Ask a Red III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Didn't the Soviets try to create some sort of Islamic Communism?
 
I'm not familiar enough with Russian or Islamic history to say. I do know that there was a populist socialist movement in Central Asia at the time of the revolution, and that this was later co-opted by the Soviet state, but I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to.
 
Didn't the Soviets try to create some sort of Islamic Communism?
The efforts to combat the basmachi movement eventually included a sort of acceptance of the existence of Islam, since, surprisingly, out-and-out secularism didn't play well in Central Asia. This mostly extended to the reopening of madrasas and other Islamic learning institutions, the reversal of the nationalization of some waqf land, and the limited reintroduction of shari'a.

As soon as the last remnant of basmachi forces in Fergana were wiped out - something that roughly coincided with the beginning stages of Stalin's ascendancy at Moscow - these concessions were reversed. Waqf lands were collectivized, and many Quranic schools were closed.
 
Ask Kier Hardie, or the Dalai Lama.


1. I looked up Kier Hardie on wikipedia. It says he was an advocate for the British Labour party. The british labour party, from what I understand is certainly left wing, but that doesn't make it communist. The things you all have previously stated you believe in "abolishments of wages" or "abolishments of private property" etc, is not really what the labour party does. They seem to be more socialist than communist.

2. I thought Buddhism was more of a philosophy than a religion, and in that case I don't see why it would be relevant.
 
Buddhism is more of a philosophy? So, nirvana, and spirits, and such, amke it a philosophy? Oh dear.
 
Buddhism is more of a philosophy? So, nirvana, and spirits, and such, amke it a philosophy? Oh dear.

Oh well. My high school Sociology/Psychology/Economics teacher was an idiot anyway.

I didn't know buddhism had those things. It was explained to me that buddhist do not believe in any God, or supernatural things, and they should "free" themselves from those things, to make themselves "pure" or something like that.

Well, supposing you're correct, that pretty much clinches the argument. If buddhist believe in those things, then they are indeed a religion. And thus, if the Dali Lama is a communist, he counts as a religious communist.
 
1. I looked up Kier Hardie on wikipedia. It says he was an advocate for the British Labour party. The british labour party, from what I understand is certainly left wing, but that doesn't make it communist. The things you all have previously stated you believe in "abolishments of wages" or "abolishments of private property" etc, is not really what the labour party does. They seem to be more socialist than communist.

2. I thought Buddhism was more of a philosophy than a religion, and in that case I don't see why it would be relevant.

At the time, Fabian Socialism was seen by many of the well-shaven types as the preferable way to bring about the end of capitalism. It was certainly more likely to succeed then than now; but then again, so was revolution. The communists never had much of a showing in Britain, outside of a radical labor union movement in Ireland, but that ended promptly in April 1916. Also, back then, Labour was much more radical than they were once they became mainstream, i.e. started actually winning elections. At the least, Hardie's support for them might well be expressed by a "there's nothing realistically better" attitude. Read about the man, he's much more than "a Labour advocate." He was a Scottish lay preacher who taught that Jesus was the first communist.
 
I guess you shouldn't look as far as Dalai Lama. One look at Enver Hoxha would be enough.

While on the topic (by the way, you missed a question on the previous page, I'm just mentioning), was Albania a communist country during Enver Hoxha? I'm pretty sure that they were pretty far from achieving Marx' ideals, but were they on the right track?

How would you comment the schism between Albania and the USSR?
 
Oh well. My high school Sociology/Psychology/Economics teacher was an idiot anyway.

I didn't know buddhism had those things. It was explained to me that buddhist do not believe in any God, or supernatural things, and they should "free" themselves from those things, to make themselves "pure" or something like that.

Well, supposing you're correct, that pretty much clinches the argument. If buddhist believe in those things, then they are indeed a religion. And thus, if the Dali Lama is a communist, he counts as a religious communist.
Yes, it's a set of spiritual beliefs. And, since Communism/Socialism are temporal, not spiritual beliefs, they shouldn't be mutually exclusive. If you ban religion and spirituality you're curtailing freedom of thought.
He was a Scottish lay preacher who taught that Jesus was the first communist.
In a way he was right. Of course it's a metaphor, but the primitive collectivism and horizontality of the early Christian communities wasn't that far from the ideal communistic society, eh?


@AvalancheMaster: Both Albania and the Soviet Union were things that should never have happened, despotic monarchies in all but name that were disguised as communism.
 
While on the topic (by the way, you missed a question on the previous page, I'm just mentioning), was Albania a communist country during Enver Hoxha? I'm pretty sure that they were pretty far from achieving Marx' ideals, but were they on the right track?

How would you comment the schism between Albania and the USSR?

Hoxha was a Maoist.
 
Probably the most successful forms of communism have been hose practiced in small voluntary communities of devoutly religious individuals. The early christian church was far closer to true communism than any state has been.

Marxist ideology is rather hostile to religion, but the Marxists do not have a monopoly on either socialism or communism.
 
Probably the most successful forms of communism have been hose practiced in small voluntary communities of devoutly religious individuals. The early christian church was far closer to true communism than any state has been.

Marxist ideology is rather hostile to religion, but the Marxists do not have a monopoly on either socialism or communism.

I would not say that Marxism is hostile to religion, but rather that many Marxists are atheists because of Marx's comments about the reactionary nature of organized religion, and that atheists tend to be hostile towards religion. Marx's attitude towards religion is varied, but at its worst is more sympathetic than critical or even hostile.

Nearly all of the communists I know are atheists, but only a small handful of them believe in outlawing religion. The CPUSA's plank on religion is Freedom of Religion, along with separation of church and state.
 
Who knows, but please post a less biased source, I wouldn't put it past Faux News to simply make it up, at least with the Onion you know they're just deadpan snarkers.
 
"WorldNetDaily (WND) is an American web site that publishes news and associated content from the perspective of U.S. conservatives and the political right"

Right off Wikipedia. Please.

Really? "The Manchurian President"? From a site that says that the reaction should be 'Yikes!'?
 
"WorldNetDaily (WND) is an American web site that publishes news and associated content from the perspective of U.S. conservatives and the political right"

Right off Wikipedia. Please.

Really? "The Manchurian President"? From a site that says that the reaction should be 'Yikes!'?

Well I didn't even know what they were. I was just going off the google search.

Anyway, do you think both Fox and WorldNetDaily would fabricate the same exact story?

edit: anyway, I didn't catch the "manchurian president" part until you mentioned it on the site, and reading that made me literally laugh out loud. :rotfl:
 
The articles are correct. We also backed Obama in 2008 (after he won the nomination). It's seen as a strategic move to help destroy the power of the neoconservatives, and in 2012 the teahadists. It's not an endorsement of the party or the person, the article is incorrect there, it's merely a lesser-of-two-evils approach. We would prefer the Democrats win over the Republicans.

I think it's the best approach at this point in time. It matters little, really, what our position is, since we are so small. But we are growing faster than we have in 50 years. Maybe in a few more years we can win some mayoral offices or even state legislative seats (the highest we have is probably city council or county commissioners). I don't think Bernie Sanders counts, he's not a party member, though an outspoken social democrat nonetheless, but he reminds me more of a Old Labour type than, say, SFIO or even Spartacist.
 
WND has Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Buchanan, etc.

They're the same ones who claimed one of Al Gore's fundraising people was a drug dealer and so forth.
If you can find out from the CPUS it'd be better, WND rant abotu a conspiracy by US Communists to delete all references to their past support of Obama, etc. etc.

x-post with Cheezy: what is the official position of the CPUS? Do you have the text?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom