Can a society exist without religion?

So I want to start a discussion about where religion fits into society (even in communism),

So lets use this as our definition:
which is consistent with Karl Marx's definition:
The right believe that religion is absolute integral part of society and the way it functions. Capitalism works (in theory) because religion guide peoples morals and justifications. Most business men will not make a decision if it is immoral, there are a few people who do, but they tend to loose out in the end anyway. As such there is no real debate on the question of religion on the right side of politics.

The left on the other hand is another story. Karl Marx famously wrote:

Communism has a set definition of logic (logic in popular form), rules (moral sanction), and is defined in the Communist Manifesto (solemn complement, universal basis of consolation and justification) and Das Kapital. Proponents of Communism preach the benefits of such a society (spiritual point), and have a God (Karl Marx). Communism has a set of beliefs which everyone must hold, has a cultural system and defined world views on humanity (i.e giving to the poor).

Both sides the politics believe in religion in some form or another, so does this mean that religion is required for a society to function?

I think a better question is can a society survive with religion ... it's doubtful.

Even if everyone had their material wants and needs satisfied and even if they had some non-alienating, fulfilling activity to engage in, I suspect some people would still be religious.

Conservatives sometimes assume that religion is needed to make people docile and moral so that society can function. This is likely not true. You can promote values outside of a religious framework and people will likely follow them provided that they are backed by sufficient social pressure and, as a last resort, force.

Religion is also not necessary to serve as an "opiate" for the masses under capitalism. In fact, I think we are seeing more and more people in contemporary society using mass media entertainment, sports, self-help gurus and a whole host of other activities as coping mechanisms for living under the stress of capitalism. Modern notions of progress and the hope of some techno-utopia to be obtained without getting rid of capitalism serve as modern visions of heaven for many contemporary people.

Sometimes I think you don't know what it is that you actually want. Firstly your against oppression and genocide, yet support things being done against people's will (oppression), and using "force" (I assume this means genocide?) to achieve it.

Karl Marx: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature".

Therefore you have proved my point, Communism is a religion.

I meant that a society can promote values without reference to religion. You can promote respect for persons and property without reference to religion by appealing to secular humanism or some other secular philosophy. Force is used to back these norms up. For example, laws against theft enforce moral notions regarding the importance of private property rights. In this way, conservatives are wrong that you need religion to maintain order in society.

Communism is a secular political ideology. It is not a religion because it does not refer is supernatural concepts.

Who enforces those laws after the government is abolished? (as Karl Marx predicts will happen) :confused:

A religion doesn't need to be supernatural to be called a religion. (see definitions in OP)

Well I am not so sure I accept Marx's prediction regarding the abolition of the State, but I will say that norms and moral conduct can be enforced without a government of the type that we live under today. Groups of people can reach a consensus regarding behavior so that if someone steps outside of these bounds they can be punished by the collective (I know that sounds a lot like a government and you would perhaps be right, but it may not be a State in the way we know it, that is a government that serves the interests of a separate ruling class). You would not need to reference religion to develop or enforce these social rules.

I think that definition of religion is very broad, so much so that it can cover almost any philosophy. But I don't see communism as a consolation, as an opiate, as much as it is a state of affairs to be reached in the future. Maybe some people approach communism in a quasi-religious manner, and there have been instances of cultish behavior and messianic belief on the Left. Maybe some people gain some measure of consolation under capitalism by believing that communism is inevitable. But generally communism is viewed as a state of social relations to be achieved and worked toward, not something that will happen automatically without any effort by the working class.

And here is your first error, ziggy, which just about encapsulates the erroneous nature of this entire, confused and crippled post.

The notion that something as complex as a religion can be understood in terms of cheap 'definitions', rather than a thorough, critical assessment of it in relation to a wider context, is enough of a crime - but nevermind 'religion', liberals, idealist 'logicians', and bourgeois ideologues in general by default are not capable of critical thinking. Instead, they are only capable of mixing and matching formally established, pre-conceived, and uncritically accepted rules, expressed through cheap abstractions like "definitions". But even if we were to take 'definitions' seriously, let's ground this one in the context of our postmodern era:

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence

My god, what a beautiful definition. This, ladies and gentlemen - this is ideology at its finest. And why? Because by merit of being a thinking, rational agent, by merit of being a living person in any historical or social context, it is inescapable that you "relate humanity to an order of existence", or, relate the totality that which you are immersed to some 'order of existence'. The only way to avoid doing this, is through consciously-imposed ignorance, but this conscious ignorance sais nothing about the character of the mind as a whole, i.e. what people are thinking at the level of subconsciousness/ideology. And they are just as religious as any religious fundamentalist, if not more.

Religion and irreligion in bourgeois society works precisely this way - iti s all very well to be secular, to be an atheist, and to be irreligious, INSOFAR as you do not attempt to wholly relate humanity to an 'order of existence' that is without a trace of superstition and darkness. Not only is it tolerated, it is sanctified and encouraged by the high priests of capital to live through these indefinite existential crisis', for people to wallow in despair in all their pseudo-irreligious cynicism. When a rush of hope overtakes them, when they finally refuse this confusion - it is religion they turn to. Religion in bourgeois society is the language of the unspoken mind.

So, how does one relate this to postmodern liberal ideology? Society's cliche'd and banal criticism of religion has nothing to do with an attack on darkness and superstition. It is society's encouragement, today, that people are not consciously engaged in their beliefs, NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE. Islamic fundamentalism has not been enough to warrant the ideological outburst of postmodern-liberal discourse in this regard, for the latter predominated it: What Zizek calls "western Buddhism" - the 'wisdom' of not being an "extremist", not being too "engaged" in your beliefs or externalities in general, being a passive animal, and so on.

Just look at not only 9/11, but for an even better example: The paris attacks, and ISIS. Look how opportunistically such phenomena is conceived in terms of a purported dichotomy between human rights liberalism and religious (ethnic, national, whatever is within proximity) fundamentalism. The reality is that the two are conditions of each other - ISIS are NOT these crazy fanatics, they are vulgar thugs, repressed hedonists, turning blind eyes to the most perverse and disgusting indulgences (just as the Catholic church does vis a vis pedophilia). We Communists are the real fanatics, we are the real hypothetical, abstract demon that haunts the minds of bourgeois ideologues, we are the real demons whom they project upon the ISIS cowards.

The US state department released a propaganda film - designed for mass consumption - comparing ISIS's destruction of cultural sights to the Soviet demolition of the Christ the savior cathedral in the 1930's. Be suspicious of bourgeois sentiment against ISIS IDEOLOGICALLY - of course, we want to see them crushed, but the point is that what SCARES people about ISIS is not simply that they behead people and whatever, it is the fact that they are thought to be disrupting sacred domains of life. But the truth is that nothing is further from the truth. Watch this video:

+ YouTube Video

In fact ISIS is trying desperately NOT to come off this way - they want to come off as even greater protectors of everyday life in all its banality. The video EXPLICITLY claims ISIS is maintaining order and "business as usual". ISIS does not offer a radical critique of (near eastern) society, it offers a critique of society's inability to maintain itself, it critiques society's inability to feed the hunger of capital, sustain institutions of private property in a more proficient manner, at a much deeper pathological level. ISIS is not extremist enough - they are normal, all too normal.

