Burma

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Can anyone who witnesses this still argue that religion is and always will be reactionary?

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2007/9/24/1_229397_1_9.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7004625.stm

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 05:09 pm
Can anyone who witnesses this still argue that religion is and always will be reactionary?

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2007/9/24/1_229397_1_9.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7004625.stm
First, Budhism has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian religions. For one, buddhism is much more of a philosophy, and lacks any authoritarian conception of a god.

Second, this doesn't dissproves that even Buddhism is reactionary. Catholic peasants would also rally under liberation theology.

Christianity would even show communistic tendencies. But generally, Christianity, as a tendency has been reactionary. And even those movements who were progressive and christian, would still have a reactionary aspect, which would be christianity.

Besides, if this is to defend Islam, this is a kinda dumb argument. The muslim situation is much different than the buddhist one.

Finally, we are not concerned by exceptions to the rule. We are concerned by much bigger paradigms.

[spartan]

This is not Thailand it is Myanmar! Also Buddhism is not a Religion in the true sense of the word but rather more like a Philosophy.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Um... these pictures are from Myanmar, not Thailand.

And no, this really doesn't prove anything. Some religious folks are protesting? What does that mean?

Religious folks protest for a "Free Tibet" all the time.

Sure religious people can participate in a revolution.. and they can also be counterrevolutionaries.

I would like to point out a "coincidence" though.. these protests (the largest in the country in decades) came at the exact same time Washing announced new sanctions against the country (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070924/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_myanmar). Their goal, of course, is to install a regime "democratic" or otherwise, which will move away from China and hand the country over to them..

[RedStarOverChina]

Jesus Christ!

This is Burma for God's sake.

The military dictatorship is Buddhist too!

It has been building Buddhist mega-temples like there's no tomorrow despite economic destitude and it uses Muslim slave labourers to build them!


Did the Buddhist monks have a problem with that?

Fuck Buddhism, Geez, I can't believe people are still kissing up to religion on this board----And she's a mod too!!

[spartan]

CDL:
I would like to point out a "coincidence" though.. these protests (the largest in the country in decades) came at the exact same time Washing announced new sanctions against the country. Their goal, of course, is to install a regime "democratic" or otherwise, which will move away from China and hand the country over to them..
I would also like to point out that the leader of Iran is speaking at the UN in the USA at the moment so this Myanmar situation offers a welcome distraction for the Bush regime who do not want to be hounded by the media on the Iran situation. This unfortunately looks like a win win situation for the Bush regime.

[RedStarOverChina]

And yes, Buddhism is a reactionary religion, there's no denial. Whom ever says buddhists don't believe in authortity or gods have another thing coming.

All Buddhists believe in gods (some don't admit it) and the Buddha himself personally instructed his followers to "respect and obey" the authority!!! Surprised? You shouldn't be if you are lefty.

I have spent the last 3 months talking to my Buddhist flatmate----He's got Buddhism so far up his ass his brains are mashed up. (But I think I'm making progress with this guy.)

Like all religious people, Buddhists cannot think critically at all! Buddhism and logic are incompatible no matter how they disguise it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sorry folks -- major screw up on my part; I have changed the thread title to Burma

Doh!!! :blush:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot:


First, Budhism has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian religions. For one, buddhism is much more of a philosophy, and lacks any authoritarian conception of a god.

What has that got to do with whether it is an opiate or not?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Oh dear, quite a few of you are, dare I say it, refusing to think 'dialectically' here.

Protestantism is reactionary in certain circumstances, but that did not stop Thomas Munster from being lionised by Engels.

And the fact that the junta is Buddhist is irrelevant. They are certainly not acting like Buddhists.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 07:04 pm
And the fact that the junta is Buddhist is irrelevant. They are certainly not acting like Buddhists.
And how do Buddhists act?

[RNK]

Don't forget Bhutain! The Buddhist monarchy there is currently 10-years deep into a massive ethnic cleansing campaign which has seen over 100,000 people forced into exile and an unknown number killed, beaten, tortured and persecuted in various other institutionalized ways!

[Louis Pio]

The monks in Tibet is another good example of buddism. Before the invasion they used their time fighting eachother and well generally living the life of feudal lords.

Of course individual religious persons can be progressive, but religion in general is crap. And as A force for changing society it is useless in this day and age Sorry not being able to put it better but it's late.

[Zurdito]

many fighters for Irish liberation were Catholic. As marxists surely wwe believe that it's these people who are liberating themselves, for themselves, and to appeal to God as opposed to humanity is a false consciousness and therefore ultimately reactionary, even when incorporated into progressive movements, because it stutnts the potential for true revolution.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Rosa
And the fact that the junta is Buddhist is irrelevant. They are certainly not acting like Buddhists.

Who's to decide what's acting like Buddhists? You?

The Buddha specifically instructed us to "respect and obey" the authorities...And look at how "un-Buddhist" those monks are acting by protesting against their own masters!

You clearly know NOTHING about Buddhism yet still feel like defending the reactionary superstition. I'm beginning to think that RS2K made a huge mistake by introducing you to this site.

It's been so long and I still can't tell if you are a lefty or just some confused liberal.

[LSD]

Can anyone who witnesses this still argue that religion is and always will be reactionary?

Yes. Because those aren't pictures of religion, they're pictures of religous people.

Religious people, of course, are more than capable of being progressive, they're even capable of being revolutionary. I don't believe that anyone on this board has proposed otherwise. Rather we've contended that religion as a social force is reactionary.

