An attack on liberty

[TTe5]

In a communist/anarchist society direct democracy is the rule. What if an indivual commune wishes to ban a religion and the majority approves this action by voting?

[Just Dave]

Then religion would be banned i suppose, seeing as most people wanted it banned. If someone wanted it unbanned they could probably just propose that and if the people want it back they could have it back.

[JazzRemington]

It wouldn't be practiced then. If somenoe wishes to practice it, and it's been banned, then most likely they will be discouraged frmo practicing it. An anarchist-communist society still respects individuals.

But I suppose this is going to be one of those things where regardless of how we answer, it'll be one of those "monster commies keeping me from exploiting people, omgbuffalo."

And fuck bourgeosie liberty.

[TTe5]

It wouldn't be practiced then. If somenoe wishes to practice it, and it's been banned, then most likely they will be discouraged frmo practicing it. An anarchist-communist society still respects individuals.

So they will be coerced into not practicing their religion?


But I suppose this is going to be one of those things where regardless of how we answer, it'll be one of those "monster commies keeping me from exploiting people, omgbuffalo."

No, I just want a clear answer and the rationale behind it.

[D_Bokk]

If they like their religion so much, they can move.

Originally posted by JazzRemington
An anarchist-communist society still respects individuals.
No, it respects the community. Individualism is a bourgeois ideology.

[Mesijs]

Communism would respect the individual. If 60% votes to opress 40% and puth them in concentration camp, that's not communism. Communism is the ultimate free world for everybody.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:52 PM
In a communist/anarchist society direct democracy is the rule. What if an indivual commune wishes to ban a religion and the majority approves this action by voting?
Voting to ban religions would only happen in the most extreme cases. For the most part, if the majority disproved of a religion they would simply not practise it, simple as that. The only reason a religion would actually have to be banned in a Communist society would be if it exerts a negative influence on society as a whole, such as homophobia, sexism or racism, in which case there is perfect justification for its removal from society.

[Avtomatov]

I dont think we would ban religions or put people in concentration camps in communism. I think we would only do that in socialism, in order to reach communism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The majority would rationally elect to ban religion, as religion seeks to oppress them. Very much in the same way in which the people would logically opt to not have capitalism.


The only reason a religion would actually have to be banned in a Communist society would be if it exerts a negative influence on society as a whole, such as homophobia, sexism or racism, in which case there is perfect justification for its removal from society.

That is exactly the case... and abolishing it is very justified.

Protecting freedom from oppressors is the meaning of democracy and socialism.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Mesijs
Communism would respect the individual. If 60% votes to opress 40% and puth them in concentration camp, that's not communism. Communism is the ultimate free world for everybody.
See, you're going under the assumption that racism will exist in communism. Just because you're a racist doesn't mean communism has racism. What could possibly make 60% of the people hate 40% of the people while under communism? Name one thing or stop making dumbass analogies.

[Vinny Rafarino]

So they will be coerced into not practicing their religion?

Coerced?

Hardly.

Those whom practise religion or condone the practising of religon will immediatly be placed into "work camps where they will be forced into several years of hard labour until the time when they are unable to physically work any longer.

At that point they will be systematically and publically executed in the name of our dear leader.

That is what you wanted to hear right?

Jerkoff.

[negative potential]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:52 PM
In a communist/anarchist society direct democracy is the rule.



Says who?

This sounds rather to me like "writing recipes for the cookshops of the future," defining communism as the aggregate of a myriad of positive features.

Communism in the Marxian sense is defined negatively, as the absence of the commodity-form and the state.

Defining communism on the basis of formalistic attributes like the existence of direct democracy is missing the point entirely. "Democracy" itself is an immanent category of the state-form.

[TTe5]

Says who?

This sounds rather to me like "writing recipes for the cookshops of the future," defining communism as the aggregate of a myriad of positive features.

Communism in the Marxian sense is defined negatively, as the absence of the commodity-form and the state.

Defining communism on the basis of formalistic attributes like the existence of direct democracy is missing the point entirely. "Democracy" itself is an immanent category of the state-form.

No, it is direct democracy. People vote directly on issues concerning the means of production and social policy. If there was true direct democracy in every facet of life then there would be no State.

[TTe5]

Voting to ban religions would only happen in the most extreme cases. For the most part, if the majority disproved of a religion they would simply not practise it, simple as that. The only reason a religion would actually have to be banned in a Communist society would be if it exerts a negative influence on society as a whole, such as homophobia, sexism or racism, in which case there is perfect justification for its removal from society.

