Has there ever been a point where communism worked well?

[dagriggstar]

Probably the most successful communist societies were the native american ones. Of the communist civs in the civ series (just relating this to civ) we have Russia, Korea (Technically), Inca (Technically) and China (I think thats it) Of these the Incan way of doing things was the most successful, if you weren't royalty you were equal to everyone else. The Incas (leaders) job was effectively to make sure that there was no (or little) poverty so we saw leaders like Huayna Capac build things like storehouses to prevent poverty. Also everything in Incan society was owned by the state. Sure there may still have been a rich and a poor class but hey at least the poor class weren't in poverty.

 

[St Exupère]

That only works if you assume that the future will be like the past, which has time and time again been shown to be false. The world as it is know is rather different than it was "hundreds of thousands" of years ago, as anyone with even a passing knowledge of the paleolithic will be able to tell you.
The world changes, that's a fact. Once, there were no democracies. Before that, there were no nations. Before that, no cities. Humans have a habit of doing the unexpected.

As long as humans are still born, and then eventually die, the future will continue to look like the past, with a constant evolution. It is ontologically impossible to do a "tabula rasa" since that would not only require you to erase all languages and all names, but also somehow erase the genes and the ability to transmit them in giving life again. In other words, there is historical bias in everything we do - the only real freedom being in faith.

 

[St Exupère]

Humanity predates gods.

All cultures, even languages, are derived from sacrality and religious myths.

But I do agree that religion, form the simples mysticism of ceremonial burials in the stone age to the present elaborate religions, did accompany all the development of human society. However that was not necessarily a religion of idols.

In that case it is a matter of vocabulary, but we do agree on the process. For me, any form of sacralized (and/or ritualized) absolutism is a myth and potentially a religion.

I agree with you about the myths. But I disagree that only religion can supply stable myths. A myth does not necessarily require religion, or at least belief in gods.

No, it is the other way around: myths and in general absolutisms, when ritualized and institutionalized, slowly give birht to cultures and eventually the social bond among such community is what we call a religion.

Communist, or humanism, or any other idea can be just as effective a myth. And these are not recent phenomenons, historically Asia has had "philosophical religions" for millennial. No idols or gods needed, just an idea - a myth.
And capitalism, by the way, is as much a myth as socialism.

Yes and no. In principle I would agree, except that this myth can become a religion if it is absolute (suffers no exception to its rule) and totalizing (explaining everything, or claiming it does or can). Extreme nationalism, and communism, can probably fit into that category.

As for moral relativism I think that's a good thing, as opposed to blind dogma.

The advantage of moral relativism is that in the short term it voids conflict and brings peace and prosperity; the disadvantage is that in the long term, it necessarily ends is anarchy and chaos.

 

[Plotinus]

That depends entirely upon what you actually mean by "moral relativism", a very slippery and ambiguous term. I don't really see how communism can be characterised by "moral relativism" in any sense, though, because the whole point of communism rests upon the notion that some things are right (such as the eradication of poverty) and some things are wrong (such as one class oppressing another). If communists were really moral relativists, in the sense of rejecting any standards of right and wrong, then to be consistent they wouldn't think communism any better than any alternative system.

 

[St Exupère]

That depends entirely upon what you actually mean by "moral relativism", a very slippery and ambiguous term.

The same thing as when Pope Benedict XVI uses it: the fact that Justice is not connected anymore with any absolute sense of what is Right and what is Wrong, but should stick to being the executive branch of a legislation entirely submitted to the will of the majority. There is no Good and Evil anymore, there is what is legal and what is illegal as per the rules of democracy.

I don't really see how communism can be characterised by "moral relativism" in any sense, though, because the whole point of communism rests upon the notion that some things are right (such as the eradication of poverty) and some things are wrong (such as one class oppressing another). If communists were really moral relativists, in the sense of rejecting any standards of right and wrong, then to be consistent they wouldn't think communism any better than any alternative system.

