Authoritarianism and Atheism

[mitchl1107]

So, it has come to my attention that many Christian-y pro-Democracy folks have insisted that Atheism and Communism are correlated somehow. I'd like to discuss this in some kind of detail.

Firstly, I think to correctly discuss this topic, we need a working understanding of Communism. Communism is a form of Authoritative politics. I believe that when most people say "Communists are Atheist!", I believe they're talking about Authoritative regimes, not merely Communism.

In many Authoritative societies, religion was not outright banned, but incorporated into the political structure. There is a political motivation for this. If you look at how Authoritarianism works, that is, it requires absolute faith and fealty from the people for it to work indefinitely, you cannot have a being more powerful than the state itself, as that is counterproductive to the goal of an Authoritarian society. We can see many historical examples of this. Many Authoritative states have established the leader as "God", or "Chosen by God" to lead the people. If you look to ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh was held as a "God among men", or "Chosen by the Gods". In Imperial China, there is a concept of the "Mandate of Heaven", in which the Emperor was willed to rule by the Gods, as long as he brought prosperity to the people. In the Eastern Roman Empire, the emperors were established as "Chosen by God" to rule.

Other states have made it a rule to outlaw religion all together. If you look at the Stalinist Soviet Union, any practices of religion were executed, due to Stalin being so absolute in his authority, any questioning would mean the death sentence. In Maoist China, it is not expressly forbidden to worship a chosen deity, but you always walk the fine line of being permanently imprisoned or killed if you try and question the state. In Nazi Germany, Hitler established his own religion, and put himself as a form of "High Priest". I would like to know your ideas on the matter, and if you think my logic is flawed, please explain how so, and what you believe to be the correct reasoning for Authoritative society's use of religion.

 

[lrkun]

In the most general point view. One ruling party creates reason as to why they are deemed the authority and makes a convenient enemy to act as it's scape goat.

It can be anything from religion to none belief. That is reality, which we have to come up with some solution to fix.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

So, it has come to my attention that many Christian-y pro-Democracy folks have insisted that Atheism and Communism are correlated somehow.

Let me introduce you to VyckRo

My name is Victor and I was born in the most atheist political system possible the Communism. I know all the arguments on the topic, first the most atheist, consider that the communists were not atheist or actually believed that communism was a religion, I met atheist that said that christians are guilty of crimes of communism. If you lived not in communism. It is irrational to tell to a witness how things were. I known the idea that not the lack of faith would have motivated their actions. Is irrelevant for my subject.

For much time on the internet there is a open conflict between atheist and Creationist, although I do not believe they are right , i understand, that banning the teaching of evolutionism in schools, tax exemptions require by the church and many other things, has caused the atheist, to adopt a position.

His latest Video (which i will get back to later)

Firstly, I think to correctly discuss this topic, we need a working understanding of Communism. Communism is a form of Authoritative politics.

"Communism - In it's usualy acknowledged form, a process of Class Conflict and revolutionary Struggle, resulting in Victory for the proletariat and the establishment of a classless, Socialist society in which private ownership has been abolished and the means of Production and subsistence belong to the Community." - The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics.

"In it's original form, Marxism professed to be a scientific explaination of the course of History, providing not just a political ideology but a system of government. Reasoning that the determinant is of all Human action was the economic self-interest of various social groups or classes, and that a "Ruling Class" would so order the economic system as to control and exploit the the other classes, Marx evolved an analysis of the course of History known as the dialectic. In the dialectic, society moved inexorably and inevitably from primitivity through slavery and feudalism to capatalism and, ultimately through a transitory stage of Socialism to true Communism." - Prof Ian Beckett: Communist Military Machine. P6.

Communism has never been achieved. What The soviet Union and other so called "communist" states were in actual Fact authoritarian Socialists, Which in fact has nothing to do with other types of Socialism, other than they are Left wing ideologies.