And to refute that proposition you'll have to do more than show religious people protesting, you'll have to prove that the reason they're protesting is their religion and that that religion is moving them to protest in a progressive direction. Neither of which you've done. Instead you've shown us pictures of a protest in Myanmar, a protest in which chiefly monks participated solely because the government is less willing to arrest them.

Do you understand? This isn't some clerical revolution, it's because the Buddhist religious hierarchy is so in bed with the Junta that these monks have the freedom (limited as it is) to march. If these were farmers or workers protesting, they would be shot on sight.

If anything, you've just reiterated the point that religion remains the tool of the master and the opiate of the masses.

[Janus]

For one, buddhism is much more of a philosophy, and lacks any authoritarian conception of a god.
That may be so in the West, but in the East it is very much an institutionalized religion.


it's because the Buddhist religious hierarchy is so in bed with the Junta that these monks have the freedom (limited as it is) to march
That's definitely the case with some of the upper clergy, but it also calls into question why the monks are protesting at all especially since the hierarchy is quite rigid and strict. Most of the news sources have been stating that the government hesitates because of the PR issues (both foreign and domestic) that would be associated with brutally suppressing the movement. This is a long-standing trend in the East where states are reluctant to attack or challenge Buddhism for these very reasons (particularly in a country with a Buddhist population of 90%) and it also explains why Buddhists have been able to exert such an exorbitant amount of influence on various governments in the past.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LSD:


Yes. Because those aren't pictures of religion, they're pictures of religous people.

What a nice distinction with no meaning, as if you can separate people from their ideas.

RSOC:


Who's to decide what's acting like Buddhists? You?

Why, the Buddhists, of course.

Any more stupid questions?

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 04:55 am

Who's to decide what's acting like Buddhists? You?

Why, the Buddhists, of course.

Any more stupid questions?
You forgot something. The Burmese Military dictatorship is Buddhist.

So is Thailand's Monarchy. And the Tibetan theocracy.


And you are right, they have already defined what "acting like Buddhists" means...With their horrendously oppressive rule.


Since you have acknowledged that you judge religion by how the religious people act, you'll have to stop using idoitic arguments such as "when the religious sin, it's not the religion's fault but that of the people" or, "they are not acting like Buddhists".

[luxemburg89]

Rosa, I think this is a case of one reactionary institution acting against another, in order to establish itself. Of course I support them in this case, as they will be removing a military dictatorship, and a jumped-up Buddhist state is better than that at least. Either way I think these people are essentially peaceful and I cannot criticise them for that. However if they succeed in removing the current government then I will not support their religious state, because, as I will continue to believe, religion is an enemy of Socialism/communism/anarchism. The way we should see it is that they are replacing one enemy with another. On the other hand if they continue to be peacefully motivated (if they win) then my criticism shall not be as vocal as it is of Christian and Muslim states.

[pusher robot]

Trouble in Burma? I sure hope they don't discontinue my favorite product!

A chin / where barbed wire / bristles stand / is bound to be / a no ma'ams land / Burma-Shave

P.S. It's Myanmar now.

[jasmine]

religion is an enemy of Socialism/communism/anarchism

In practice this is normally true mainly because the major religions developed as essentially political institutions. Certainly, for example, christianity was adopted as the official doctrine of Rome because it was seen by the ruling class/clique as an ideology that could cement a crumbling empire. And Christianity (the institution) has survived 2000 years and several modes of production because it was able to adapt its doctrines to suit whoever was in power.

There is however nothing intrinsic to a belief that the material world is not all there is that is anti-socialist/communist/anarchist. It's the attachment to a politically reactionary institution that determines whether or not someone is likely to oppose the left.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 07:04 pm
And the fact that the junta is Buddhist is irrelevant. They are certainly not acting like Buddhists.
You'll be telling us that Angus McHaggis isn't acting like a scotsman because he has sugar on his porridge.

[al8]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 05:09 pm
Can anyone who witnesses this still argue that religion is and always will be reactionary?


Yes one can.

Buddhisms core ideas are wrong. Its metaphysical claims are baseless falsities. It has holy writ, rituals and a clergy – with the corresponding (parasitic) institutions. On a whole it is untrue. And wrong ideas beget wrong actions. You never know when a false premise "might strike", so It's best to get rid of them before they can make damage.

Rosa, the tentacles of religion are wide and inclusive. They will hustle every sector so as to accrue influence and sympathies. They are oppertunistic. That march isn't a tat progressive. It's just a bunch of monks advertising their relavance.

And political power stems from the barrel of a gun not by some choreographed stroll down the street. Protests/Street-marches are in them selves opiates - it makes people "do something" but jet do nothing. It's when a bunch of people come to together to do nothing! It is 'pure heaven' if your opponents takes up gloriously ineffective means of struggle. That's why states allow protests to begin with, even choreograph such events in close co-operation with protest organizers.

So I'm surprised that you are taken in by this ritual stage act. Don't let the exterior image of these smiley charlatans decisive you.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

If you can show me that these monks are rebelling for strictly religious reasons, then I might reconsider.

As it is, it seems to me that the buddhists are not protesting in the name of buddhism, but in the name of not being brutally oppressed, or in the name of not starving. I would argue that this uprising is absolutely unconcerned with any religious doctrine. Anyone would do as they are doing, because their religion isn't entering the equation here.

Of course, the one thing that I can say is that religion lends itself very well to organization, hence the majority of protestors being monks, and hence their solidarity with eachother. Perhaps this element of one of the least reactionary religions in the world is commendable, but even then it seems more coincidental than explicitly religious.

-Alex

[RedAnarchist]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7015751.stm

They are getting more violent and are shooting at the protesters.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 10:36 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7015751.stm

They are getting more violent and are shooting at the protesters.
This whole thing is going to end in a massacre.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 05:20 pm
Christianity would even show communistic tendencies. But generally, Christianity, as a tendency has been reactionary. And even those movements who were progressive and christian, would still have a reactionary aspect, which would be christianity.
Actually, christianity is a basically communist ideology. For its followers it started as such, whether Jesus existed or not, and the messages are peppered with such language. The problem is, of course, that contemporary incarnations of religion are not only farcical, but tend to have been taken up by people so that they can be controlled.

The idea that some religions are inherantly more prone to communist followers is asinine at best; it is not religion that makes history, but the real conditions of the world those religious people live in.

[RedStarOverChina]

Actually, christianity is a basically communist ideology.

Holy crap, not again!

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:27 am

Actually, christianity is a basically communist ideology.

Holy crap, not again!
Best ignore it and hope it goes away...

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:27 am

Actually, christianity is a basically communist ideology.

Holy crap, not again!
Perhaps if you finish reading my post it won't seem so absurd to you.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Dean+September 28, 2007 05:36 am--> (Dean @ September 28, 2007 05:36 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 12:27 am

Actually, christianity is a basically communist ideology.

Holy crap, not again!
Perhaps if you finish reading my post it won't seem so absurd to you. [/b]
I know your argument. I fucking saw it 2,000 times.

Christianity isn't and was never a "communist ideology". Maybe one day you oughta learn about this "communist ideology" so that you wouldn't embarrass yourself and annoy others.

I'll give you a hint by telling you what communist ideology isn't though:

Communism is NOT about a bunch of hermits living together in a commune waiting for the Judgemennt Day to come.
And it is NOT about having some saviour come along and pick you up after you die so you can go to heaven.

Capisce?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 06:09 pm
Can anyone who witnesses this still argue that religion is and always will be reactionary?

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2007/9/24/1_229397_1_9.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7004625.stm
Dunno. But what's so great about these monks, anyway? Their status allowed them to protest for a few days in the first place! So what if they succeed? Surely you're not cheerleading the next "colour revolution"? Oh, it's so heart-warming to see the people forget about class, and overthrow the evil tyrants together to create democracy! :rolleyes: Myanmar needs neither a military junta nor a "colour revolution" led by the clergy and the neoliberal "democracy movement". I thought that we all advocate socialism on RevLeft.

[Labor Shall Rule]

So far, it seems as if the demonstrations are composed entirely of monks and students clamoring for political reforms. Their protests against the corruption of the regime, will be, at best, fruitless considering that they simply do not have what it takes; they do not have a mass following, or any type of distinct organization besides their universities and monasteries.

However, prices are increasing radically, dealing a tough blow to the social position of whole sections of the working class. As inflation runs higher, and the act of the slashing of fuel subsidies has became concurrent, the prospects of a more militancy with the workers and rural laborers only increases, for they suffer the most from their inability to pay for food and transportation to arrive at their place of employment. If they do join the protests, it would be pleasant to see the trade unions take on the task of arming the workers, while an assembly of revolutionary-democratic forces will be called, which would ultimately be a necessary task in overthrowing the military junta, and a precusor to the establishment of a worker's republic.

[bootleg42]

I only wonder if the left is active now in the country. Any revolutionary leftist right now active??? Any links or news on that???

Also, more and more this looks like neo-liberals and religious monks just wanting power to open up their markets and create a new ruling class. This particular protest is not so much one of the people but it could became something big if unions and leftists there get busy.

50 million people live in the country and only about 70,000 people are joining and supporting these protests and are in with the neo-liberals and monks. That means that the peasants and working class are not "in" with theses pathetic monks and Aung San Suu Kyi.

This is an opportunity.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 06:09 pm
Can anyone who witnesses this still argue that religion is and always will be reactionary?

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2007/9/24/1_229397_1_9.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7004625.stm
Their actions are essentially reactionary. They are attempting to remove a dictatorship to be replaced by a liberal democracy and are attempting to do this by employing pacifism (an incredibly reactionary concept).

That is not to say that what they are attempting to achieve is unjustified.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, religion, in a political context, is reactionary.

LSD's distinction between religion and religious people is a useful one. The latter can play progressive role. However, this is not because of, but in spite of, the influence of religion (and other false ideas).

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2007 11:37 pm
Their actions are essentially reactionary. They are attempting to remove a dictatorship to be replaced by a liberal democracy and are attempting to do this by employing pacifism (an incredibly reactionary concept).

That is not to say that what they are attempting to achieve is unjustified.
I don't think their actions are reactionary in this context, because they engage the Burmese masses in a struggle to "liberate" themselves, even if it's a false liberation at the current time. The leaders of this may well be the bourgeoisie and they may well be religious, but even in places like Ukraine, I wouldn't call those even more ostensibly pro-imperialist revolutions reactionary, because they are still a sign of the masses openly showing their force and protesting about their material conditions. The ideology may be wrong and the leaders may be corrupt but I don't think the burmese army splitting in two and masses of Burmese people on the streets protesting against a military dictatorship can be reactionary. It's a sign to people of what is possible and it builds positive momentum.

[al8]

Isn't it also just as likely that it would not bring a 'positive momentum' - but instead demoralisation?

I talked once to a Ukranian gastarbeiter that lived the "orange revolution". He was clearly more demoralized and apathetic to mass action than envigorated. And understandably so.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Burn the Olive Tree+ 3:18 am--> (Burn the Olive Tree @ 3:18 am)Of course, the one thing that I can say is that religion lends itself very well to organization, hence the majority of protestors being monks, and hence their solidarity with eachother. Perhaps this element of one of the least reactionary religions in the world is commendable, but even then it seems more coincidental than explicitly religious.
[/b]
From what I heard the monks started doing this only after General Than Shwe's army shot a few of 'em.

