Well said Uski.

Communism is a utopia, and nowhere where it's been installed has it been successful in the sense it was intended.

And Kaya, it seems more like you've read some article recently or had some negative experience with communism and wanted to vent your distaste by posting this. What's the point when most people with sense realise any form of extremism, left, right, religious or fanatically irreligious like Pol Pot's little regime, are just short-term radical solutions that claim a huge butchers bill and never work in the long run.

But in theory, real communism would be fantastic, if it didn't stretch beyond the size of a commune of some sort, because it's then the trappings of statehood let the rot set in.

edit: Communists tend to be atheists but atheists are not communists, keep that in mind.

The point is that this is a discussion board and I wanted to see peoples opinions on the subject. Doesn't have a thing to do with what I read recently either. I never experienced communism personally but I did see what it did to people and their freedom around the world. I also realise that not all communists are atheists or visa versa. I also wanted to point out that communism and atheism go hand in hand and that some believe, it (atheism), could also be considered a religion. Religion is a philosophy and so is atheism.

In principle, when u read books from Karl Marx communism looks like heaven, there aint poor, no religion so it means no discrimination, abolition of the capitalism etc. in that time, the poors died from famine, they had no right, in summary before marxisme in some countries and society when u were poor u didn't have a syndic. social rights etc, so it means u just shut up and die alone without telling your rights ...but Marx was against some communsits who over exagerate the communism....

Some politician over exagerated it, they dishonoured the the theory of Marx .... Lenine is a good exemple:
He kills and deported lots of Meskhetian Turks out of Georgia

Excluding the part about "no religion", this sounds more like the early Christians.

Regardless what Marx apparently intended (btw he was quite the sponge) he wrote several manifestos on an idealistic utopia, as per his interpretation, that when put into practice turned out to be quite impractical. Therefore the conclusion that we should come to was that he got it all wrong to begin with.

A good example, he claimed the miners’ uprising, or ‘Eureka Stockade’, in the Victorian goldfields in 1854 was the first communist revolt. But what he failed to admit was why they raised arms to begin with? Gold. Those miners were fighting for laissez-faire as capitalists. They weren’t interesting in any worker’s utopia, and even if they were aware of Marx, they certainly wouldn’t have been keen on giving up the wealth they were seeking.

And Marx was quite the advocate of totalitarianism.

[quote]The class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat…this dictatorship itself constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.[/quote]

Okay, so the apology is that dictatorship is the necessity of a transitional period. But for how long is it supposed to be? For those who have read Marx’s work, does he state it? Because when you look at communist dictatorships past and present, they cling to power. Anyway, it makes sense that Marx would support dictatorship, because he most likely saw himself as the undisputable leader if he succeeded.

If anyone supported a stateless society, it most certainly wasn’t Marx but Mikhail Bakunin.

[quote]I am not a Communist because Communism, by concentrating all property in the state, necessarily leads to the concentration of all the power of society in the state. I want to abolish the state; my aim is the complete destruction of the very principle of state authority which up to now has meant the enslavement, suppression, exploitation and humiliation of mankind.[quote]

Bakunin was considered Marx’s ideological rival, and who succeeded in getting him expelled him from the First International 1872. So he didn’t like any rivals.

But Marx was a clever bastard.

[quote]Religion is the sigh of the oppressed being, the essence of a heartless world, just as it is the embodiment of social conditions from which the intellect is banned. It is the opium of the people.[/quote]

One of his most famous proclamations, that is regurgitated ad nauseum. But just read it again and you will see what he wrote is so general that it can apply to almost everything: religion, money, sexual promiscuity and of course all political ideologies. Because what he saw in religion, however, was his biggest obstacle from absolute control over the masses, and why he was so damning towards it. And if you get rid of religion what do you replace it? The Party, the movement, or whatever else you want to call it.


Anyway, I suggest for those who haven’t to read George Orwell’s “1984”.[QUOTE]

Fair enough.

That's a bit of a broad term, philosophies can be a rational investigation about existence (atheism), or it can be a set of doctrines with no rational investigation whatsoever (religion.)
So whilst both atheism and religion could be defined as philosophies, you can clearly see that when dissected and placed in their relevant sub categories they really are a world apart.

Looking at the dictionary definition of 'religion' most will say something along the lines of "belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe." Similar things go for definitions of priests, mullahs, churches and synagogues. Atheism has no church, no priests any more than it has a god.

I resent the notion that humans do not kill randomly and without hesitation because of a belief in God and divine consequence. Which is to say that man is first and foremost a wretched, violent and uncivilized creature without any moral compass at all.

An utterly absurd notion. Man has moral. It is part of what we are and wat we evolved into being. As is the violence of human nature. But I guess it is easy to see where all the religious shame and anger derives from when you can bring yourself to believe that the core of your own being is corrupted, dirty and evil by default. A sad thought, but perhaps not that far from the truth..

It depends on how you want to swing. You "believe" that there is no God nor afterlife, and I "believe" that there is. We both adhere to a different set of beliefs and philosophies which I think are two identical donkey carts painted in different colors.

Religion can also be defined as a belief or a set of beliefs. Me thinks you like to split hairs with me, Young Arabas.

Generally speaking ...yes. However, once in a while, devils like sHitler and Stalin show up and your argument goes up in flames.

Nuff said!

I suggest you read the following sentence, Kaya abi.

Never mind...

I think the highlighted part is where my argument takes into account the random occurrence of humans who, either by way of chance or social circumstances, reach the point where immoral and irrational thinking can affect millions of others in a depraving and finally fatal way.

Right, no worries...happens to the best of us.

You're a good man Westy, I don't care what everybody else on the forums says about you.