I've said this elsewhere but I'll bring it here

The place, that one takes on the political spectrum is in most political compasses determined by the position that one takes on the ownership of the means of production and the distribution of property and wealth in general. It is a political economy position. That is the general academic position, and it has nothing to do with government interference or control and has not changed. There is no such concept as there being a 'modern left' that is different in conception to a 'non-modern or past Left.

There is in this sense only one Left and Right, and it is determined by the political economy position I stated, and that determiner has not changed, which is why it is a useful measure in history and political economy. It is separate from 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' and as long as it is used correctly in the academic manner it is always consistent. Then you have the problem in that you are mixing the economic and social sphere in your categorization of conservative and liberal. Taken as its most basic; a conservative is one who wishes to retain the existing social and economic structure and the power of the existing elites. ("Conservativism is - In general terms, is a political philosophy which aspires to the preservation of what is thought to be the best in established society." - oxford concise dictionary of politics.) Throughout history the strategies to do this can take various forms in different places and times. In the past, it has sometimes taken the form more gov't involvement in the private sector to secure the position of those elites either through and aristocracy or the fascist parties.

The modern inception of maintaining the elites (i.e., conservative) is to push the idea of the 'free-market' and total laissez faire which shifts money and power upward and gives more power to the large trusts. So modern conservatives are acting in a consistently conservative manner. A liberal or, to liberalize is one who wishes to remove restrains, but it, like 'conservative' it must be delineated as to whether this involves the social or economic sphere. This is because one can be fiscally conservative but socially liberal,, as is the case for what are called conservative Democrats, and to varying degrees the present day Libertarians. (Although many Libertarians are so far to the Right economically they are beyond being fiscally conservative, they are reactionary ultra-right. Neoliberals on steroids) In the modern usage, a fiscal liberal is, not one who wishes to, remove restrains on the economy, but one who wishes to remove economic restraints put upon the lower classes by the economy using social programs and regulation to do so.
-
So in this way, while the particular ideas and policies pushed by those called Liberal or Conservative may shift, the exact concept behind those terms do not.

When it is said that modern conservatives are the "classical liberals" this is, not really the case either. First of all, in the social sphere, it is the present day liberals that carry on the mantle of the Classical Liberals in political freedoms with positive policies on civil rights, anti-discrimination legislation and fostering free speech through organizations such as the ACLU for example. Additionally, the Classic Liberal economists were not "free-market' as is it is interpreted by the modern libertarian crowd or even most Republicans. Not even Adam, Smith himself preached the type of fanatical type of 'free-market' that is put forth by the modern liberation crowd.

"Adam Smith was not a dogmatic proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. A careful exposition of his work will demonstrate that there were many functions which the government could fulfil in capitalist-organized society. In many (although not quite all) ways, Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was, close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat" Spencer Pack "Capitalism as a Moral System, Adam Smith's critique of the Free Market Economy" p1

The Classical Liberals in the economic sphere refers really to the ones who wished to dismantle the mercantilist trading system and the privilege of the aristocracy, issues which; neither is relevant to contemporary society. That was the extent of their idea of "free-market" not the modern usage, of lowering the taxes on the wealthy and totally unregulated markets and trade.

Admittedly the contemporary conservatives do try to claim that they acting from the same concepts, but more properly the modern conservatives are Neoliberal, or, if they include a social aspect Neoconservative, but both push Neoliberal economic policies like 'free-trade' and 'privatization' which is the way to keep the existing social structure and elite status quo; in other words, a conservative policy.