So you would want to ban a persons belief system because you don't agree with its message (no matter how wrong it is)?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It's not its message.
Religion is by definition a very authoritarian practice. For people (clerics) to force the masses to do what they says because he's a fucking schizophrenic is a tremendous afront to free-will. Any free organization of people setting out to protect freedom and democracy wouldn't let this shit go down. It goes down in our present society because the aforementioned clerics happen to share interests with the ruling class. If they didn't, they would be publicly deemed crazy schizos.

By the way, welcome to revleft. Kindly take you Austrian school bullshit and shove it up your ass. I do realize I just infringed upon board policy by flaming, but I seriously can't stand you people. I have never even met a real capitalist who thinks like this. Only dumb middle-class kids with no class conscience at all. You appear to be advocating what is a lose-lose solution to society's problems. I don't like you.

[TTe5]

It's not its message.
Religion is by definition a very authoritarian practice. For people (clerics) to force the masses to do what they says because he's a fucking schizophrenic is a tremendous afront to free-will. Any free organization of people setting out to protect freedom and democracy wouldn't let this shit go down. It goes down in our present society because the aforementioned clerics happen to share interests with the ruling class. If they didn't, they would be publicly deemed crazy schizos.

If that's what people want to do then why stop them? I could see if they were forcing people to be Catholic or Muslim.


By the way, welcome to revleft.

Thank you.


Kindly take you Austrian school bullshit and shove it up your ass. I do realize I just infringed upon board policy by flaming, but I seriously can't stand you people. I have never even met a real capitalist who thinks like this.

Why is that? What do 'real' capitalists think?

[ahab]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:57 PM

And fuck bourgeosie liberty.
word, that isnt really liberty

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Anarchism is based around both social contract theory and the ability to collectively assemble and disassemble. People can ban religion, but the person who wants to practice religion can withdraw from the benefits of the community banning religion (which has, say, free healthcare) and work individually, as a foreigner, or within another community (say a religious one). The main difference is that division would not solely be based on land. A person could withdraw from a community without having to pack their bags and leave. As long as they are being reasonable.

There may be a case where people democratically choose to remove someone from the area - perhaps due to their religion - but they wouldn't have the right (or at least ethical grounds) to vote to chop off person B's head.

Again, things would be a lot different because class structure would be eliminated (or at least different from how we see it today).

[encephalon]

In a communist/anarchist society direct democracy is the rule. What if an indivual commune wishes to ban a religion and the majority approves this action by voting?

I think this thread has gone well beyond your question, and I'll attempt to reestablish the answer here.

The thing is, you're thinking in sincerely local terms. That is, if a small city of 40,000 residents wants to follow a specific religious dogma, why not let them?

The answer is: direct democracy is not a local phenomenon. It isn't merely that, however; if a localized community wishes to enslave all "white" people, should that be honored? No, it shouldn't--and for very good reasons.

Communism is about freedom from exploitation and oppression by all: each to his own ability, each to his own need. All people should be free, no matter the social or economic status that they embody. The son of a farmer should have both the economic and political equality of the son of a lawyer (the two equalities are inseparable). There shouldn't be any slaves, there shouldn't be anyone "coerced" into believing something that isn't verifiable, and there shouldn't be anyone that's forced to accept the mentality of the generation before their own.

In this sense, religion is the oppression of the future by the past; very few people choose their religion, and very few people choose a religion other than that of their ancestors. Religion is an imposition of the present and future by the past, and should be fought with every ounce of energy by any "progressive" person that values freedom, whether you be capitalist or communist. In this sense, communists and typical "american libertarians" share something in common: freedom from evolutionary defects in the past.

If a localized community chooses to adhere to a specific religious hierarchy, then we must all fight it, capitalist and communist alike. It isn't a matter of individual freedom; there is no idividual freedom without collective freedom. It is an all or nothing principle: we are all free, or none of us are free. Our primary goal is to transcend the past.

Plus, I'm cronked as shit. So excuse any typographic errors.

[Erythromycin-diazepam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:24 PM
I dont think we would ban religions or put people in concentration camps in communism. I think we would only do that in socialism, in order to reach communism.
Please never open your mouth again.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Erythromycin-diazepam
Please never open your mouth again.
Is he spoiling your plans?

We all know that the socialist state will be oppressive, that the whole reason why there will be a state in the first place. Even Lenin admits that the state, so long as it exists, is oppressive - so why deny it?