Communism is a materialist ideology. It is a totality and in principle has set itself as an absolute; but if you look closely, that absolute means nothing in moral terms to the individuals. The absolute is to "reach equality and prosperity of all in material terms, whatever the means to get there". Which in itself, does not define an individual morality. One day, an individual can be praised for an action because it helped advance towards the ultimate goal, the next day another individual can be killed for the same action because circumstances have been such that, within one day, that action suddenly became detrimental to reaching the ultimate goal.

So communism is not relativist in the way European societies now are; yet its susbtance is void, which makes it a nihilism, because in absolutizing Humanity, it bites its own tail continuously. Is nihilism, relativist? probably so.

 

[Traitorfish]

As long as humans are still born, and then eventually die, the future will continue to look like the past, with a constant evolution. It is ontologically impossible to do a "tabula rasa" since that would not only require you to erase all languages and all names, but also somehow erase the genes and the ability to transmit them in giving life again. In other words, there is historical bias in everything we do - the only real freedom being in faith.

So know you're embracing pre-determinism? Then I'm afraid we are not just on different pages, but we are using entirely separate alphabets.
The past defines the future, no question, but that doesn't mean that the past is the future. Things change, that's the way it goes.

 

[St Exupère]

I am not embracing pre-determinism because I said that I believe men are free through their possible access to the Truth, and ultimately their free choice of being faithful to it, or not.

I am however saying that, to the opposite of what most believe, the more rationalist and materialist a society, the more pre-determined and un-free it is.

 

[West 36]

It does not enslave; First of all, I am saying here that capitalism in the sense that I support it, requires democracy: The buyers tell the manufacturers what they want. An essential point of Capitalism is "Something is worth what the buyer will pay for it". So that is wrong. And everyone can be a winner, its just that a lot of people don't try. My mom went through some tough times with socialist hippie druggie parents and lived in shelters for a long time and is now the assistant regional manager across the ENTIRE northeast US. And those with a born into a privilaged life will not always make it. Buisnessmen realize they will lose money with them, and fire them. And those kids making Nikes (which I don't buy) would have that chance IN A DEMOCRACY! And the people that aren't payed what they deserve should go to a different job, or to collage (work for a scholarship) and get a good job that pays well. It is possible, its just that some people are too lazy.
And capitalists don't crave money; We just work for our fair share. And we are ambitious enough to try and make a better living for ourselves. And to those that are going to bring up the "Christian Socialism" argument to me, look here: here.

Then capitalism demands a lower class so that they can make money off them. Capitalism is about making money, making sure you keep making more, and then making sure others make less so that you hold sway over them. Money is power, and money buys freedom in capitalism. They do crave money, you are pressured to make more, and thus buy more- fueling someone elses wealth.
Christianity promotes capitalism? Sounds like supply-side Jesus. I saw god>man>nature- I myself am agnostic, so this just out right annoys me. Go ahead. Believe it. Nature can and will kill you in its own magical way if you don't respect it, respect it for what it is: nature>man.

 

[Plotinus]

The same thing as when Pope Benedict XVI uses it: the fact that Justice is not connected anymore with any absolute sense of what is Right and what is Wrong, but should stick to being the executive branch of a legislation entirely submitted to the will of the majority. There is no Good and Evil anymore, there is what is legal and what is illegal as per the rules of democracy.

Legal theory has got nothing to do with ethical theory. Someone can hold precisely the view of the justice system that you specify here and yet still believe that there are "Good" and "Evil" and "right" and "wrong"; they may simply think that it is not the task of judges to determine it. Similarly, someone can have as strong an ethical theory as you like but believe that it is not the task of political legislators to enshrine it in law.

Communism is a materialist ideology. It is a totality and in principle has set itself as an absolute; but if you look closely, that absolute means nothing in moral terms to the individuals. The absolute is to "reach equality and prosperity of all in material terms, whatever the means to get there". Which in itself, does not define an individual morality. One day, an individual can be praised for an action because it helped advance towards the ultimate goal, the next day another individual can be killed for the same action because circumstances have been such that, within one day, that action suddenly became detrimental to reaching the ultimate goal.

So communism is not relativist in the way European societies now are; yet its susbtance is void, which makes it a nihilism, because in absolutizing Humanity, it bites its own tail continuously. Is nihilism, relativist? probably so.