Liberals will watch this video and think that underlying all of this "normality" is something much darker. But it's a childish naivety on their part: What we don't want to admit is the fact that ISIS has more or less become a legitimate power in Mosul, it isn't simply putting it's citizens in chains - the 'business as usual' function of capitalism is completely left intact, and this is what puzzles people who watch the video. Of course it's propaganda, but Mosul is home to 2 million people. What resistance has been put up, at a significant level? Of course there is fear - but its present inhabitants, the Sunni population, were living in such hell before, for them, ISIS is really not all that different. I do not mean to say ISIS is no worse, but that in the context of the conditions faced by the impoverished Sunni population in Iraq, ISiS is no less legitimate than the previous government, riddled with corruption.

No, frankly, it is not. I can't even begin to fathom how you have arrived at this conclusion. Perhaps at a superficial level this may be right - but you missed Marx's point: His point was not to demonstrate some eternal condition of man, but to demonstrate that religious controversies are inherently worldly controversies, and consciousness of these worldly - historical, social controversies does away with the necessity of religion. Hence, Marx will even violently disagree with Feuerbach who talks of a "religion of humanity" to replace superstitious religions - for Marx, religion becomes fully, totally and wholly destroyed at the onset of man being conscious of his social being, at the onset of man seizing his world-historical destiny in his own hands. This is why Engels will talk about how the English workers, when striking, were not only atheists as a matter of self-identification, but were atheists in practice: Their practical engagement in the class struggle, even at an economic level, replaced the power of theology.

Aside from the atheism of Communism, there has NEVER been a world-historical theological dispute since the thirty years war, more or less. What we see today is precisely not religion at all, but something else - you may call it what you wish, but it is not religion. Religion, as it had a place before the modern era, that is. There is nothing in common between Evangelicalism, Islamic fundamentalism, or even Eastern spiritualism with how older religions functioned. These either guise inherently national differences (The "Sunni/Shia" conflict in the near east), or are substitutes for political action - or both. People in the middle east right now are not fighting for the dominance of these or that ancient beliefs. Shias are not trying to convert Sunnis, and Sunnis, whatever they might say, are not trying to convert Shias. It is not a world-historic religious conflict, but a new kind of barbarism. We do NOT live in a post-secular era, our epoch is just as irreligious as it ever was.

So your question is a silly one: You ask us if there can be a society without religion. But in global capitalist society, religion, at the level of world history, IS EFFECTIVELY already dead! Religions in previous epochs were not substitutes for rationality or knowledge, which is why even as far as antiquity goes, from Greece to Rome, "theology" and "science" were not distinguishable. The Romans even disdained 'superstition' (they were still superstitious, but not in a way that anyone at the time could have understood) at a superficial level, it didn't conflict with their theological principles. It was not until the Renaissance that this became significant.

Well no, most prominent people in general are not going to be religious. They will be agnostic, "atheists" and so on. That is becuase THERE IS ONLY ONE religion in capitalist society - THERE IS ONLY ONE acknowledged god in capitalist society, and that is the god of capital. All "religions", insofar as they conflict with each other, conflict only insofar as they compete for who prostrates the furthest before the idols of capital. This was not so in previous religious conflicts, before capitalism, which encapsulated general historic conflicts (i.e. that would have socially transformative ramifications).

This god of capital, this last superstition, the superstition of the historic and the social, must be unnamed in order for it to reign over our earthly domain. The Communists name their gods, and the Communists alone are the real theological controversy - ONLY the Communists can be atheists in the truest sense of the word, without any superstition, without any belief in a big other (whether a "god" or "nature"), without any belief in anything beyond themselves as social beings.

What you say is purely playing with abstractions, so arbitrarily that it's actually laughable. Let's go, one by one, and actually think about these qualification of supposed equivalence critically:

Communism has a set definition of logic - Communism entails a new and distinct form of logic, yes. So did the (natural) scientific revolution in the 17th century and beyond.

rules - Being that we have an entirely different approach to 'logic', the notion that 'rules' operate in the same way is ridiculous. What do you mean by 'rules'? What 'rules' are you speaking of, and how, in your mind, do you imagine them to be enforced? There is a distinct morality of Communism, yes. But this morality is but a reflection of the prerogatives of a real collective who seek to supersede our present condition. This entails negative and positive moral connotations, but "morality" is an abstraction. Words, 'morals' alone are not going to motivate people to shed their blood for something.

the Communist Manifesto (solemn complement, universal basis of consolation and justification) - I understand you are plainly an ignorant person, and this is why I'm going easy on you - but you must realize you are talking out of your ass. The Communist manifesto is the "solemn complement, universal basis of consolation and justification"? The communist manifesto was a PRACTICAL, rhetorical document written in the context of 1848. So bankrupt is this - utterly juvenile elevation of the document to 'holy status' by bourgeois ideologues just because they need to find some sacred text that underlies a movement they will never be able to understand, that if one merely had ELEMENTARY knowledge oft this document, they would know that already, decades later, Marx and Engels would contemplate writing a new manifesto, recognizing that the purported (by liberals in the 20th & 21st century) 'bible of Communism' had become outdated and irrelevant.

That is how abominably stupid the notion is. As for Kapital, again, wrong - you will not find any single sacred document for the simple reason that we only find these documents useful insfoar as they relate to our present condition. Kapital won't do shit as far as relating to capitalism in the 21st, or even 20th century without offering an active approximation of it in a methodological way. Kapital's significance, rather than being some commanding doctrine, was that it was the first of its kind insofar as it was a scientific understnading of the inner-workings of capitalism. We take the book seriously because as it happens, many things remain true of capitalism today vis a vis capitalism of hte late 19th century. Some things, however, are different, but only the method used in capital, infused with the dialectic and insights only capable of being wrought by anti-capitalist French radicalism, can adequately explain the inner-workings of capitalism at any stage.

preach the benefits of such a society (spiritual point) Virtually all real examples of Communist agitation in the west, at least before the cold war, were never like this - "preaching the benefits" of such a society. That is ridiculous. Communists in immediate struggles certainly 'preached' the benefits of immediate reforms, but that's it.

What you say is silly because nobody needs to 'preach' to people that a society without humiliation, without war, without exploitation and so on would be "beneficial". The point is whether or not this is possible - and the superstitions of conventional ideology not only disallow acknowledging its possibility , but disallow one to even think in such terms.

and have a God (Karl Marx) - so I assume the qualifications for a god here are: "thing" that is recognized as prominent? How in any meaningful sense, outside of pseudo-ironic use, does Marx take the role of where - say - the Christian god used to be for Communists? Marx is not even some Christ-like figure in that sense. I mean, sure, comparing him to some old testament prophet might do well for a good laugh, but comparing him to a deity doesn't even make sense at the level of irony. Just stop.

defined world views on humanity (i.e giving to the poor) - in which case, Communism is merely another word for charity. Who knew the clerics, popes, and all philanthropic bourgeois individuals were Communists.