Naturally, to avoid mishaps such as concentration camps there needs to be a different route to communism. This route being: anarchy.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 15 2006, 07:44 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 15 2006, 07:44 PM)
Mesijs
Communism would respect the individual. If 60% votes to opress 40% and puth them in concentration camp, that's not communism. Communism is the ultimate free world for everybody.
See, you're going under the assumption that racism will exist in communism. Just because you're a racist doesn't mean communism has racism. What could possibly make 60% of the people hate 40% of the people while under communism? Name one thing or stop making dumbass analogies. [/b]
and you're assumign that it won't.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 16 2006, 08:42 AM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 16 2006, 08:42 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:44 PM

Mesijs
Communism would respect the individual. If 60% votes to opress 40% and puth them in concentration camp, that's not communism. Communism is the ultimate free world for everybody.
See, you're going under the assumption that racism will exist in communism. Just because you're a racist doesn't mean communism has racism. What could possibly make 60% of the people hate 40% of the people while under communism? Name one thing or stop making dumbass analogies.
and you're assumign that it won't. [/b]
You fail at naming

[Phugebrins]

Back to the original question - 'if the majority wanted to ban religion, could it?' - can I point out that any community imaginable has the potential to do the same thing.

[Janus]

I think we would only do that in socialism, in order to reach communism.
Then we would never reach communism.

Also, I split and merged the discussions about the state here to the state capitalism thread.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by RedStar1916+Sep 16 2006, 07:12 AM--> (RedStar1916 @ Sep 16 2006, 07:12 AM)
Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 16 2006, 08:42 AM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 16 2006, 08:42 AM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 07:44 PM

Mesijs
Communism would respect the individual. If 60% votes to opress 40% and puth them in concentration camp, that's not communism. Communism is the ultimate free world for everybody.
See, you're going under the assumption that racism will exist in communism. Just because you're a racist doesn't mean communism has racism. What could possibly make 60% of the people hate 40% of the people while under communism? Name one thing or stop making dumbass analogies.
and you're assumign that it won't. [/b]
You fail at naming [/b]
why does 60% of the populaiton hate 40% of the poulation in any other system? social or religous strife, racist tendencies, power struggles, political differences... why would this not happen under communism?

[TTe5]

why does 60% of the populaiton hate 40% of the poulation in any other system? social or religous strife, racist tendencies, power struggles, political differences... why would this not happen under communism?

It's scary that under a system such as communism things like that could technically happen. It's an obvious fault of communism that most communists pretend doesn't exist.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by colonelguppy
why does 60% of the populaiton hate 40% of the poulation in any other system? social or religous strife, racist tendencies, power struggles, political differences... why would this not happen under communism?
Religious strife and racism were created by the ruling classes. With the ruling class eliminated, there wouldn't be a need for these petty qualms. Those are ruled out of the scenario.

Power struggles mean that someone is trying to become the ruling class.. if they are then I think it's justifiable for the rest of the populous to retaliate. I doubt this would constitute as a high percentage like 40% though. Political differences are power struggles, are they not?

And you only gave generalities, explain a situation in detail which leads to 60% of the people wanting 40% of the people to be sent to a camp.

[colonelguppy]

Religious strife and racism were created by the ruling classes. With the ruling class eliminated, there wouldn't be a need for these petty qualms. Those are ruled out of the scenario.

LOL. i think you give to much credit to the average person. my racist friend isn't racist because someone told him to. racism is largely discouraged by instituions today and its still around.


Power struggles mean that someone is trying to become the ruling class.. if they are then I think it's justifiable for the rest of the populous to retaliate. I doubt this would constitute as a high percentage like 40% though. Political differences are power struggles, are they not?

yes. 60% of the people don't want 40% of the people views becoming prevelent, so they supress them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The majority doesn't want the prevalence of ideas which threaten freedom [of the majority i.e. working class]. It's perfectly sensible, under this premise, to ban religion.

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas? - Stalin

Like the bourgeois state and the institution of capitalism, religion must be crushed for the people to be free. We cannot simply free ourselves from economic slavery and allow clerics to continue ruling peoples' lives.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by colonelguppy
LOL. i think you give to much credit to the average person. my racist friend isn't racist because someone told him to. racism is largely discouraged by instituions today and its still around.
You do realize that capitalism is still around today, right? Racism is used to split the lower classes, and in fact it was invented in Europe by fuedalism... another class society.

yes. 60% of the people don't want 40% of the people views becoming prevelent, so they supress them.
As they should. If people are trying to overthrow communism to inevitably throw many people into poverty - they should be punished. It's no different than attempted murder.