1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Ask a red

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Richard Cribb, Aug 17, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LightSpectra

    LightSpectra me autem minui

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    5,518
    Location:
    Vendée
    Perhaps communism may work one day, but why should I risk my life, and my family's life, supporting a communist revolution if there's even a small chance that the new government may be run by the next Stalin or Mao? The track record for Marxist revolts is remarkably bad. I feel like it's too much of a gamble.
     
  2. Cheezy the Wiz

    Cheezy the Wiz Socialist In A Hurry

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Freedonia
    There are several things that must be remembered when discussing these things. First, there has never been a Communist Revolution in a nation with a history of Democracy. Vietnam, China, Russia, Cuba, Iran; these places are historically autocratic, and so it is no surprise that the revolutions that happen in these places are similarly such. Remember, the popular revolution is the purest form of a people's collective expression of grievance. None of those revolutions expressed interest in forming a democracy, either, as the United States and France did during their revolutions, or the SDP in Germany at the end of the First World War. The track record for Marxist revolts is so "bad" as far as democracy is concerned, as you say, because they have happened thus far in inproper places. If we are speaking of Marxist theory, then the progression to Socialism should come only after the completion of the Capitalist stage; no Communist Revolution has yet taken place outside of a feudal economy and society, they have all followed the Leninist model of how to essentially "skip" the Capitalist stage through rapid industrialization after the revolution. We quite honestly cannot say that a revolution would certainly be more successful in a Western Capitalist Democracy, but there are several things that point to them being fundamentally different from those yet seen, so I would say that the possibility of getting a "Stalin or a Mao" leading a revolution in, say, the United States, would be pretty much nil.
     
  3. _random_

    _random_ Jewel Runner

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,793
    Location:
    Behind the man behind the throne
    Why do you think that one of the most successful communist communities is that of the Hutterites, whose communism is religiously motivated?
     
  4. West 36

    West 36 Can count up to 4

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,576
    Location:
    Something Completely Different
    I'm pretty much atheist myself, but as for other people I tend to not really care. If you're religious, that's fine, and I wouldn't see it as hurting some kind of movement, unless, of course, it actively tries to destroy it, but I see no reason why it would. People should be free to believe what they do, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. I know a lot of reds say it would distract from the view that we can create a better world on earth because they believe that they'll have an afterlife, but I haven't really met religious people that don't want this world to be worse than the next, if only because they don't believe that's possible, but for the most part religious people seem to want to help others, and hey, that's a good thing. People like Eran and downtown are perfect examples of religious people I'm talking about, and I don't see them hurting any kind of lefty movement- at least not in a religious sense, more likely it'd be political, if you see what I mean. I don't see church or synagogue or mosque or what have you as being directly against us; you find reds in all religions, so it's possible they can get along, it's just extremists, like always, that play a role in f-ing things up. And they should be dealt with. Otherwise, let people be.
    That's my take anyway.
     
  5. Cheezy the Wiz

    Cheezy the Wiz Socialist In A Hurry

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Freedonia
    Religion is was, by and large, put me on the path to my present positions. Christianity in particular has been corrupted into something that somehow supports capitalism and many supposed "Western values" and "family values," when anything more than a cursory reading of the Bible will reveal advocacy of positions today defined as "leftist." The same is true for Islam.
     
  6. FredLC

    FredLC A Lawyer as You Can See! Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    5,372
    Location:
    Vitória, ES, Brazil
    Well; I am an atheist. So was Karl Marx, that is well known.

    Regarding to communism and religion, well, I insist that Marx' views are just one opinion on communism, so there is no necessary connection. But after saying that, I gotta say that Marx' adage "Religion is the opium of people" is blown kind of out of proportion. Thing is that Marxism was, rather than anti-religion”, practical-critical, and perceived religion as a drag against the human epiphany necessary for the awakening of the proletariat, as it indeed appealed to the old world order.

    Rather than “destroy” religion, I always perceived it as Marx expected people to outgrow it as they became aware of their power. In that, I think Marx was a conventional enlightening intellectual, who expected that the increase of capacity to deploy information would end ignorance in the world (failing to see that misinformation would be even easier to spread).

    (note: this point makes no judgment over religious ideas, nor deen them as ignorance or misinformation – I merely am trying to explain how I imagine the question was taken by Marx).

    But it’s worth of note that the places where communism effectively got to power were mostly backwards rural countries, and at that, rather superstitious. The linkage between the Czar and God, in Russia, certainly was one of the few points of connection between the peasants and the rulers. So, proclaiming a ban on religion was an intellectual overcompensation, but most of all, a political move, with many dire consequences – not only in the form of the following spurges, but also in antagonizing the Christianity on Europe – these possibly being one of the main factors behind the rise of Fascism – a nationalist movement endorsed by religion organizations, even the Church of Rome, to rise against the godless red threat.