Religion as we have defined it means nothing more than systematized superstition, making things deliberately unknowable and mysterious in a way that is approximated to our own conditions of life. Religion is only superstitious insofar as our participation in capitalism requires superstition - not only in the marekt, or things on a superficial level, but in grand notions of 'natural', cosmic or divine inevitabilities. What will the averge person tell you if you ask "Why does money exist?", or if you ask "Why do markets exist?", "Why does war exist?", "Why do jobs exist?". How is the response you get NOT superstitious? How is the aversion towards Communist "social engineering" not superstitious in thinking "nature will come back to haunt us"?

Any attempt to understand religion outside of superstition is playing with worthless abstractions, and it is by nature inconsistent. There is no such thing as an agnostic. Belief is a matter of practice, at an active level. What you truly believe is wrought not from what you identify with or what you say, but from how you act. So bourgeois atheists will deplore us demolishing churches, mosques and temples, they will deplore our grotesque anti-religious campaigns. These will DISTURB them. Why? Because they are just as religious as anyone else.

If you thought that was long, bear in mind I could go on and on about this topic. I kept this at a bare minimum - it is so much more complex than you would think.

What a hellish nightmare. Cops coming into your life and using force to make you not do (or do) certain things. Man why even bother with revolution?

Well, even in a post-revolutionary society you would have to have some mechanism to punish people for hurting each other at the very least. I don't believe that people will stop being violent, for example, even after a socialist revolution succeeds. You would need some method to enforce social rules.

Our moral intuitions were already established long before religion affixed itself to them like a cancer. Do you really think we need religion to feel there's something abject about killing a fellow human being or practicing incest?

Saying that religion is required for a society to function is a functionalist thesis à la Durkheim. When pushed to its extremes, it leads to the absurd assertion that everything in society has a necessary and useful function, which automatically leads to conservatism: everything is alright, nothing has to change.

Yes, functionalism in bourgeois sociology is generally conservative. But so is relying on intuitions. After all, we know what the intuitions of many people concerning homosexuality are. But no, murder will not be a problem in socialism because there will be no material reason for murder, not because people are thinking the right thoughts or because the True and Real Morality has revealed themselves to them. Morals and values are one of those things that will be thrown overboard in the transition. As for incest, sure, it'll probably exist. You find it icky. Big deal.

Marx predicted the state would wither away. That's not the same thing as a government.

Albert Einstein:
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

On the rest of your response

If this is really how communist think, then we are all fucked. There are so many issues with your analysis, that it would take me weeks to reply to every single one of them.

I joined this forum to understand the communist mindset, and hopefully get converted over to your way of thinking. However don't think that will ever happen anytime soon.

I am a liberal (a true liberal/conservative, not one the current crop of liberals out there), and believe that people should be able to speak out about the injustice of this world. It took a liberal to speak out about slavery, gay rights, women's rights, workers rights and Roman and Ottoman empires for us to change attitudes. It required someone to say "mate this isn't right, I am going to change it". The collective just went along with what their leaders told them to do, if they dared to speak out, then they would succumb to "sufficient social pressure and, as a last resort, force". I saw that when you guys attacked ckaihatsu for not agreeing to your view of the Sharia Law issue.

The world we live in now (predominantly socialist world) is fucked, and is not based on the core capitalist values (i.e if you want wealth and/or happiness, go get it!!!!).

Its sad, that the left want to change the world, however they have no idea of what this new world looks like or even that the world will be better a better place. Its just opposition to capitalism and liberalism, because their leader/God (Karl Marx) said so. You guys talk about war, but what is the point of such a "revolution"?

I think these video's show us what this world will be like in 10 years time (if not what our current world looks like).

+ YouTube Video

+ YouTube Video

Thanks for showing me what I fucked up world we are going to live in 10 years time.

Let me leave you with a some quotes from Albert Einstein (why? because thats who I feel like quoting today):
- "In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep."

- "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

- "He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

What a load of shit. If you're gonna reply and act all mighty, then respond to the man's points.

Here's one Einstein quote though, considering you really respect the man:

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."

"I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of humanity."

From the wiki:

Which is a different type of socialism then one you advocate for. And I agree with Georgism socialism (which is actually liberal in nature).

Nice strawman. You do realize that discussion is not possible if you misrepresent our views?

I am representing them as most people see them. What exactly did i get wrong?

You mis(s)ed the part where you should read Marx as holy writ.

See what happens when I try to play nice?

"Oh wow, Einstein was so smart, I look up to him, he was a genius brah, we should all be wise as he".

No, actually shut the fuck up. Are you five fucking years old? You run away from responding and addressing my points by hiding behind the authority of Einstein? Who is compeltely fucking worthless as far as the topics of concern are, here? This is literally how these STUPID fucks think: "Einstein was smart, much smarter den da rafiq, so im jutst gonna arbitrarily provide worthless quotes by him to justify my refusal to take rafiq seriously like an adult'.

NO, let's get one thing clear, Ziggy: You are a reactionary, and the post in question has given us all the fucking answers we need. The fact that you are so horrified by it brings joy and light to my day, I am so glad it repels you. I am so glad you are utterly HORRIFIED by it, and why? Because it doesn't fit in your neat little false dichotomy between the "rational, responsible" conservative and the ultra politically correct liberal. Yes, dog, be very repelled.

No, we're actauly just going to assume that you aren't capble of replying to htem, yo fucking idiot. Who the fuck argues like this? "Oh, if I wanted, I could spend weeks destroying you, but nah, I won't". And I take your word for it? put your money where your mouth is, child.

We don't want you, and we don't need you.

LOL, do you ACTUALLY FUCKING BELIEVE THIS? No, no, please tell me - do you ACTUALLY FUCKING BELIEVE that "liberals" were at the forefront of these struggles. For one, let's take slavery. Did liberals lead the struggle to abolish it? NO, because they were not distinguished AS liberals but as Jacobins, as American Jacobins (abolitionists) and so on - in other words, radicals and extremists who were willing to kill and die for the abolition of slavery. "Liberals" in the European sense of the word had NOTHING to do with these struggles, in fact, they were often times at the exact opposite fucking fence of them. The notion that it was liberals who "spoke out" about "worker's rights" and not Communists, anarchists and radicals, the notion that workers have the rights that they have today because soft, and cheap predecessors to facebook liberals "spoke out" is literally the dumbest fucking thing I have read in 2 months. Are you trolling us? LIBERALS led these struggels? REALLY?