The monks were the only organization of any size that wasn't being spied upon, and broken up. Many of these monks look young, and might have joined the temple out of safety-either for their politics or family or self.


[email protected] Posted on Just 11 minutes ago
I talked once to a Ukranian gastarbeiter that lived the "orange revolution". He was clearly more demoralized and apathetic to mass action than envigorated. And understandably so.

That would depend if General Than Shwe is ultimately forced from power and someone better comes in.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:38 pm
Isn't it also just as likely that it would not bring a 'positive momentum' - but instead demoralisation?

I talked once to a Ukranian gastarbeiter that lived the "orange revolution". He was clearly more demoralized and apathetic to mass action than envigorated. And understandably so.
but at least then it leads to demoralisation towards the "progressive" sections of the bourgeoisie, who previously had critical support from the masses they set in motion. That is something for the left to capitalise on; a movement for us to take the lead in. This is what we should be doing in burma now; supporting the sentiment of the masses on the streets, and vying for leadership of their movement. I mean put it like this: what use is revolutionary socialism if we are absent from actual revolutions?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:20 pm
I'll give you a hint by telling you what communist ideology isn't though:

Communism is NOT about a bunch of hermits living together in a commune waiting for the Judgemennt Day to come.
And it is NOT about having some saviour come along and pick you up after you die so you can go to heaven.

Capisce?
So communes are not communist?

That was, after all, what I was trying to say: they lived in communes, and actually shared a lot of the more relevant views that communists here do. Egalitarianism, anti - private property, etc.

You can say your or my concept of communism is not about those specific christian dogmas, and I'd agree. But it's silly to say that communism only means what you believe in; I'm a communist, should I never say "I'm an atheist" again since the former in your view indicates that? No, I'd rather use terms for what they mean. Communism refers to equal sharing and free use of material; it says nothing specifically about a god, savior or day of judgement. So I don't put that in the equation when I judge how communist something is.

[ComradeR]

A question, are there any active leftist organizations in Burma?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:42 am
Communism refers to equal sharing and free use of material; it says nothing specifically about a god, savior or day of judgement.
No Gods, no masters, cretin.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Communalism is not the same as Communism. Communism is an ideology with specific historical roots, while communalism is just a way of doing things.

And communalism doesn't necessarily make something progressive. Remember that Jesus had no intention of abolishing the more beastly Old Testament rules.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 30, 2007 01:00 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 30, 2007 01:00 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:42 am
Communism refers to equal sharing and free use of material; it says nothing specifically about a god, savior or day of judgement.
No Gods, no masters, cretin.[/b]
You're really the compelling theorist here.


NoXion @ earlier today

Communalism is not the same as Communism. Communism is an ideology with specific historical roots, while communalism is just a way of doing things.

And communalism doesn't necessarily make something progressive. Remember that Jesus had no intention of abolishing the more beastly Old Testament rules.

Communism, insofar as it refers to the parties, is clearly a reference to historical occurances.

The following is from dictionary.com:

com·mu·nism [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] –noun
1.a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.(initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4.communalism.

Interesting that it lists "communalism" as a synonym. I never liked that word; its widespread usage seems to be an attempt to demonize the prevailing communist movements, or to disassociate oneself with the term "communist" due to the old red-scare nonsense.

And yet it does have meaning:

com·mu·nal·ism [kuh-myoon-l-iz-uhm, kom-yuh-nl-] –noun
1.a theory or system of government according to which each commune is virtually an independent state and the nation is merely a federation of such states.
2.the principles or practices of communal ownership.
3.strong allegiance to one's own ethnic group rather than to society as a whole.

The bold part is the only powerful difference between the terms I see here. And yet, your claim that communalism is distinct because it is "just a way of doing things" whereas communism has specific historical roots (and I imagine more specific and narrow interests) is hardly in line with the definitions given here.

First, we have to recognize that "communism" and "Communism" carry two different meanings; the former is a vaguer reference to communal activity whereas the latter refers specifically to a party or a member thereof.

But the distinction you try to make between "communism" and "communalism," which I am assuming is parallel to this one, is absent from the dictionary's definitions.

Secondly, we have to ask - what distinguishes communalism from communism, and was Christianity more communist or communalist? The first question is uncertain; we know that communalism is not describing a Communist party, at least not here. But its definition is quite close to that of communism's, and indeed seems to describe - or at least parallel - the basic rhetoric of the Communist parties, if not the actions.

But the part I distinguish in the second excerpt is a very odd difference.

Breaking the terms down proves futile in relation:

Let's say "communism" is an interest in communes. That is extremely basic, and comes from adding "commune" and "ism." Communalism, therefore, would be an interest in "communal" - "ism," not just the idea of the commune entity, but the underlying social relations. After all, commune and communal are not purely synonymous, and describe different relations to the the same idea.

Clearly, this is at odds with the understanding given by the dictionary: "communalism" is described as a more disunited society, where people are chiefly interested in the local commune versus the whole organization. Communism, on the other hand, is either more closely knit or more centrally controlled. I'll just assume the dictionary is correct, thought it seems disingenuous.

So, was the Christian commune more communist or communalist? One might say that the splitting - off from the rest of society, to form the commune, is an example of "communalism." On the other hand, the christian religion was not a xenophobic one, at least not initially; its interest in unity was actually part of the reason why it became so popular. And of course, examples like the Paris Commune, the Diggers, and most atomized communist societies were communist; unless size is the primary distinction for you.