    It’s no coincidence that the original fascism rose in Italy.

    Regards :).
     
  7. Huayna Capac357

    Huayna Capac357 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,194
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    To luceafarul: Christianity has been both an obstacle (The Catholic Church's support of Franco in Spain for example) and a help to (Christian Communist) communism. If you ruled a world-wide communist state, what would you do in reference towards Christianity?

    Also, which state today is closest to true communism?
     
  8. ThePrussian

    ThePrussian Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    297
    Why is it that working class people in the west are damn near always capitalist and most if not all Marxists in the West are affluent or born into affluence?
     
  9. Cheezy the Wiz

    Cheezy the Wiz Socialist In A Hurry

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Freedonia
    I'm a Socialist and not really a "Red," but I guess I'll answer by virtue of association lol.

    I'm a Protestant Christian. You might describe my views as being "fundamentalist" in the literal sense; i.e. getting back to the fundamentals of Christianity, and what exactly it is that God expects from us. I see Christianity as having suffered particularly bad from the "telephone game," if you ever played that as a kid. That's the game where you sit in a circle and whisper something in the ear of the person next to you, then they tell it to the next person, so on and so forth, with the result being that, when the message gets around the circle back to the origin, it is somewhat different from how it started out. By doing historical research into the events the Bible describes, and bearing in mind the allegorical nature of the Bible, I essentially cut out the middle man i.e. the priest, and go to the most direct source we can, which is of course still corrupted somewhat from God's message, the Bible being written by men.

    I was also heavily influenced by the writings of Sri Ramakrishna; in particular, his ideas about the harmony of religions. What he essentially preached was that the ultimate goal of religion was to bring oneself closer to God; so long as this was the primary goal of any religion, it was thus correct. The analogy he used was that of a house; God is the roof, and the goal is to get to the roof. It doesn't matter if you take the stairs, climb a rope, a ladder, or whatever; none is more correct or incorrect than another. Likewise, different religions grew out of different cultures, because that is how that culture was best able to understand God's Word. It is for this reason that I identify myself as a Christian and not a Deist; I honestly believe that Christ is the way for me to get to heaven, but also that he is not the only way to get there. I would also describe my preached and practiced version to be highly decentralized. If it were up to me, there would be neither church nor clergy, and each man and woman should consult the Bible directly. This was once an essential principle of Islamic society; they had their imams and religious scholars, but they were just that, scholars, each person was ecclesiastically responsible only to God; there was no religious hierarchy.

    In my investigations of the Bible, and discovering for myself what it preaches, and reading varying opinions about what it says, I found it to preach what might be termed a "heavily leftist" message; that my crisis of faith and subsequent investigations coincided with my political awakening is only a slight coincidence, but to pretend that one had no effect on the other would be false.

    So to sum up; I believe the Bible (and many other religous texts as well) preaches quite a leftist system of ideals, and I find it to fit in quite well with socialism. I also find it highly amusing, yet very saddening at the same time, that God's message has been so twisted as to now be one with assumed American secular ideals.
     
  10. Red Door

    Red Door Man of Mayhem

    Joined:
    May 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,665
    Location:
    USA #1
    Amen brother. I'm not a Christian, but any true Christian who actually reads the Bible would not support the capitalism of today, the violence we accept, and out culture.
     
  11. LightSpectra

    LightSpectra me autem minui

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    5,518
    Location:
    Vendée
    No, I wouldn't agree with that. All throughout the Bible you see choice: Jesus asks the disciples to give away their belongings, he never forces them. That's called charity; as opposed to socialism, where it is illegal for one to keep what he owns.
     
  12. RedRalph

    RedRalph Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    Yeah. I hate the way such bastions of socialism like the US, Japan, UK, Columbia, Russia, Indonesia and Poland all make it illegal for you to keep a certain % of what you own... hey, maybe we did win the cold war after all
     
  13. Huayna Capac357

    Huayna Capac357 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,194
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    In socialism, one can have material possessions. It is just that everyone has enought to eat and drink, a place to live, and health care to survive. In otherwords, "For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me." Matthew, 25:36-37 ;)
     
  14. holy king

    holy king Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    16,323
    Location:
    Vienna, Austria
    yes, charity is typical christian. and it has nothing to do with socialism.

    oh, please mister rich man, i beg you to provide me with the ability to fricking survive.
     
  15. ThePrussian

    ThePrussian Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    297
    It is a typical marxist, in this case cultural marxist, tactic to attempt to hijack religion to promote their ideology.