Even in the context of the 19th century, to be a liberal would be a RADICAL position, because this was under the backdrop of feudalism's destruction. The meaning of the word liberal in 2015, which designates passivity, being "rational", taking hte middle way, and compromise, did not have the same connotations in the early 19th century where it denoted struggle to the death, revolution, ETC. - but again, the word is so fucking muddied and vague, one has classical liberals, one has liberal conservatives, ETC. - it literally means NOTHING. Stop talking out of your fucking ass.

Ladies and gentlemen, liberals ended the Roman empire, a thousand and a half years ago before any liberals in any meaningful sense of the word even existed. Sure, liberals brought down teh Ottoman empire, but to be a liberal in the context of the early 20th century and to be a liberal right now in the context of hwo I use the term are ENTIRELY FUCKIING DIFFERENT. I speak of liberals vis a vis Communists. THE context of the Young Turks was liberals vis a vis the traditional, conservative order. IT is an ENTIRELY different usage of the word, you slimy opportunist.

Lol. Honestly, just lol. If this is how you think history has taken its course since the 19th century, people randomly going "Mate, this isn't right", I honestly just feel bad for your stupidity. People in the 19th century, their moral compass and their moral standards conformed to ours here in 2015 - people spontaneously got the gut feelnig that something was wrong because they knew that in 2015 it would be considered wrong. A heavenely, divine voice spoke to them, that is. nevermind the fact that demanding the FULL ABOLITION OF SLAVERY was a RADICAL and EXTREMIST act. Arguing for COMPLETE women's equality was RADICAL and EXTREMIST. You have NO NOTION of not only these particular struggles and their history, but history in general. You plainly are talking out of your fucking ass.

The whole history of the past 200 years was one of revolutionaries and Communsits in power, with brave and noble liberals speaking out. We Communists and radicals were in power, having everyone go along with what we say, you know, enforcing slavery, traditional family values, and whatever, and all of a sudden some guy went "Mate, that isn't right". And now we live in the world we do today: AT THE EXPENSE of engaged partisanship, extremism, struggle and radicalism. This is the fucking fantasy land Ziggy has constructed, has told himself. DO YOU ACTUALLY FUCKING THINK THIS?

Moreover, the reactionaries are so cute in how they are articulating the present circumstances; Like political correctness. The fucking opportunists are no different than how right wingers will say "Ye, we're just like Martin Luther King Jr. because we're against big government" and whatever. It's purely opportunism and it's fucking disgusting. Sorry child, your reactionary filth does not exist in synchronicity with the great historically progressive struggles, for the simple reason that like today, "progressive" struggles were admired by most people up to a certain point and were popular in intellectual circles, and indeed, abolitionists, proto-feminists, and gay rights activists were loud, intrusive, and 'totalitarian' in how they wanted to force their beliefs on others. You're nothing more than a fucking coward and a piece of shit: You as a reactionary hold on to a persona of "speaking out" merely by respecting struggles which are now dead and falsely comparing your intellectual cowardice and weakness to that of those who proceeded this epoch. Good job, any bumfuck idiot can do that, and you're wrong.

Do you actually fucking think we live in a predominantly socialist world? Do you ACTUALLY FUCKING THINK THIS?

In other words, not based on abstract pseudo-ethical values which are nothing more than supplements and ideological mystification of the very real, concrete, EXISTING world capitalist (oh sorry, "socialist") world order. The reason a society cannot be based off of "if you want wealth, go get it" IS BECAUSE THIS HAS NO REAL PRACTICAL MEANING, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE IN ANY PRACTICAL WAY, it is a MYSTIFICATION, an ideological trope.

Its sad, that the left want to change the world, however they have no idea of what this new world looks like or even that the world will be better a better place. Its just opposition to capitalism and liberalism, because their leader/God (Karl Marx) said so. You guys talk about war, but what is the point of such a "revolution"?

As it happens, you disgusting piece of shit, you are not a liberal but plainly a reactionary. Of course bourgeois liberalism underlies this - but within the present constellation of ideological networks, you are squarely a reactionary. "This is what I think the world will look like in 10 years'. No, child, be assured it won't: All the harking for blood of political correctness, rests upon the desire to unleash the true face of your rotten and sick order, and NOTHING MORE, and all political correctness represents is the attempt to guise this.

If we Communists had our way, it would be much more fucked up than those two videos. The videos you linked are literally the most juvenile trash I have seen in so long - it is literally PLAIN fucking stupdity. it fails to even articulate teh essential qualities of our "politically correct" society and only caters to the reactionary, pathological nightmares of disgusting scum like you. It has no bearing in reality. Like anti-semitism, you attempt to articulate events in a way that conforms to your puny standards of reason, and thus, we get juvenile comedy like the videos provided. "Jail time for disagreeing with a women".

Yes, that's totally where our society is headed. That's totally the underlying logical conclusion of political correctness. No, instead, the juvenile minds of reactionaries and how the phenomena relates to their pathological fantasies gives us the conclusion of this video. South Park liberalism, the ethics of doing nothing, being "moderate". Fuck you, fuck your middle-way bullshit, we are not intimidated and it has no effect on real Communists - is it supposed to BOTHER us that we are "extremists" and that we violate teh sacred alters of postmodern consumerist liberalism? Boo fucking hoo, we don't care.

"Brah I'm so edgy, like, I'm expressing consumerist liberal ethics that you can find on a TV commercial in any given 10 minutes".

Yeah, don't be a square, don't be a conformist, a sheeple, BE YOUR OWN YOU!!!!!!!1111

Shut the fuck up with your worthless cliche's.

Einstein said this in an entirely different context, using it here is nothing more than opportunism, again.

But to play the devil's advocate, no one really cares if they earn Einstein's contempt, no one here is going to be so phrased by such cheap petty bourgeois values. The grand majority of people on this Earth do not have the privilee of being special little snowflakes, and the grand majority of those who do think they are unique do so at their own peril - i.e. "Yeah man, fuck those unions, be independent!" and it goes on and on and on, eve4n in a seemingly non-practical, ideological manner. We despise consumerist individualism and your petty bourgeois values.

We have nothing to say to you. You are an adversary, we have nothing to say to the enemy but this: When our time comes, we will so acutely destroy your precious order, we will so acutely offend the core basis of what it even means to be a living, breathing human in your mind that you will voluntarily commit suicide without our help - you will do so on your own accord because all of your gods will be defiled, all of your holy places destroyed, we will leave nothing left on this Earth for you to hold on to, you parasite, you disgusting reactionary, that life for you will not even be worth living.

LOL! This is LITERALLY reminiscent of cheap American cold war anti-communist propaganda.

This is what reactionaries actually take seriously:

https://youtu.be/iKcWu0tsiZM?t=6m7s

That's the thing, though, Marx is obviously either 'held as a God,' or people can pretty much just dismiss their work with entirely generic observations which they presumably never considered in the process of writing Das Kapital. It's like they think of Karl Marx not just as deluded - with positing that the capitalist world of the 19th Century would be abolished internationally in favour of a communist one - but actually insane. Why not just say so, then? It would give him credibility and popularity, especially in the world where we now live.

