moral purity."
in fact, it has everything to do with total liberation, the pursuit of pleasure, and the destruction of tradition...



The ten commandments aren&#39;t a set of rules that apply to Christians and Jews. They&#39;re codes of behavior that every single fucking person on the fucking planet can benefit from. I see nothing wrong with religion preaching those not to steal, kill, commit adultry, and honoring thy father and mother.


how can you say this and claim to be a communist??
most of us here would say: steal from the rich&#33; kill the bosses&#33; love freely&#33; run away from home&#33;

religion and god are really just old and boring and should be thrown out as fast as possible.
Finally, someone debating religion and not that Stalinst thing a few posts above. Personally, I think it&#39;s insane that you would kill someone over a political idealology. In fact, I think it&#39;s insane that someone would cold bloodly kill someone else. It happens everyday in America and I think it&#39;s disturbing. If everyone went around killing everyone else, looting and various other illeagle activities, we would not have Anarchy. We would have absolute total chaos and destruction. We would destroy ourselves in a matter of a few years. Killing millitary personell in armed engagement is one thing but to kill in cold blood, a civilian is sick.

Stealing can be just as bad, one might argue that it is justified if the person didn&#39;t earn the money and just exploited people to make it but what about the guy who does earn his fortune through hardwork and good leadership. Where is the justice there?

[FidelCastro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:16 AM

Look at the Bible, I find that the Old Testament is Conservative, while the New Testament is very Socialist.


i don&#39;t think so...
both the old and new testaments are so old and outdated and conservative
communism has nothing to do with obedience, self-sacrifice, or "moral purity."
in fact, it has everything to do with total liberation, the pursuit of pleasure, and the destruction of tradition...



The ten commandments aren&#39;t a set of rules that apply to Christians and Jews. They&#39;re codes of behavior that every single fucking person on the fucking planet can benefit from. I see nothing wrong with religion preaching those not to steal, kill, commit adultry, and honoring thy father and mother.


how can you say this and claim to be a communist??
most of us here would say: steal from the rich&#33; kill the bosses&#33; love freely&#33; run away from home&#33;

religion and god are really just old and boring and should be thrown out as fast as possible.
Finally, someone debating religion and not that Stalinst thing a few posts above. Personally, I think it&#39;s insane that you would kill someone over a political idealology. In fact, I think it&#39;s insane that someone would cold bloodly kill someone else. It happens everyday in America and I think it&#39;s disturbing. If everyone went around killing everyone else, looting and various other illeagle activities, we would not have Anarchy. We would have absolute total chaos and destruction. We would destroy ourselves in a matter of a few years. Killing millitary personell in armed engagement is one thing but to kill in cold blood, a civilian is sick.

Stealing can be just as bad, one might argue that it is justified if the person didn&#39;t earn the money and just exploited people to make it but what about the guy who does earn his fortune through hardwork and good leadership. Where is the justice there?

[FidelCastro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:16 AM

Look at the Bible, I find that the Old Testament is Conservative, while the New Testament is very Socialist.


i don&#39;t think so...
both the old and new testaments are so old and outdated and conservative
communism has nothing to do with obedience, self-sacrifice, or "moral purity."
in fact, it has everything to do with total liberation, the pursuit of pleasure, and the destruction of tradition...



The ten commandments aren&#39;t a set of rules that apply to Christians and Jews. They&#39;re codes of behavior that every single fucking person on the fucking planet can benefit from. I see nothing wrong with religion preaching those not to steal, kill, commit adultry, and honoring thy father and mother.


how can you say this and claim to be a communist??
most of us here would say: steal from the rich&#33; kill the bosses&#33; love freely&#33; run away from home&#33;

religion and god are really just old and boring and should be thrown out as fast as possible.
Finally, someone debating religion and not that Stalinst thing a few posts above. Personally, I think it&#39;s insane that you would kill someone over a political idealology. In fact, I think it&#39;s insane that someone would cold bloodly kill someone else. It happens everyday in America and I think it&#39;s disturbing. If everyone went around killing everyone else, looting and various other illeagle activities, we would not have Anarchy. We would have absolute total chaos and destruction. We would destroy ourselves in a matter of a few years. Killing millitary personell in armed engagement is one thing but to kill in cold blood, a civilian is sick.

Stealing can be just as bad, one might argue that it is justified if the person didn&#39;t earn the money and just exploited people to make it but what about the guy who does earn his fortune through hardwork and good leadership. Where is the justice there?

[tambourine_man]

Personally, I think it&#39;s insane that you would kill someone over a political idealology. In fact, I think it&#39;s insane that someone would cold bloodly kill someone else. It happens everyday in America and I think it&#39;s disturbing.


well, it isn&#39;t ideological really. the "cold blooded" proletarian murder of a capitalist boss or politician is really just an expression of fundamental, larger class antagonism. whether a "communist" party, organization, politician, etc. might channel (read: control, confine, define through political or other means) such natural manifestations of class war and proletarian action to meet their own formal, bulleted, respectable ends happens after the fact, and, definitely,that is disgusting.


Killing millitary personell in armed engagement is one thing but to kill in cold blood, a civilian is sick.

who said anything about killing innocent civilians? bourgeois bosses, politicians, cops, and pigs of any other kind who actively enforce the status quo and, more importantly, resist radical movement, are hardly "innocent"...



If everyone went around killing everyone else, looting and various other illeagle activities, we would not have Anarchy.

no, but we would have an active, natural, free expression of the class war that would effectively undermine the legitimacy of every established institution & ideological trend, and would, as a class issue, involve the radical restructuring (destruction of everything old, self-organization) of society into a stateless classless form.


Stealing can be just as bad, one might argue that it is justified if the person didn&#39;t earn the money and just exploited people to make it but what about the guy who does earn his fortune through hardwork and good leadership. Where is the justice there?

i don&#39;t think it&#39;s possible to "succeed" in capitalist society without becoming a part of the oppressive class itself ("hard work" and "leadership" in this context are reactionary, ideological concepts in themselves). but that&#39;s not relevent. what matters is that here you do agree that "thou shalt not steal" as a moral absolute is bullshit.
one down, nine to go. ;)