You seem very confused! Humanism is not the same thing as nihilism. If someone sets up humanity as "the measure of all things" then they are not a nihilist, because they believe in humanity; a nihilist believes in nothing. You may think that humanism is no better than nihilism, but that's just your personal belief, and it doesn't make them the same thing.

Yet none of the views you attribute here to communists amount to either of these things. If, under this system, the same action can be right one day and wrong the next, that simply means it is a consequentialist ethical system as opposed to a deontological one. And indeed it's perfect common sense: most people would agree that, for example, telling a lie may be wrong one day (if you do it in order to advance your own career at the cost of destroying someone else's) but right the next day (if you do it to prevent a murderer from finding and killing your friend).

Besides all of this, I don't really see the force of the criticism anyway. You say that communism is simply about bringing about mass (or equal) prosperity, and doesn't look to the moral wellbeing of people. Well, why should it? It's a political and economic theory. Such theories aren't about people's moral wellbeing any more than they are about their shoe size.

There are plenty of reasons to criticise communism, but I think that attempts like this to undermine it on the basis of some grand, sweeping moral theory will always fail, because such grand, sweeping theories themselves invariably rely upon premises that are highly open to question. This is quite apart from the fact that it involves confusing communism as a basic idea with the specific forms that communism has sometimes taken in practice. If you restrict the word to mean Marxism and its daughter movements, then you may have a point in calling it intrinsically materialistic, but I see no reason to use the word so restrictively. As I have pointed out, there have been Christian societies which have been pretty much communist in the broad sense of the term. That in itself ought to demonstrate that there need be no ideological conflict between the two viewpoints.

 

[Traitorfish]

I am not embracing pre-determinism because I said that I believe men are free through their possible access to the Truth, and ultimately their free choice of being faithful to it, or not.

Obviously we have rather different perceptions of free-will.

I am however saying that, to the opposite of what most believe, the more rationalist and materialist a society, the more pre-determined and un-free it is.

Prove it. Prove that your fantasy world of wizards and magic gives you greater access to "The Truth" than the real world does. And by "prove it", I don't mean some vague nonsense about "faith"- after 14 yeas at a Catholic school I've had quite enough of that- but with logic.

Here's my view: Free will is inherent to all human beings- it can be lost, but it does not need to be gained. A great way to lose it is to give it up to "faith", or, as I like to call it, "irrationality". Pursuing some mystical "Truth" won't make a difference, although it can make an interesting diversion from reality.

 

[carmen510]

I agree with Traitorfish, but wouldn't faith guide people in their lives, for the greater good or bad, depending on your point of view? Free will is something that is good, if used 'properly' in my opinion. (It depends on what properly means, so its just a general reference) I mean, free will could guide someone to become a civil rights leader, or an assassin of the same.

 

[St Exupère]

Legal theory has got nothing to do with ethical theory.

I disagree. For the vast majority of human history, justice is supposed to serve what ost deem as "good". Human justice is obviously utopist for errare humanum est, yet it has always been an attempt to simulate what a perfect, god-like justice, would be. The very recent official unlinking of law and morality is entirely new, and has already been abundantly commented by philisophers of all sorts. The impact it will have on human societies is yet unknown, though we start to have hints. In my opinion, it can only lead to a new form of totalitarism.

Someone can hold precisely the view of the justice system that you specify here and yet still believe that there are "Good" and "Evil" and "right" and "wrong"; they may simply think that it is not the task of judges to determine it.

They may and many do; but then these judges would not serve justice anymore. See Montesquieu in L'esprit des Lois, who immediately distanced himself from mainstream Enlightenment (as in rationalism) on the matter, arguing that justice had to be rendered bearing in mind the "spirit of the law" rather than its text - and what is behind the spirit of a law if not ethics and morality?

Similarly, someone can have as strong an ethical theory as you like but believe that it is not the task of political legislators to enshrine it in law.

Yes, this is the position of materialists and today, the strongest of their representants are ultra-liberals and libertarians of all sorts. In my opinion it is not humanly sustainable as it will render impossible any social bond and push individualism to its very limits, in particular in relation with family and cohabitation of both sexes.