And for such people, was 'insanity' or 'lack of success' the problem? Part of the reason for people's attitude of condescension and 'pity' towards such people was basically that they had to be associated with 'lack of success' to avoid creating multiple moral threads which might undermine each other in practice. At the same time, as soon as 'lack of success' started speaking up or representing, it was to be derided as 'insane,' so that harmony never seemed likely to last, and it didn't. As soon as the pity went, the myopia of the one social system couldn't be kept - to recognise the struggle, realistically, was to recognise a path leading beyond and past this -, and the rest was straightforward.

And anger towards the 'insane,' apparently for their insanity, is an attitude on the one hand so reminiscent of the bourgeois epoch and on the other hand so wedded to its defeat - when held by its remaining 'sympathizers' - and the period beyond it that it hardly showed up en masse until around ISIS, and especially this year, albeit less coherently.

The reason why I bring this up is that their portrayal of Marxism as a religion is vulgar and offensive.

For an alternate portrayal:

Like Heaven and Hell, according to some theories.

Just like Judas, though. You forgot how you're claiming that Marx is God and Judas is Judas. If you claim that Judas is Judas then you're basically claiming that Marx is God. If you claim that Marx is God, then the problem with that is that they're not Judas, who is probably the real God for these people.

The problem is that religion is important to society, because evidently capitalism was a highly religious society, despite the disdain of religion people and other conscious or divine beings to exercise any control over such a society and its foreignness to any religious ideas except as an apologism for it. Pious religion was for capital merely apologism for positivism, instincts, etc. Capitalism, of all societies, having 'religion' be important to it was merely to say that it would collapse, and quite briefly.

Forgive me, I do not follow what exactly you mean (perhaps of my own ignorance?).

What is 'Judas' in this context, and what does what I have said have anything to do with pretenses to Marx's divinity?

I was just giving an example of how they might justify their views on Marxism's identity as a religion. Your rhetoric there set a good format, hence quoting it, although in point of specifics they would probably have felt the need to kill themselves far before all of that process was complete. To recount, Jesus stated of Judas, biblically, that Judas themselves would have preferred it if they had never existed, and then they committed suicide, hence the comparison, which could be used satirically to show the religion implicit in your statement of communist views because they didn't line up with 'common sense' in some form.

Hopefully that helps.

- Sibotic.

I see. I can see, perhaps where you would draw this comparison, but this is not necessarily what I mean (or, perhaps it is an expression of an inherently Christian theology in this decadent era of western Buddhism), what I mean is that - for all of Ziggy's ravings of how much he fears 'left-wing' intolerance, should the Communists come to power all that he cherishes of this liberal order, all the structures of power which breathe life into his nonsensical cliche's would be destroyed, so that not only would the existing order be destroyed, its destruction would be so absolute and irreversible that one, at a certain stage of its completion, would not even be able to articulate one's worship of older, ruined and defiled gods.

In other words, Communism would be so absolute in how it penetrates the core being of what it means to be a human in bourgeois society, that come a revolution many devout bourgeois ideologues will either kill themselves, or seek death by other means. Is this not characteristic of the "death worship" of Fascism, with its irrationalism, and so on, with what looked like an impending Communist world? Of course Communists do not fear death, but we might be one with death, and not masochistically wailing for it like the Fascist cowards.

When Rafiq feeds the trolls, he gives them an all-you-can-eat buffet. All due respect, I'm sure there are more efficient ways to spend one's time than writing 1500 words on how some guy who thinks Communists treat Marx as a "God" is wrong.

You should really get your tourettes checked out. Join the capitalist that believe in individual choice and we are normally more relaxed and not as demanding. I here chill pills are on sale these days (maybe you can ask your government to get you some).

It depends on what your definition of a liberal is. And yes true liberals spoke out, and changed the governments thought about the workers rights, etc. Trade unionism was already occurring in well before the 14th century, Edward III tried to put a stop to it it in 1349 (through the Ordinance of Labourers), However the people (not the state), continued to engage in Union activities. Which is why I believe that it doesn't matter how much "force" the state/government/collective has, it will also be the people who have the final say. Which is why I don't think Communism will never work (the core value at leas won't).

Again that tourettes needs to be looked at urgently. Have you seen a doctor about it?

This is the reason I don't follow one term that references a particular ideology, I don't need a book or manifesto to tell me how to think. I define a liberal to be anyone who acts on their own will, and does not just go along with the crowed just to fit in (i.e capable of independent thought). I also consider a liberal to be anyone who takes responsibility for their own actions and situation, and does what ever they can to make their life better. The most important value my version of a liberal has to have is anything he/she does must not limit the freedoms of another person.

Not everything is left or right, there are systems that don't prioritize things around just equality. Some for example prioritize personal freedom.

Absolutely, it took Karl Marx to say, mate Capitalism isn't right, lets change it, for forums like this to exist.

And each revolution that the Left has created famine, unemployment, and a lazy population. Often these so Revolutions have also lead to war and the destruction of that country and its values. What has North Korea done to change this world, apart from being a basket case.

Liberal is not right wing, its a different breed of politics, focusing on freedom and free speech rather than equality.

Absolutely, we are a very socialist world. These days you can live off the government, and claim that your poor. Its a sad state of affairs at the moment.

It is very practical. If you want something, no one will ever just give it to you. You need to work long hours, sacrifice a lot if you really want it. This is the way it should be. It breads a society that isn't lazy and that can innovate, and advance.

Wow, so you actually want this shit to happen. You want a world where the people have no rights and always follow the status quo? Maybe your tourette's is causing brain damage, can you please get your head checked out immediately!!!!

What what are you going to replace this currently socialist order with? More socialism?

Liberalism has been around since the dawn of time and will be around for years to come, simply because it works and always has. Usually when the world is in a Liberal phase of global politics, the whole world advances.

Can you please get your tourette's checked, before you reply. You will have a clearer head, and hopefully better arguments. Maybe then we can have an adult debate.

I wish I was living in fantasy land with you, or though maybe not.

It would seem the whole of your knowledge regarding mental disorders does not extend beyond what South Park has taught you, dear child.

Is it supposed ot be a surprise that bourgeois ideologues are generally "more relaxed" and "less demanding"? Perhaps you should sit back and think about why that is. Is it because of some abstract notion of individual chose, or is it because they can sit back, blissfully, knowing that they are the dogs of those in power, only to make some noise every so often so as to keep up the persona of a pseudo-activist who wants to "change the world, mate". of course, we should all love the privilege of "being capitalists", certainly it is that easy! It's so cute how little fucking kids will go and say "Heh, I'm a capitalist". No, child, you're a moron, being a capitalist entails far more than licking their asses.