In the end, I don't see much reason for the term "communalism" unless we are to refer to closed - off societies, which is hardly a representation of what Christianity was at the onset. As for communism being necessarily progressive, you're right, it's not. And I can't vouch for Jesus' existance, let alone the progressive nature of his teachings. The bottom line, I think, is that the distinction of religion is not a realistic one when we ask ourselves if something is communist; as you pointed out, communism and progress are not necessarily synonymous.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Zurdito+September 30, 2007 12:07 am--> (Zurdito @ September 30, 2007 12:07 am) This is what we should be doing in burma now; supporting the sentiment of the masses on the streets, and vying for leadership of their movement. [/b]
We? I don't think there are any RevLeft members from Burma, let alone with the capability to "vie for leadership of their movement". So I'm not sure what you're talking about here.


COMRADE CRUM
That would depend if General Than Shwe is ultimately forced from power and someone better comes in.
Of course, nevermind that class thing, or imperialism for that matter. It all depends on replacing the evil general by "someone better", and things will be fine. Just like in Ukraine, Georgia, Czechoslovakia and Kyrgyzstan. Peaceful colour revolutions make me feel so warm and fuzzy inside!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The following is from dictionary.com:

I'm sorry, but deriving one's political definitions from an online dictionary is simple-minded at best and deliberately misleading at worst.

Your choice.


The bold part is the only powerful difference between the terms I see here. And yet, your claim that communalism is distinct because it is "just a way of doing things" whereas communism has specific historical roots (and I imagine more specific and narrow interests) is hardly in line with the definitions given here.

Bullshit. You're clearly overlooking definition two. The definitions for communism include explicit political references, none of them older than the 19th century.

Try again.


First, we have to recognize that "communism" and "Communism" carry two different meanings; the former is a vaguer reference to communal activity whereas the latter refers specifically to a party or a member thereof.

Wrong, little-c communism refers to the theory and practice of communism without regard to any party or organisation, but it is still a political slant, unlike the "communism" (actually communalism) of Christ and his disciples and the early church which was a religious/spiritual exercise.

Whatever you call it, the early christians had clearly different reasons for doing it than communists of later times. They weren't saying "workers of the world, unite!" because there were no workers, just slaves and servants, lords and free men. It was a time of slavery and despotism, not industrialisation and capitalism.

They were doing it because they thought it made God happy, not for any objective material reasons.

So to claim that Christ and the early church was communist is ridiculous, because it ignores both the historical context of communism itself and the actual motivations behind their communalism, which can be motivated by allegiance to one's ethnic group but doesn't have to be - in this case, it was motivated by religion.

Notice that the dictionary definitions also miss out on an important aspect of communist theory - not one mention at all of the means of production*. Communists desire the working class to seize the means of production, something that is conspicuously missing from the teachings of Christ.

*which is also why dictionaries are piss-poor sources of political theory.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:40 pm
*which is also why dictionaries are piss-poor sources of political theory.
Not to mention a terribly cheap and lazy substitute for actual political theory. Dean, dictionaries are just for general definitions. Even communists don't agree over what exactly communism is, so don't expect to be taken seriously when you sum it up in a few lines and draw your argument from that.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly+October 01, 2007 02:54 pm--> (Dick Dastardly @ October 01, 2007 02:54 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 12:40 pm
*which is also why dictionaries are piss-poor sources of political theory.
Not to mention a terribly cheap and lazy substitute for actual political theory. Dean, dictionaries are just for general definitions. Even communists don't agree over what exactly communism is, so don't expect to be taken seriously when you sum it up in a few lines and draw your argument from that. [/b]
...except that the discussion was, "is communism descriptive of christianity," not "my concept of communism is agreeable with this or that."

It think it's idiotic to claim that something must be communist in every qualifier I give just so you are allowed to call this or that communist.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:40 am

The bold part is the only powerful difference between the terms I see here. And yet, your claim that communalism is distinct because it is "just a way of doing things" whereas communism has specific historical roots (and I imagine more specific and narrow interests) is hardly in line with the definitions given here.

Bullshit. You're clearly overlooking definition two. The definitions for communism include explicit political references, none of them older than the 19th century.

Try again.

In reference to communism, without capitalization (as the two terms ARE different in that sense) the only other difference is the quality of ethno-centrism / interest in the commune rather than the more widescale structure.

Ignoring dictionaries when you try to claim the objective meaning of a term is a piss-poor excuse for bullshitting.

Try again.




First, we have to recognize that "communism" and "Communism" carry two different meanings; the former is a vaguer reference to communal activity whereas the latter refers specifically to a party or a member thereof.

Wrong, little-c communism refers to the theory and practice of communism without regard to any party or organisation, but it is still a political slant, unlike the "communism" (actually communalism) of Christ and his disciples and the early church which was a religious/spiritual exercise.
Both religion and communism have clear political implications. I never said either was un-political, but claiming that they are different in this way is not particularly reasonable.

Maybe communalism has that narrow - minded meaning for you, but I don't see ANY correlation at all except perhaps for a desire to align oneself with a certain idea.


Whatever you call it, the early christians had clearly different reasons for doing it than communists of later times. They weren't saying "workers of the world, unite!" because there were no workers, just slaves and servants, lords and free men. It was a time of slavery and despotism, not industrialisation and capitalism.

They were doing it because they thought it made God happy, not for any objective material reasons.
No, there were objective material rasons for their belief in god, even if that was all there was behind their communist ideas. You can't take the mind out of its material conditions and claim that one is really seperate from the other.


So to claim that Christ and the early church was communist is ridiculous, because it ignores both the historical context of communism itself and the actual motivations behind their communalism, which can be motivated by allegiance to one's ethnic group but doesn't have to be - in this case, it was motivated by religion.

Notice that the dictionary definitions also miss out on an important aspect of communist theory - not one mention at all of the means of production*. Communists desire the working class to seize the means of production, something that is conspicuously missing from the teachings of Christ.

*which is also why dictionaries are piss-poor sources of political theory.
So? if both definitions only said "sharing of property," despite the argument about property not existing in communism and the complex nature of the idea, it would still be evident what was being said. And jsut like here, you have NO legitimate disctinction between communism and communalism; while I have tried to understand the terms, you have only tried - stubbornly - to defend a distinction between religion and philosophy in general that isn't there. I have never seen the term "communalism" used except in very similar was to the term "communism." Perhaps there is the distinction, besides the historical usage and enthnocentrism, but I just don't see it.

Also, to pretend that this is complex political theory is ridiculous. This is, at best, describing the general understanding of a few specific political theories. I am not saying that I support christianity just because I call it communist, but I am not daft enough to pretend that it cannot be called by the same terms.

[ichneumon]

can you actually read through this and call it reactionary?


1 Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.

2 Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others' viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.

3 Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowmindedness.

4 Do not avoid suffering or close your eyes before suffering. Do not lose awareness of the existence of suffering in the life of the world. Find ways to be with those who are suffering, including personal contact, visits, images and sounds. By such means, awaken yourself and others to the reality of suffering in the world.

5 Do not accumulate wealth while millions are hungry. Do not take as the aim of your life fame, profit, wealth, or sensual pleasure. Live simply and share time, energy, and material resources with those who are in need.

6 Do not maintain anger or hatred. Learn to penetrate and transform them when they are still seeds in your consciousness. As soon as they arise, turn your attention to your breath in order to see and understand the nature of your hatred.

7 Do not lose yourself in dispersion and in your surroundings. Practice mindful breathing to come back to what is happening in the present moment. Be in touch with what is wondrous, refreshing, and healing both inside and around you. Plant seeds of joy, peace, and understanding in yourself in order to facilitate the work of transformation in the depths of your consciousness.

8 Do not utter words that can create discord and cause the community to break. Make every effort to reconcile and resolve all conflicts, however small.

9 Do not say untruthful things for the sake of personal interest or to impress people. Do not utter words that cause division and hatred. Do not spread news that you do not know to be certain. Do not criticize or condemn things of which you are not sure. Always speak truthfully and constructively. Have the courage to speak out about situations of injustice, even when doing so may threaten your own safety.

10 Do not use the Buddhist community for personal gain or profit, or transform your community into a political party. A religious community, however, should take a clear stand against oppression and injustice and should strive to change the situation without engaging in partisan conflicts.

11 Do not live with a vocation that is harmful to humans and nature. Do not invest in companies that deprive others of their chance to live. Select a vocation that helps realise your ideal of compassion.

12 Do not kill. Do not let others kill. Find whatever means possible to protect life and prevent war.

13 Possess nothing that should belong to others. Respect the property of others, but prevent others from profiting from human suffering or the suffering of other species on Earth.

14 Do not mistreat your body. Learn to handle it with respect. Do not look on your body as only an instrument. Preserve vital energies (sexual, breath, spirit) for the realisation of the Way. (For brothers and sisters who are not monks and nuns): Sexual expression should not take place without love and commitment. In sexual relations, be aware of future suffering that may be caused. To preserve the happiness of others, respect the rights and commitments of others. Be fully aware of the responsibility of bringing new lives into the world. Meditate on the world into which you are bringing new beings.

if so, please define the nonreactionary precepts of revolutionary socialism.

[Wanted Man]

It has now turned out that the monks were US-trained. Looks like Rosa's intuition has failed her! Ah well, you've got to do something if you don't have dialectics...

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:55 pm
can you actually read through this and call it reactionary?


1 Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.

2 Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others' viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.

3 Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowmindedness.

4 Do not avoid suffering or close your eyes before suffering. Do not lose awareness of the existence of suffering in the life of the world. Find ways to be with those who are suffering, including personal contact, visits, images and sounds. By such means, awaken yourself and others to the reality of suffering in the world.

5 Do not accumulate wealth while millions are hungry. Do not take as the aim of your life fame, profit, wealth, or sensual pleasure. Live simply and share time, energy, and material resources with those who are in need.

6 Do not maintain anger or hatred. Learn to penetrate and transform them when they are still seeds in your consciousness. As soon as they arise, turn your attention to your breath in order to see and understand the nature of your hatred.

7 Do not lose yourself in dispersion and in your surroundings. Practice mindful breathing to come back to what is happening in the present moment. Be in touch with what is wondrous, refreshing, and healing both inside and around you. Plant seeds of joy, peace, and understanding in yourself in order to facilitate the work of transformation in the depths of your consciousness.

8 Do not utter words that can create discord and cause the community to break. Make every effort to reconcile and resolve all conflicts, however small.

9 Do not say untruthful things for the sake of personal interest or to impress people. Do not utter words that cause division and hatred. Do not spread news that you do not know to be certain. Do not criticize or condemn things of which you are not sure. Always speak truthfully and constructively. Have the courage to speak out about situations of injustice, even when doing so may threaten your own safety.

10 Do not use the Buddhist community for personal gain or profit, or transform your community into a political party. A religious community, however, should take a clear stand against oppression and injustice and should strive to change the situation without engaging in partisan conflicts.