You seem very confused! Humanism is not the same thing as nihilism. If someone sets up humanity as "the measure of all things" then they are not a nihilist, because they believe in humanity; a nihilist believes in nothing. You may think that humanism is no better than nihilism, but that's just your personal belief, and it doesn't make them the same thing.

Stricto sensu, you are correct. Yet, what does it mean to declare that one thing will be an absolute to its own self? are we even able to comprehend the fact that Humanity, of which we are part, is the absolute of all things? I don't think so, I believe that it does not mean much if at all anything. It leads to inextricable dilemas - such as the use of violence on other humans which becomes sort of impossible in principle, yet a fact of life and a necessary tool of justice.

Besides all of this, I don't really see the force of the criticism anyway. You say that communism is simply about bringing about mass (or equal) prosperity, and doesn't look to the moral wellbeing of people. Well, why should it? It's a political and economic theory. Such theories aren't about people's moral wellbeing any more than they are about their shoe size.

My point is that in essence, communism, atheist humanism, materialism, scientism, progressism, moral relativism - are all breed from the same origina idolatry which is the fact that God has been replaced by Humanity. None better than Auguste Comte theorized this, and it now is a reality of our times. Communism is not so bad because it is anti-liberal, or totalitarian; it is bad in essence because if sets Humanity as the sole horizon to its own self.

There are plenty of reasons to criticise communism, but I think that attempts like this to undermine it on the basis of some grand, sweeping moral theory will always fail, because such grand, sweeping theories themselves invariably rely upon premises that are highly open to question.

My goal is not to criticize communism: it is a dead ideology. My goal is to point-out that the worst flaws of communism are still present within the materialist and relativist ideologies that rule our societies today, and my prediction is that we will most probably end-up in similar forms of totalitarism. Constant increased policing, security systems, cameras, biometry, etc... in response to always increasing social disorder, are for me a sign that this is already happening. My fear is that most will not even realize it, whereas at least under communism, people knew what was happening.

As I have pointed out, there have been Christian societies which have been pretty much communist in the broad sense of the term. That in itself ought to demonstrate that there need be no ideological conflict between the two viewpoints.

Absolutely not: these early christian societies were behaving as such for a good reason: the Love of God, its adoration and the will to act like Christ. Communist societies looked at behaving like this for the sole purpose of immediate happiness of their people, and because their absolutization of Humanity required it. Their idolatry led them to sacrificing, like all idolatries eventually do in one forme or another - and they sacrificing millions of human beings to their idol, which was Humanity itself.

 

[St Exupère]

Obviously we have rather different perceptions of free-will.

Obviously yes; and while free-will for me is gift of God and exists in that we have the ability to be faithful to him, or not - I fail to understand what free-will is to you. Intrinsic to each one us, how exactly? the will to be free is, I agree, but freedom itself??

Prove it.

Technically, I cannot. However I can write 500 pages of reasoning to try and guide you, but ultimately reason alone cannot prove it, just like the infinite cannot be reached.

Here's my view: Free will is inherent to all human beings- it can be lost, but it does not need to be gained.

This is obviously not true and one just needs to look at a newborn to be convinced, who obviously is not free of anything and needs constant attention of others around him to survive, and their education to acquire tools such as language and logic. What we have within ourselves and by nature is a will to be free, but free-will is not in-bred. Original sin, is.

A great way to lose it is to give it up to "faith", or, as I like to call it, "irrationality". Pursuing some mystical "Truth" won't make a difference, although it can make an interesting diversion from reality.

In fact it is the very opposite; all we do along our reasonable lives is look up at idols and mimic them - family members when we are young, teachers, pals, co-workers, people we are attracted to, leaders of all sorts, public idols or icons, etc... it is only when we look up to God, that we are sometimes able to breach that never-ending circle of mimetic desire imposed on us by all these models, or idols; and only when we get our concience from God's words that our actions start being a little more free.