God I'm so fucking sick of this, honestly, I'm so fucking sick of this. I spend 8 times a day explaining to people the pathological dimension behind attempting to find every single fucking thing SOLELY UNIQUE to our modern era to some ontological inevitability, some timeless force with a mind of its own that makes itself bear through men and women. It is not only superstitious, it's plainly fucking obnoxious. This is not "my" definition of what constitutes being a liberal, it is OBJECTIVELY any REAL scientific assessment of what it means to be a liberal and what it doesn't. And the context that which being a liberal would be possible did not exist before the 30 years war, argument over.

"Trade unionism was occurring before the 14th century". No, child, it wasn't, the trade unionism of proto-capitalism and later of industrial capitalism was not the logical conclusion of whatever arbitrary fucking example of people who happen to work collectively demanding better terms. That is an ABSTRACT means of defining 'trade unionism'. It certainly did not exist "well before" the 14th century, the example you yourself give was of society on the cusp of the decline of feudalism. But let's be serious: HOW THE FUCK in ANY meaningful sense were these LIBERALS? How were LIBERALS at the forefront of these disputes? Are you literally fuckgin stupid? Even as far as the enlightenment goes, liberals would not be in this position. The notion that liberals are some ancient guardian angel asserting the standards of morality found in the modern era is so fucking stupid and cheesy you could go ask to make a movie with Tim Allen in it.

And it was "the people" and "not the state" who were socialists and communists through the 19th century to the early 20th century. Tell me what is significant here, please, tell me. The Nazi party formed independently of the German state, does that make Hitler a liberal? What you say is so ridicu---

HOLY FUCKING shit.

It's so cute how you think "da people" are some magical void that which the bedrock of liberal values resides, ie.. that "the people "are some autonomous, magical force who are inherently liberal and who resist da "totalitarian collective". What's so cute is that in every meaningful historic sense, in the case of "totalitarianism'.



So, you don't need anyone to tell you how you think, which is why all of your ideas were pulled out of your ass in a vacuum and were the logical conclusion of any individual deciding to engage in introspection. We Communists will at least admit we ARE ideological and we ARE partisan - this fucking idiot is literally going to tell us that him "thinking for himself" has led him to be a liberal. On the contrary, dear child, your head is so far up the ass of "the collective" and a network of ideological forces so beyond you that your nose has become numb to the smell of shit.

And yes, we get it, you define a liberal in terms of worthless, anti-scientific arbitrary abstractions that could apply to virtually anyone else. Every signifcant intellectual did not "go along with the crowd", what the FUCK is your point? But in fact, in our postmodern age, it is fashionable to not go along with the crowd. So you ARE in fact going along with the crowd, because nothing is more cliche'd and prominent than your stupid little fucking idea. keep telling yourself you're an enlightenened beacon in a totalitarian distort, child, it's so cute.

"Personal freedom". What great personal freedom that only 5% of people have it. Of course, no one "prioritizes" things around equality, OR "personal freedom". That's because what qualifies something as left and right does not hinge upon those two. You are a right-winger - EVEN compared to most liberals, you are a reactionary.

But anyone can fucking talk out of their ass with personal freedom. "I want the personal freedom to enslave others". That's ALL IT MEANS in this context.

And immediately following every liberal revolution, like the English civil war, society became as it is in 2015 over night. A revolution does not happen to immediately guarantee smooth sailing you fucking idiot, but to clear the way for it. The fact that famines, and "unemployment" followed Left revolutions means what to us? As for a lazy population, this is purely ahistorical, your teacher in high school might have taught you this, but is groundless. If anything only much, much later were people in - for example - Eastern bloc countries "lazy", but who cares if they were "lazy"? Society could afford their laziness. "Laziness" was never the problem.

Your pseudo-cynicism is simply a fucking abomination. A failure, and it's laughable.

Yes, those poor values, like honor killings, slavery, serfdom, hunger superstition and backwardness. Shame on the Communists for destroying them. And yes, the revolutionaries destroyed their countries. The stark increase in literacy, mass education, the opening of opportunities for backward peasants to have their kids sent of to be doctors and professionals, the long term elimination of famine, the exponential rise in the conditions of life in general, increased medical services, the building of cultural and soical infrastructure en masse, ETC.

The golden years were buried away. For example, in China, little did the brainwashed totalitarian masses know that before 1949, China was a utopia with all of its neat little values.

They led to war? And why did they? Because "liberals" fought them. Did they fucking CHOOSE to go to war if peace was an option? What the FUCK is your point that they went to war? Who benefits from that except those trying to destroy them and their revolutions you mindless fucking child?

Why should we Communists, who have a deep understnading of North Korea's history and the context of its endurance, why would we expect it to? Of course, if you lack these qualifications, you can just flail your fuckign arms around like a moron and go "dakjda;flkhgeru north kurrea iz da communist and derefore diz is what any communism in da 21st century wud luk lik hurrurur". Like LOL, holy SHIT!

Well calling you a liberal would be a mistake, certainly. You are likely a third positionist. In which case, your politics are completely right wing. Even if you were genuinely a liberal, which you are not, you would still be a right winger on this forum.

"Equality" they will say. They're so fascinated by that word because it offends them so much. No, you fucking dolt, EQUALITY IS INCIDENTAL, it is not the underlying basis of Communism, we simply do not respect your gods of inequality, and this offends you so. "Focusing on freedom and free speech". Lol, it's like you're so desparately attemping to muster up some kind of political bloc of power that can rival us Communists. "rather than calss, we focus on race". Keep at it, sport.

"Freedom", a worthles abstraction as far as how it is being used, and eternal, unconditional "free speech" in his mind are eternal universal values which transcend left and right, space and time. Let me ask you, dear child,

Like any shriveling fucking opportunist, you know very well that your usage of the word socialism is inappropriate and incorrect, but you misuse it in an attempt to sound provocative: "Well, why ISN'T it socialist, lul?" Your qualifications for socialism are literally a 12 year old's. Like awwww, so cute, did you learn that in school when you were a widdle kid? The pathological fantasies of right wingers and the "welfare state", it's incredible. They did this in the 1980's and it was wrong, but NOW, IN 2015, AFTER NEOLIBERALISM, AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WELFARE STATE, THEY HAVE THE FUCKING AUDACITY TO TALK ABOUT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF PEOPLE "LIVING OFF DA GOVERNMENT" AND DOING NOTHING? LITERALLY AN IMAGINARY DEMOGRAPHIC THAT HAS NEVER EXISTED AND DOES NOT EXIST?

It is not possible to "live off the government" and maintain a standard of living that is appropriate for living in a modern society. You surely can live, that is, survive and not die, but the idea that this qualifies as socialism is so painfully fucking stupid it hurts. "Socialist world", he sais, COMPLETELY FUCKING OBLIVIOUS to the fact that only the most wealthy, rich and industrialized countries have extensive social-welfare programs for its civilian population. In the United States alone DISCOUNTING other welfare programs, if food stamps were revoked by the government, than 25% of Americans would be living in abject poverty. These measures were necessary in the past because the alternative, you fucking idiot, was not some imaginary free market but the threat of Communism. Had the state not taken steps to appease its citizens, they would have flocked to the Communists en masse.

So the grand majority of people working long shifts, the giant swaths of impoverished precarians working 2 jobs and abominably inhumane long hour shifts, just to put fucking bread on the table, the solution to their problems? "If you want something, no one will ever just give it to you". Oh, it's THAT easy, just get a job! All your problems will eventually go away. What you say is literally so fucking infuriating that if only to spite your "free speech" you should be hung by your balls for fucking saying that amidst all of the hardships and misery ordariny people are going through. DO YOU ACTUALLY FUCKING THINK a significant portion of ordianry people are VOLUTNARILY sitting around and doing nothing? And unemployment, in your mind, this is owed to people who don't share your stunning pseudo-ethical vision of how a society sould be run? Are you literally fucking stupid? At any rate, EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE that it was a lack of motivation, the fact that your bankrupt society, and its bankrupt liberal ideology cannot motivate them becaus they know FULL WELL they're just working for some other asshole making a buck off of them, when they should by now know FULL WELL that most work in 2015 is actually in fact useless work, and that society can MORE than afford most people not even doing anything, why the FUCK should they have the motivation to work 5 minimum wage jobs?

And to add, what's so fucking disgusting is how you say "a society can innovate and advance" if only people shared your worthless, hollow ethics. HOW? HOW WOULD IT? Not even during the golden years of capitalism, during the cold war with the Keynseyan welfare state was people's standard of living improved because of mass influx of people "self improving". ARe you literally fucking stupid? Rises in the standard of living are never because of the decisions of workers, they happen because technical revolutions - like that of our "computer age" (Wth mass governmetn subsidies, investment and spending, which is why it's so fucking hilarious to think that the 'free market' fosters "innovation" when the reality is that big states always need to make the necessary push where egoistic capitalists have too much to risk) occur independently of them and their participation.

"You aren't phrased by that disgusting, slimy piece of shit fucking video, so you agree with the purported antagonists of it?", that is just as fucking stupid as saying "Wow, so you don't buy anti-semitic propaganda? You want to see the white race destroyed?"

Like I'm fucking done trying to reason with you. I'm just here to ridicule you and expose you, that's it. You literally don't even APPROACH what I fucking say, you talk out of your ass like a stupid fuck uncontrollably flailing his arms around. You wnat ot scream "lalalallalala"? Go ahead, child, scream all you like, I'm just going to makre sure you don't even have the benefit of thinking your last word signifies that you won the argument. No, you won't get the last word, plain and simple. I mean, ladies and gentlemen, THIS is how he responded to this little snip:

As it happens, you disgusting piece of shit, you are not a liberal but plainly a reactionary. Of course bourgeois liberalism underlies this - but within the present constellation of ideological networks, you are squarely a reactionary. "This is what I think the world will look like in 10 years'. No, child, be assured it won't: All the harking for blood of political correctness, rests upon the desire to unleash the true face of your rotten and sick order, and NOTHING MORE, and all political correctness represents is the attempt to guise this.

If we Communists had our way, it would be much more fucked up than those two videos. The videos you linked are literally the most juvenile trash I have seen in so long - it is literally PLAIN fucking stupdity. it fails to even articulate teh essential qualities of our "politically correct" society and only caters to the reactionary, pathological nightmares of disgusting scum like you. It has no bearing in reality. Like anti-semitism, you attempt to articulate events in a way that conforms to your puny standards of reason, and thus, we get juvenile comedy like the videos provided. "Jail time for disagreeing with a women".

UnFUCKINGbelievable!

We're going to replace it with the naked dead corpses of reactionaries with their eyes gouged out, hanging freely by the wounds left over from their earlier, slow and painful fucking castration.

This guy actually fucking thinks that liberalism was around 100,000 B.C.

He actually thinks liberalism is some cosmic-ontologcial fact, a magical force. Do I even need to comment on this stupidity? "Becuase it works"? WORKS FOR WHO you fucking idiot? For something to "works", this entails a specific function. Everything I am fucking saying is so fruitless, his head is so far up his ass he's not even capable of basic reasoning. Be honest. Are you 10 years old? Liberalism has not existed in any meaningful sense before the 30 years war, and liberalism in the modern sense has not existed before the late 20th century. "Ideas" don't have fucking history, you moron, actual living people do.

But look at this mindless fucking cynicism. I love it so much because this is what every bouroies ideologue actually thinks in the back of their mind - as mindlessly and fucking moronically as Ziggyfish: "It works and always has". Liberalism was working just fine under the dynasty of ramses II, indeed, it was working very well under the Qing Dynasty, the Mamluk caliphate, the Roman republic, hellenistic Persia, among other examples.

Fucker is so stupid that he can't even envision the possibility that historic change actually happens - that things which exist today are not the quantitative culmination of past ideas but represent entirely different, new changes. Bourgeois ideologues need to locate what is unique in 2015, to some timeless force, to some ontological given, because for them, tehse are eternal conditions of life itself, just like the act of thinking. They cannot differentiate the Earth's inevitability from the purported inevitability of liberalism, fascism, or whatever stupid shit they fucking say. "Cornelius Sulla, the first proto-Fascist"? Complete fucking philistine trash. What you say is NOTHING MORE than fucking superstition.

"a liberal phrase of global politics", WHEN has the world been in this phrase before the modern era? WHEN? You say it as though it's some ancient wisdom - you're literally just plainly a stupid person. The fact that the world is better off than how it was 500 years ago, has nothing to do wtih the power of ideas but the actual substrate of processes that which the ideas were wrought.

But alas, you are not a liberal, your liberalism is in decline. Capitalism triumphs with authoritarian, "non-western" values and liberal democracy is impeding the hunger of capital. You are a reactionary, a disgusting fucking barbarian who prattles of "free speech" as some cosmic ontological principle only because he is tacitly censored by the improved standards of the university campus. "Damn, I can't be a disgusting piece of shit without being scrutinized, FREEDUM OF SPECH IZ UNDER ATTACK!"

As if we ever had freedom of speech. Go to the 9/11 memorial and start talking about how great you thought 9/11 was. Go to a veterans club and talk about how much you think veterans and troops are a bunch of stupid assholes. There is never such thing as "freedom of speech" as you are saying it, and for good fucking reason. Nobody is literally INCARCERATING you for being a vile shit, which you should be incarcerated for - you LITERALLY complain that you are SCRUTINIZED for being a piece of shit, and its so hilarious that this now translates to 'da tutalitarianusm'. Idiot, if you started saying "there is nothing wrong with rape", do you think it would be acceptable for you to be tolerated by society, whether that means keeping your administrative post, or retaining your teaching job? Fucking coward.

Freedom of speech has only EVER been relevant because of its practical implications - i..e not only does capital necessitate it, it was also fought for with blood by radicals who necessitated it for purposes of agitation. Hence, every legal assault on 'freedom of speech' in the past 100 years was directly related to Communist agitation and the necessity of censoring them in some way.