11 Do not live with a vocation that is harmful to humans and nature. Do not invest in companies that deprive others of their chance to live. Select a vocation that helps realise your ideal of compassion.

12 Do not kill. Do not let others kill. Find whatever means possible to protect life and prevent war.

13 Possess nothing that should belong to others. Respect the property of others, but prevent others from profiting from human suffering or the suffering of other species on Earth.

14 Do not mistreat your body. Learn to handle it with respect. Do not look on your body as only an instrument. Preserve vital energies (sexual, breath, spirit) for the realisation of the Way. (For brothers and sisters who are not monks and nuns): Sexual expression should not take place without love and commitment. In sexual relations, be aware of future suffering that may be caused. To preserve the happiness of others, respect the rights and commitments of others. Be fully aware of the responsibility of bringing new lives into the world. Meditate on the world into which you are bringing new beings.

if so, please define the nonreactionary precepts of revolutionary socialism.
Well, yeah.


Do not avoid suffering or close your eyes before suffering.

Don't avoid suffering? What the fuck?


Do not take as the aim of your life fame, profit, wealth, or sensual pleasure.

I think normal people seek sensual pleasure. As in, 100% of people. If there's no sensual pleasure, there's no reason to seek communism.


Do not maintain anger or hatred. Learn to penetrate and transform them when they are still seeds in your consciousness. As soon as they arise, turn your attention to your breath in order to see and understand the nature of your hatred.


Because listening to yourself breathe helps you figure out what's making you angry? Or is that just a long-winded way of saying "calm down"?

Anyway - anger is natural and I see no reason to not be angry at the ruling class.


Plant seeds of joy, peace, and understanding in yourself in order to facilitate the work of transformation in the depths of your consciousness.


Transforming from what into what? Or from superstitious rhetoric into superstitious rhetoric?


Do not utter words that can create discord and cause the community to break. Make every effort to reconcile and resolve all conflicts, however small.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments


Have the courage to speak out about situations of injustice, even when doing so may threaten your own safety.

I'm not threatening my own safety, thank you.


11 Do not live with a vocation that is harmful to humans and nature. Do not invest in companies that deprive others of their chance to live. Select a vocation that helps realise your ideal of compassion.

12 Do not kill. Do not let others kill. Find whatever means possible to protect life and prevent war.

13 Possess nothing that should belong to others. Respect the property of others, but prevent others from profiting from human suffering or the suffering of other species on Earth.

Respect the property of others... hmm... Do not kill... Do not harm humans... Let's go easy on the bourgeoisie and have some nice reforms!


14 Do not mistreat your body. Learn to handle it with respect. Do not look on your body as only an instrument. Preserve vital energies (sexual, breath, spirit) for the realisation of the Way. (For brothers and sisters who are not monks and nuns): Sexual expression should not take place without love and commitment. In sexual relations, be aware of future suffering that may be caused. To preserve the happiness of others, respect the rights and commitments of others. Be fully aware of the responsibility of bringing new lives into the world. Meditate on the world into which you are bringing new beings

The Puritans strike again!

[ichneumon]

Don't avoid suffering? What the fuck?

don't *ignore* it. duh.


I think normal people seek sensual pleasure. As in, 100% of people. If there's no sensual pleasure, there's no reason to seek communism.

from the school of: i didn't go to college, now i work at mcdonald's, which isn't fair, communism will get me the Wii i so richly deserve. bah.

communism is about social justice, no giving people toys.



Because listening to yourself breathe helps you figure out what's making you angry? Or is that just a long-winded way of saying "calm down"?

Anyway - anger is natural and I see no reason to not be angry at the ruling class.

anger is not productive. rationality, not emotion.




Have the courage to speak out about situations of injustice, even when doing so may threaten your own safety.

I'm not threatening my own safety, thank you.

this is the point where i lose interest in talking with you.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 04:55 pm

Don't avoid suffering? What the fuck?

don't *ignore* it. duh.


I think normal people seek sensual pleasure. As in, 100% of people. If there's no sensual pleasure, there's no reason to seek communism.

from the school of: i didn't go to college, now i work at mcdonald's, which isn't fair, communism will get me the Wii i so richly deserve. bah.

communism is about social justice, no giving people toys.



Because listening to yourself breathe helps you figure out what's making you angry? Or is that just a long-winded way of saying "calm down"?

Anyway - anger is natural and I see no reason to not be angry at the ruling class.

anger is not productive. rationality, not emotion.




Have the courage to speak out about situations of injustice, even when doing so may threaten your own safety.

I'm not threatening my own safety, thank you.

this is the point where i lose interest in talking with you.

don't *ignore* it. duh.

Or avoid it, apparently...


from the school of: i didn't go to college, now i work at mcdonald's, which isn't fair, communism will get me the Wii i so richly deserve. bah.

communism is about social justice, no giving people toys.

Poisoning the well. Incidentally, I plan to attend the honors college of my state's public university and major in some branch of biology or chemistry.

Communism, fundamentally, has everything to do with what you perceive to be in your material interest and nothing to do with self-sacrifice.

No worker rebels because he wants to have less.


anger is not productive. rationality, not emotion.


I know anger doesn't help produce correct statements, or scientific accuracy. It can, however, provide physical strength and endurance.


this is the point where i lose interest in talking with you.

Funny how these things work; I am precisely at the point of being finished talking with you, seeing as you have neglected to counter half of my points.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:32 am

don't *ignore* it. duh.

Or avoid it, apparently...
The point seems to be not to avoid problems simply because they are painful. I.E., just because it may be hard to be a moral human being (yes, assuming some sort of code), and easy - pleasurable - not to, should not be incentive not to works towards such morals.