 

[Traitorfish]

Obviously yes; and while free-will for me is gift of God and exists in that we have the ability to be faithful to him, or not - I fail to understand what free-will is to you. Intrinsic to each one us, how exactly? the will to be free is, I agree, but freedom itself??

Of course- all living things are natural free. It is only through the constructs of humans that freedom is lost. Whether this is by or against your will, the loss of freedom comes from the submission to an artificially constructed human system.

Technically, I cannot. However I can write 500 pages of reasoning to try and guide you, but ultimately reason alone cannot prove it, just like the infinite cannot be reached.

If something cannot be proved by reason, then I want no part in it. Leaps of faith usually fail to appeal to rationalists...

This is obviously not true and one just needs to look at a newborn to be convinced, who obviously is not free of anything and needs constant attention of others around him to survive, and their education to acquire tools such as language and logic. What we have within ourselves and by nature is a will to be free, but free-will is not in-bred. Original sin, is.

Actually, a newborn is the perfect example of what I mean- a newborn is part of no system, has no place within any artificial human constructs, is bound to no social conventions. All these things are imposed upon it, after birth, they are not natural or innate. Free will, however, is.
An infant may not be able to survive without the help of others, that is true, but since when did survival have anything to do with free will? Hell, sometimes they're different things.

In fact it is the very opposite; all we do along our reasonable lives is look up at idols and mimic them - family members when we are young, teachers, pals, co-workers, people we are attracted to, leaders of all sorts, public idols or icons, etc... it is only when we look up to God, that we are sometimes able to breach that never-ending circle of mimetic desire imposed on us by all these models, or idols; and only when we get our concience from God's words that our actions start being a little more free.

Again, our different understanding of "free will" prevents me from making much of an argument here. All I can say is that if you rely on freedom falling from the sky, then you'll find yourself in chains before too long. Metaphorical ones, obviously...

 

[St Exupère]

Of course- all living things are natural free. It is only through the constructs of humans that freedom is lost. Whether this is by or against your will, the loss of freedom comes from the submission to an artificially constructed human system.

This is the reasoning for anarchism, which is yet another utopia and another nihilism. It looks nice on paper the first time you read it, yet it is false.

If something cannot be proved by reason, then I want no part in it. Leaps of faith usually fail to appeal to rationalists...

I know, just like freedom cannot mean much to rationalists either, IMO. Rationalists can "pretend" it does, but it will remain an illusion.

Actually, a newborn is the perfect example of what I mean- a newborn is part of no system, has no place within any artificial human constructs, is bound to no social conventions. All these things are imposed upon it, after birth, they are not natural or innate. Free will, however, is.

I disagree fundamentally; and practically, I fail to see how you can prove your point about new-born humans having innate free-will. Unless free-will is for you a purely abstract, sophist concept not linked to any action. In which case, we might as well discuss about the sex of the anges.

An infant may not be able to survive without the help of others, that is true, but since when did survival have anything to do with free will?

Free will only has a sense if linked to possibility of action, even minor.

Again, our different understanding of "free will" prevents me from making much of an argument here. All I can say is that if you rely on freedom falling from the sky, then you'll find yourself in chains before too long. Metaphorical ones, obviously...

The way you reason, the way you think, your logic, your environment, your culture - everything has been imposed on you. Your opinions will be the result of the people you have met, lived with, debated with, and so will the actions derived from them. How free is this? what is the little sparkle that will do that you, traitorfish, are both free and unique, and that your actions are not genetically or environmentally fully pre-determined? and how can such unique thing that we all thrive for, such "sparkle", be anything rational or that can be put in equations? It cannot. The only way for it to exist, is to come from something Eternel, Free, Omnipotent - and that is what many men have always, and will always call God.

 

[St Exupère]

If something cannot be proved by reason, then I want no part in it.

Another thing about this jewel: ever been in love? how reasonable was it?

 

[Traitorfish]

This is the reasoning for anarchism, which is yet another utopia and another nihilism. It looks nice on paper the first time you read it, yet it is false.