To conclude, your understanding of the things you make pretenses to identifying with is so poor, so shallow and so confused that it is literally comedy. Try again. I promise you you aren't getting your last word, child.

Liberalism has been around since the dawn of time? You can't be serious. Liberalism is a product of the development of capitalism during the 16th-19th centuries. Modern capitalism required a "free" market in which "free" individuals competed, but more importantly it required the existence of a class of people who had only one thing to sell, their labor, and who existed as "free" commodities.

It's obvious that only the bourgeois class benefited from liberalism. But as capitalism continued to develop into a world monopoly system it was forced to rely on massive computer communication which has now developed into a world wide social network in which the producing classes become aware of their social status. Also, modern capitalism needed workers who were able to operate and work in the massive new techno-system. And these workers had to be recruited from all sexes, races, countries and cultures.

The early liberalism was forced to become multi-cultural. International capitalism has evolved into monstrously huge corporations controlling the economies of the entire world, even controlling the debate over whether the planet can be saved from capitalism's predation.

All of the employees, managers, systems engineers, etc. are communicating with each other and developing at the same time their own class consciousness.

As a class they have become aware of the approaching climatic disaster. They know the owners of capital spend billions to propagandize the idea that climate change is a gigantic hoax.

You ask what will replace the socialist order. There is no socialist order, only the order created and sustained by global monopoly capitalism. The next stage is for the workers in these companies to take control of the management of these monster corporations and run them for the benefit of society and the planet.

For capitalism to continue growing it needs all the information it can digest, from any source. This requires free access to the internet and other social media. One of the side products of this technological freedom is this site where Revolutionary Leftists can discuss stuff, like revolution.

Ziggy you should know that Liberalism was anathema to humans until ~300 years ago or so. If you bother to look at every major civilization, irrespective of time and geographic location before that, their "ethos" was one of constant 'restoration'. You can easily read the writings of Roman authors, Egyptian myths and so forth and a desire to 'keep returning back to a perfect world ' (that didn't exist). Which is why they ALL had ridiculous foundation myths.

The concept of making a better FUTURE, was totally alien to humans until that point. It wasn't until physiocrats really that you had any notion that you could actually create 'a better world', without the typical mystification of a 'god doing it' for you (though this introduced the 'market' as a new 'god', so to speak).

Also, the video you posted, its absolutely hysterical. I mean, never mind that this does not happen in any institution of learning I've ever seen; by what coordinates do you "disagree" with the straw man created? What I mean by it, the protagonist of the video appears to be a South Asian, so why can't I call him a paki and kill him in order to 'take back my work'? Are you so stupid that you don't realize that the progress made towards gender equality, racial equality and so forth, did not just "happen"? The fact that not being a racist piece of shit who thinks women should be walking sex-robots seems "logical" today, says nothing about the condition of these people for generations. 100 years ago the notion that women should vote would be "absolutely unreasonable"; interracial marriage would be a "demonic idea" and so forth.

It depends on what you define as Liberalism, if its modern Liberalism. Then the birth of Liberalism was the product of the Spanish War of Independence between 1808-14,

If you refer to political liberal, you can go back even further to the Magna Carta (1215), and Assize of Clarendon(1166).

If you define Liberalism meaning political Liberal which is derived from the term Libre which means freedom. You can go back even further again to Persian Empire, when Slavery was abolished in 550 BC.
Arthur Henry Robertson, John Graham Merrills (1996). Human Rights in the World: An Introduction to the Study of the International Protection of Human Rights. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-4923-7.


You can go back a little more to the Chineese philosopher Lao Tzu who Authored the Tao Te Ching around 6th Century BC, or back further to Classic of Changes (I Ching), 1150BC.

Governments, state and social hierarchy were created by people, so therefore the logical conclusion is freedom existed before people created these constructs.

Now if you wanted to get philological, If you believe in the theory of evolution, then freedom pre-dates humans. Fish are free to swim where they want (they don't have a social hierarchy)

The universe was created by the big bang. During the big bang, the 4 forces (Strong Force, Electromagnetic Force, Weak Forc, Gravitational Force) were created, not by a government but by nature. So particle freedom was a result of the big bang.

So yeah, Freedom and Liberty have been around since the dawn of time.

See response to Antiochus. Capitalism on the other hand:


Muti-culturalism is a construct of the left, so can not be attributed to capitalism.

Correctish. Marx was right capitalism will fail, it designed to fail. Its one of its true benefits. If nobody wants or needs a particular product or service and that company doesn't change/innovate than it will fail. The internet will never be free in terms on money, someone will have to pay somewhere along the line. Example is the message on the top of every page on this site.

Just because most people think or believe something, doesn't make it so. Most people think that evolution is about survival of the strongest, or that evolution is merely a matter of chance. (Or some other vulgar interpretation.) They could not be more wrong. It makes them lose credibility. They do not gain credibility simply because many other people share the same false beliefs.

Also. Rafiq has exposed some nasty ableism of ziggyfish. What the fuck is up with that? Surely ableism is against the rules, even in OI.

Not at all. There are a lot of people who have succeeded even when physical and mentality disabled. I know quite a few who have refused to use their disability as an excuse in life. Me being one of them.

freedom and liberty created in the big bang. and capitalism created a few nano-seconds after the big bang, therefore capitalism is a fundamental force of the universe which we revolutionaries should leave alone.

It's true, though, a person could be disabled and still have a 'thanks' button next to their post. Then they could state that they had some form of problem, and people might thank them as a result, because they get emotional about such things. If only that meant something, which it doesn't.

'Freedom' and 'liberty' are physical materials, and some of each dies each time someone kills a French person. They are made of freedom and liberty, and also contain for example friends and equality within them, materially, so that in a sense an attack upon the French people was an attack upon liberty and freedom itself. Obviously unconscious particles can hardly be 'free,' and indeed the Soviets were accused of reducing people to atoms and particles in the social organism as they indeed may have done sometimes, and people fear 'totalitarianism' in part due to citizens' being 'unfree' and there subjected to the social order completely, such that this seems an unproductive place to look for analogies that they might like.

"Freedom" never existed in the sense that you attempt to construe it. Before the state existed, vast intricate social rituals, whether tacitly or concisely acknowledged, always existed as a means of enforcing collective discipline in pre-state societies. The qualifications you have provided for "freedom" is a reactionary perversion - the freedom to do what one pleases at the expense of others. No such "freedom" existed unconditionally in any human community, not even the present one.

The category of conscious will, is contingent upon conscious knowledge of necessity. Fish do not have knowledge, they are no more "free" to swim wherever they want than a computer is "free" to allow you to express your confusion.

Thank you for admitting you are trolling. Move along everyone.

My definition of Freedom is different to yours and my definition of freedom has always existed. I never said that one will not take into account how their choices effect others. Thats your conclusion, not mine.

So you do believe in religion?

Computers can only do what you tell them to do.