    Christ was not a Socialist. He didn't care one bit about material goods or inequality (he supported slavery). The provision to give away your possessions was not about socialism but freeing oneself from material concerns because the Kingdom is utterly immaterial and then devoting oneself entirely to God through preaching the Word and saving people.
     
  16. philippe

    philippe FYI, I chase trains.

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    11,437
    Location:
    Bourgondische Kreitz
    Jesus supported slavery?

    you do know, that it was the catholic church that pushed that there should be no slaves in early middle ages, becuase it's immoral to enslave another christian brother. (like the serf status was any good, but that aside)
     
  17. ThePrussian

    ThePrussian Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    297
    Look up Jesus and the Centurion.
     
  18. philippe

    philippe FYI, I chase trains.

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    11,437
    Location:
    Bourgondische Kreitz
    Pope Eugene IV in 1435 wrote to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote in his Bull, Sicut Dudum:

    and if this Bull was not followed the Spanish and Flemish would get excommunicated. You do realise the extent of that punishment, right?

    eternal damnation.

    Pope Paul III in 1537 issued a Bull against slavery, entitled Sublimis Deus, to the universal Church. He wrote:

    but then again, Jesus was born in a culture where slavery was normal.

    but there is a difference in forms of slavery.

    you had "voluntarily" (mostly to pay off debts and release was on the jubliee year) and involuntarily slavery.

    anyway something interesting I found:
    Slavery and the first Christians

    But did the early Church endorse slavery? Certainly, the early Christians more or less tolerated the slavery of their day, as seen from the New Testament itself and the fact that after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, slavery was not immediately outlawed. Even so, this doesn’t mean Christianity was compatible with Roman slavery or that the early Church did not contribute to its demise. In that regard, there are a number of important points to be kept in mind.

    First, while Paul told slaves to obey their masters, he made no general defense of slavery, anymore than he made a general defense of the pagan government of Rome, which Christians were also instructed to obey despite its injustices (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). He seems simply to have regarded slavery as an intractable part of the social order, an order that he may well have thought would pass away shortly (1 Cor. 7:29-31).

    Second, Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please.

    Third, Paul implied that the brotherhood shared by Christians is ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery. In the case of the runaway slave Onesimus, Paul wrote to Philemon, the slave’s master, instructing him to receive Onesimus back “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother” (Philem. 6). With respect to salvation in Christ, Paul insisted that “there is neither slave nor free . . . you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28).

    Fourth, the Christian principles of charity (“love your neighbor as yourself) and the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you”) espoused by the New Testament writers are ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery, even if, because of its deeply established role as a social institution, this point was not clearly understood by all at the time.

    Fifth, while the Christian Empire didn’t immediately outlaw slavery, some Church fathers (such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom) strongly denounced it. But then, the state has often failed to enact a just social order in accordance with Church teachings.

    Sixth, some early Christians liberated their slaves, while some churches redeemed slaves using the congregation’s common means. Other Christians even sacrificially sold themselves into slavery to emancipate others.

    Seventh, even where slavery was not altogether repudiated, slaves and free men had equal access to the sacraments, and many clerics were from slave backgrounds, including two popes (Pius I and Callistus). This implies a fundamental equality incompatible with slavery.

    Eighth, the Church ameliorated the harsher aspects of slavery in the Empire, even trying to protect slaves by law, until slavery all but disappeared in the West. It was, of course, to re-emerge during the Renaissance, as Europeans encountered Muslim slave traders and the indigenous peoples of the Americas
     
  19. ThePrussian

    ThePrussian Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    297

    No, excommunication is not eternal damnation.

    And:
    Spoiler :

    Luke 7:1-10
    When He had completed all His discourse in the hearing of the people, He went to Capernaum. And a centurion's slave, who was highly regarded by him, was sick and about to die. When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders asking Him to come and save the life of his slave. When they came to Jesus, they earnestly implored Him, saying, "He is worthy for You to grant this to him; for he loves our nation and it was he who built us our synagogue."
    Now Jesus started on His way with them; and when He was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to Him, "Lord, do not trouble Yourself further, for I am not worthy for You to come under my roof; for this reason I did not even consider myself worthy to come to You, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man placed under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it."

    Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled at him, and turned and said to the crowd that was following Him, "I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith." When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.
     
  20. philippe

    philippe FYI, I chase trains.

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    11,437
    Location:
    Bourgondische Kreitz
    yes it is. After all you are thrown out of the catholic church, you cannot recieve sacraments and thus you will be eternally damned.

    and this s your argument for that Jesus supported slavery. This is an passage on having faith, even if it's blind.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page