Well, being an anarchist, it is the sort of thinking that I would subscribe to... It's not a nihilist argument, it's a humanist one- it focuses on the innate freedom of a human being. It's no more nihilist than the acknowledgment that, say, money has no innate value.
And accusations of "nihilism" as a pejorative term are petty and childish, a feeble attempt to try and make the accusers views seem more "substantial" and therefore superior.

I know, just like freedom cannot mean much to rationalists either, IMO. Rationalists can "pretend" it does, but it will remain an illusion.

And why can't freedom mean anything to rationalists, exactly?

I disagree fundamentally; and practically, I fail to see how you can prove your point about new-born humans having innate free-will. Unless free-will is for you a purely abstract, sophist concept not linked to any action. In which case, we might as well discuss about the sex of the anges.

Free will only has a sense if linked to possibility of action, even minor.

But that doesn't effect my point- that freedom, i.e. the state in which a person is not bound to any system or otherwise made subservient to a will other than there own, is innate, and not gained as you believe.
Freedom is not infinite or absolute, it is bound by situation- freedom means being able to make your own choices, not doing whatever you want.
A newborn, while limited, has self-determination within it's situation. It's options are severely limited, but it's the one that gets to make the choice. It is unbound by external systems, and so, within it's range of options, has full control.

The way you reason, the way you think, your logic, your environment, your culture - everything has been imposed on you. Your opinions will be the result of the people you have met, lived with, debated with, and so will the actions derived from them. How free is this? what is the little sparkle that will do that you, traitorfish, are both free and unique, and that your actions are not genetically or environmentally fully pre-determined? and how can such unique thing that we all thrive for, such "sparkle", be anything rational or that can be put in equations? It cannot. The only way for it to exist, is to come from something Eternel, Free, Omnipotent - and that is what many men have always, and will always call God.

All I said was that true freedom was a state in which no external systems have been imposed upon you, I never said that I had achieved this state. Few people have. I make some choices for myself, others are forced upon me, most are a balance. I am partly free, I am partly subservient to the society we live in, that's how it goes for most people.

Another thing about this jewel: ever been in love? how reasonable was it?

Interesting point. I really must admit that I have no response to this.

 

[St Exupère]

It's no more nihilist than the acknowledgment that, say, money has no innate value.

It is, because in the way you define freedom, any form of social, cultural, institutional norms are constraints restricting such freedom. Which renders futile and oppressive any form of education (aka pink floyd), and worse will in the end target the oppression the family do impose on their kids, up to the newborns as you mentioned. Therefore intrinsiquely and despite it being attractive at first, the anarchist ideology finally turns againts humanity itself.

And accusations of "nihilism" as a pejorative term are petty and childish, a feeble attempt to try and make the accusers views seem more "substantial" and therefore superior.

In the way I use the term, I mean it. I do not throw them to diminish my contemptors. In my opninion, by nature, anarchism and communism are nihilisms in that they are direct threats to humanity itself, as a concrete reality. More perversely and sometimes less evidently, so are all pure materialisms and rationalisms. With nuances.

And why can't freedom mean anything to rationalists, exactly?

For the very fact that materialists use solely reason, and that reason bases itself on very concrete models and objects, and that for that reason, reason will always be limited and enslaved to those models and objects. Which is fine by itself, but not fine if you restrict humanity and individuals to this sole, reasonable, horizon.

But that doesn't effect my point- that freedom, i.e. the state in which a person is not bound to any system or otherwise made subservient to a will other than there own, is innate, and not gained as you believe.

But that is not a rational position, it is a pré-supposé. It is as irrational as to say that Jesus-Christ has already saved all sinners and all we need to do is to recognize it. And I would like to hear, rationally speaking, where such "innate freedom" comes from.

Freedom is not infinite or absolute, it is bound by situation- freedom means being able to make your own choices, not doing whatever you want.

How can you be sure those are your own choices? maybe they are just your mechanical reaction to envy, jealousy, ambition, desire, fear, which have all been caused by these models/idols that I was referring to. The authentic freedom you are referring to, might turn out to be a complete illusion.

All I said was that true freedom was a state in which no external systems have been imposed upon you, I never said that I had achieved this state.

Without introducing God in this reasoning, it means no one can ever bee free since we all are by definition influenced by what you call external systems.

Few people have. I make some choices for myself, others are forced upon me, most are a balance. I am partly free, I am partly subservient to the society we live in, that's how it goes for most people.

Or, maybe you believe that some of your choices are for yourself, because the illusion of being all-powerful and free is a nice feeling. Yet, if you look deep down, things might be slightly different. I for one believe that only the choices that we make, expecting absolutely nothing in return, are free. And it is only via God that we can, truly, make such things; and in particular via Christ. Otherwise, our vanity always kicks in at some point.

 

[Traitorfish]

It is, because in the way you define freedom, any form of social, cultural, institutional norms are constraints restricting such freedom. Which renders futile and oppressive any form of education (aka pink floyd), and worse will in the end target the oppression the family do impose on their kids, up to the newborns as you mentioned. Therefore intrinsiquely and despite it being attractive at first, the anarchist ideology finally turns againts humanity itself.

Yes, any kind of social, cultural or institutional norms are limiting to freedom. By living in a society with other humans, you're freedom will be limited.
If you view Anarchism's attempts to limit this effect as inherently negative, then you are required to prove that the opposite- an over-abundance of social and cultural limits on an individual- are somehow a superior system.

In the way I use the term, I mean it. I do not throw them to diminish my contemptors. In my opninion, by nature, anarchism and communism are nihilisms in that they are direct threats to humanity itself, as a concrete reality. More perversely and sometimes less evidently, so are all pure materialisms and rationalisms. With nuances.

Why are they direct threats to humanity? Because they attempt to create a world in which people are allowed self-determination and do not have to find "Truth" through God?

For the very fact that materialists use solely reason, and that reason bases itself on very concrete models and objects, and that for that reason, reason will always be limited and enslaved to those models and objects. Which is fine by itself, but not fine if you restrict humanity and individuals to this sole, reasonable, horizon.

No, doesn't work like that- "freedom" means situational self-determination, i.e. the ability to make you own decisions within reality you find yourself. The fact that one relies on said reality to make these decisions is not "enslavement", it's just realism. The world exists as it is, whether we like it or not, so there is nothing to be said against coming to terms with that.

But that is not a rational position, it is a pré-supposé. It is as irrational as to say that Jesus-Christ has already saved all sinners and all we need to do is to recognize it. And I would like to hear, rationally speaking, where such "innate freedom" comes from.

It doesn't come from anywhere, it's innate. Freedom isn't actually a substantial thing, it's the lack of artificial systems being imposed upon a person, and, as we are born without such systems already imposed upon us, we are born free, and then we lose the freedom along the way.

How can you be sure those are your own choices? maybe they are just your mechanical reaction to envy, jealousy, ambition, desire, fear, which have all been caused by these models/idols that I was referring to. The authentic freedom you are referring to, might turn out to be a complete illusion.

True, I do not know that I am "free" and that my choices are my own. However, I never said that this was the case- I merely defined freedom and identified how it is lost, I never said that I had retained it.

Without introducing God in this reasoning, it means no one can ever bee free since we all are by definition influenced by what you call external systems.

Firstly, yes, none of us are truly free.
Secondly, God doesn't come into it.

Or, maybe you believe that some of your choices are for yourself, because the illusion of being all-powerful and free is a nice feeling. Yet, if you look deep down, things might be slightly different. I for one believe that only the choices that we make, expecting absolutely nothing in return, are free. And it is only via God that we can, truly, make such things; and in particular via Christ. Otherwise, our vanity always kicks in at some point.

As I said, I do not consider myself to be truly free. A little freer than most, maybe, because I know that I'm not free, but still not free. I'm just the guy that can see my chains.

I'm still not understanding this whole "freedom through God" idea- how is that supposed to work, exactly? As far as I can tell, you believe that faith leads to some sort of freedom-granting "truth", which, if I'm correct, seems to be a sort of monotheistic approach to the notion of enlightenment. Is this case, and how do you believe that one would go about attaining this "truth"?idea

 

[SickCycle]

Communism is the best form of government in theory, it's suppose to be a utopian society.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work.