[ichneumon]

Poisoning the well. Incidentally, I plan to attend the honors college of my state's public university and major in some branch of biology or chemistry.

Communism, fundamentally, has everything to do with what you perceive to be in your material interest and nothing to do with self-sacrifice.

No worker rebels because he wants to have less.

this is interesting enough for a comment.

a worker who rebels because he wants to be rich, without regard for what other people need, is not a communist.

besides, historically, the haves are more interested in communism than the have nots. when a bourgie rebels out of desire for social justice, is he less a communist than a prole who rebels because he wants to feed his family?

by your definition, no one in the 1st world can be a communist, as a global redistribution of wealth would lead to a SERIOUS cut in 1st world living standards.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:53 pm
besides, historically, the haves are more interested in communism than the have nots.
:huh:

Not the last time I checked! :lol:

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:53 pm


Poisoning the well. Incidentally, I plan to attend the honors college of my state's public university and major in some branch of biology or chemistry.

Communism, fundamentally, has everything to do with what you perceive to be in your material interest and nothing to do with self-sacrifice.

No worker rebels because he wants to have less.

this is interesting enough for a comment.

a worker who rebels because he wants to be rich, without regard for what other people need, is not a communist.

besides, historically, the haves are more interested in communism than the have nots. when a bourgie rebels out of desire for social justice, is he less a communist than a prole who rebels because he wants to feed his family?

by your definition, no one in the 1st world can be a communist, as a global redistribution of wealth would lead to a SERIOUS cut in 1st world living standards.

when a bourgie rebels out of desire for social justice, is he less a communist than a prole who rebels because he wants to feed his family?

Yup.


by your definition, no one in the 1st world can be a communist, as a global redistribution of wealth would lead to a SERIOUS cut in 1st world living standards.
A simple redistribution without more efficient modes of production, of course.

An actual communist revolution, on the other hand...

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:32 am
Poisoning the well. Incidentally, I plan to attend the honors college of my state's public university and major in some branch of biology or chemistry.

Communism, fundamentally, has everything to do with what you perceive to be in your material interest and nothing to do with self-sacrifice.

No worker rebels because he wants to have less.
Pleasure and material interst are two distinct problems. While it may be pleasurable to take 10 grams of heroin, the result will certainly not be in my material interest.

Conversely, labor can be highly unpleasurable and yet result in much better material conditions.

One might say that all things pleasurable have a cerrtain degree of material interest in them, but that not all material interests are pleasurable.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:55 pm
can you actually read through this and call it reactionary?


1 Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.
...

if so, please define the nonreactionary precepts of revolutionary socialism.
Everything that you posted means absolutely nothing because they have hardly anything to do with our reality, they are just baseless rhetoric or theology.

I really don't care what silly notions Buddhists believe in, because we know that Buddhists in the real world simply don't behave that way. Natrually, I'm more concerned with how badly Buddhists behave in my physical world. People who cares about the modern world shouldn't bother themselves with primitive beliefs some guy made up more than 2500 years ago anyhow.

But we can also refute Buddhist rhetoric if you want.



1 Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.

I guess that's why the basis of Buddhist teachings is called "the Four Noble Truths". :lol:

Isn't it self-contradictory? I personally think that's proof enough Buddha was a liar and a hypocrite.


2 Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow minded and bound to present views.
Exactly! Let's scrap the 2000-year-old Buddhism and try something new! No?

If Buddha actually meant what he says, then there wouldn't even be Buddhism.



3 Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education.
Oh the irony.

Buddhists can take 2 kinds of positions on this one: Either claim that Buddhists havent been loyal to Buddha's teaching or Buddha's words can be taken "metaphorically". Both renders Gautama Buddha irrelevent.

Because, without "authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education", Buddhism could not have survived past 4th century BCE. Also, if, say the Bourgeoisie revolution wasn't forced on Europe and the rest of the world, we'd still be in the Dark Age.

Either way, Buddha's words meant zilch.


5 Do not accumulate wealth while millions are hungry. Do not take as the aim of your life fame, profit, wealth, or sensual pleasure.
Two separate ideas there.

The first is moralist babble which every religion worked on communicating (but never implementing).

The second is an attack on human biology. We all appreciate sensual pleasure, and being deprived of it helps no one except for the "moral authorities".


6 Do not maintain anger or hatred. Learn to penetrate and transform them when they are still seeds in your consciousness.
Yeah, suck up and shut up.


7 Do not lose yourself in dispersion and in your surroundings. Practice mindful breathing to come back to what is happening in the present moment. Be in touch with what is wondrous, refreshing, and healing both inside and around you. Plant seeds of joy, peace, and understanding in yourself in order to facilitate the work of transformation in the depths of your consciousness.
Or, you could just smoke some marijuana.


8 Do not utter words that can create discord and cause the community to break. Make every effort to reconcile and resolve all conflicts, however small.
So according to Buddhists, if sufficient attempts were made to "resolve conflicts", there wouldn't be any class wars or imperialist wars. And if God-forbid, these wars do happen, you sit and wait until you are hacked into pieces.



Geez, so much bullshit and so little time. I'll stop here.

[¡Viva la Libertad!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 05:35 pm

This is Burma for God's sake.

The military dictatorship is Buddhist too!

Then by that logic the DPRK is communist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Comrade_Zac+November 27, 2007 04:17 am--> (Comrade_Zac @ November 27, 2007 04:17 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 05:35 pm

This is Burma for God's sake.

The military dictatorship is Buddhist too!

Then by that logic the DPRK is communist. [/b]
And we call this the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.