It is not decided by a some 'checklist' of organizations and ideas supported by that person. The person's position on the political compass may be blurred by their stances on things like personal freedom, social policy, et cetera and the connections between them. That's where the complexities lie. Even then, it is a poor way to attempt to understand one's full political ideology, as even people on the same side of the Left/right scale can hold ideologies that are almost completely incompatible with each other. Consider two left-wing ideologies, say, communism and social democracy, for example: Communism is anti-capitalist and calls for a complete overthrow of the capitalist system, thus making it far left. social democracy on the other hand calls for the capitalist system to be reformed via a mixed economy and progressive policies. Thus making it centre left. Communist economic policies are incompatible with social democracy, as communists want to change the entire system and not just make it more tolerable or equal within the confines of the current system.

if the economy is mixed with a heavier emphasis towards the private sector, than it is centre right, if the economy is completely privatised, than it is far-right. That is the best way i have at looking at politics. Older models, ie the "1789 model" as i call it, i find are flawed. This describes the flaws best.

"There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook" - Political compass.org

Which is again why i use economics (ie where you stand on who owns the means of production) as the best determiner for left and right. as explained earlier. Capitalism on one side, Communist economics (not necessarily the system seen in the soviet union) on the other. So how do i solve the problem of Stalin vs Ghandi? Through another axis, the Libertarian/authoritarian scale. Under the likes of Glenn Beck or VyckRo's idea of politics, There is no difference between an anarchist (far-left libertarian) and a "Stalinist" (far-left authoritarian) or a Social Democrat. (Vyck appears to Think all socialists inc (presumably) The labour Party (which i'll treat later) and the Green Party here ( A real centre left party) will lead to Big Government, Genocide and soviet style atheist one party state dictatorship. Religious Socialism anyone?).

The definition of conservative given earlier does not necessarily say that one has to be libertarian, Vladimir Putin is an authoritarian conservative, as are the islamic conservatives in the middle east. so any assertion that conservativism is automaticly about liberty, can be rubbished. It depends on what you are conserving to begin with, in reality.

Forgive me if i wasn't clear enough in the debate. Atheism is not a determiner for Politics, And atheism does not lead anywhere. It may be noted that alot of Atheists today tend to have Liberal leanings for reasons pointed above not by me and elsewhere. (Despite what you hear in Faux Noise, and in other Right wing outlets. Liberalism Does Not necessarily equal Socialism or even Leftism.) politicaly speaking. There is a diference between political ideologies such as communism along with it's opposite philosophy, Objectivism. (Both started by atheists and both philosophies were intended to be atheistic.) and Just being an atheist .The Facts exist Contrary to what VyckRo (who still hasn't had his whackadoodle ideas and Logic Peer-reviewed) thinks. (I like how he always refused to answer any of my questions and deliberately gave vague statements.)

as Anachronous Rex says "Atheists, as a rule, should not be an easily defined bunch." which is true, There are Right Wing Atheists as well as left wing ones. Atheists tend to be much more politicaly diverse than what VyckRo gives it for. I can also examples to demonstrate this of S.E Cupp (yes, she is an atheist, arbeit a very pro-religious atheist) And Geert Wilders (often called Far Right by the press) Both Right Wing and atheist, as well as Ayn Rand. (who really does belong on the Far Right economicly)

Also, Atheism is on the rise whilst Communism is dead, and these trends are at odds with VyckRo's narrative.

If Atheism generaly leads to communism, should it not be the case that Communism is On the rise today as fast as atheism is on the rise today? And should it not be further the case, that those two trends are linked to the extent that most modern atheists today in the west are communist?

all these questions have to be answered yes in order for me to take VyckRo's points with more interest. But even then, assuming the answers are yes. he wouldn't be able to make a final linkage between Communism by definition and atheism by definition. because atheism by definition does not say anything about the politics of atheism. So his arguments cannot be proved anyways.

Seeing as this Thread is Not about Left and Right but more broadly about "authoritarianism" Let me quote this from here. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Mark Noll, an evangelical history professor at evangelical Wheaton College, begins his book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, with a pithy thought: "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind." Noll observes that "American evangelicals are not exemplary for their thinking, and they have not been so for several generations." He points out that evangelicals support dozens of theological seminaries, scores of colleges, and hundreds of radio stations, but not a single research university. "In the United States he writes, it is simply impossible to be, with integrity, both evangelical and intellectual." "Modern American evangelicals have failed notably in sustaining serious intellectual life."

I have found nothing in my research that disagrees with this assessment. Indeed almost all of the findings in the last chapter about the authoritarian follower's penchants for illogical thinking, compartmentalized minds, double standards, hypocrisy and dogmatism apply to religious fundamentalists as well. For example, David Winter at the University of Michigan recently found that fundamentalist
students, when evaluating the war in Iraq, rejected a series of statements that were based on the Sermon on the Mount--which is arguably the core of Jesus' teachings. Fundamentalists may believe they follow Jesus more than anyone else does, but it
turns out to depend a lot on where Jesus said we should go. And we can augment such findings by considering the thinking behind three of the fundamentalist's favorite issues: school prayer, opposition to evolution, and the infallibility of the Bible.

A. School Prayer: Majority Rights, Unless...

Suppose a law were passed requiring the strenuous teaching of religion in public schools. Beginning in kindergarten, all children would be taught to believe in God, pray together in school several times each day, memorize the Ten Commandments and other parts of the Bible, learn the principles of Christian morality, and eventually be encouraged to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. How would you react to such a law?

The great majority of people in my samples who answered this question, including most of the Christians, said this would be a bad law. But most fundamentalists liked the idea, for this is exactly the kind of education they would like to see public schools give to everyone's children. When I asked fundamentalists about the morality of imposing this learning on the children of Hindus, Jews, atheists, etcetera, they responded along the lines of, "This is a Christian country, and the majority rules. If others don't like it, they can pay for private education or leave." (As I said, most people do not favor this proposal, but since the days of the "Moral Majority" fundamentalists have tended to overestimate their numbers in society.)

What do you think happened when I asked people to respond to this parallel scenario?

Suppose you were living in a modern Arab democracy, whose constitution stated there could be NO state religion--even though the vast majority of the people were Muslims. Then a fundamentalist Islamic movement was elected to power, and passed a law requiring the strenuous teaching of religion in public schools. Beginning in kindergarten, all children would be taught to believe in Allah, pray together facing Mecca several times each day, memorize important parts of the Koran, learn the principles of Islamic morality, and eventually be encouraged to declare their allegiance to Muhammad and become a Muslim. How would you react to such a law?

Again, a great majority of my samples thought this would be quite wrong, but this time so did a solid majority of Christian fundamentalists. When you asked them why, they said that obviously this would be unfair to people who help pay for public schools but who want their children raised in some other religion. If you ask them if the majority in an Arab country has a right to have its religion taught in public schools, they say no, that the minority has rights too that must be respected. Nobody's kids should have another religion forced upon them in the classroom, they say.

So do fundamentalists believe in majority rights or minority rights? The answer is, apparently, neither. They'll pull whichever argument suits them out of its file when necessary, but basically they are unprincipled on the issue of school prayer. They have a big double standard that basically says, "Whatever I want is right." The rest is rationalization, and as flexible and multi-directional as a reed blowing in the wind.

My two contrasting scenarios slide fundamentalists under the microscope, but they do not put others to similar scrutiny, do they? What about those on the opposite extreme of the religious belief continuum, atheists? They always oppose school prayer, but wouldn't they like to have atheism taught if they could? I thus have asked atheists to respond to the following proposal:

Suppose a law were passed requiring strenuous teaching in public schools against belief in God and religion. Beginning in kindergarten, all children would be taught that belief in God is unsupported by logic and science, and that traditional religions are based on unreliable scriptures and outdated principles. All children would eventually be encouraged to become atheists or agnostics. How would you react to such a law?

This would seem to be "right down the atheists' alley," and you frequently hear fundamentalists say this is precisely what nonbelievers are ultimately trying to accomplish in their court challenges to school prayer. But 100% of a sample of Manitoba parents who were atheists said this would be a bad law; so did 70% of a sample of the active American atheists whose organizations often launch those court challenges. Atheists typically hold that religious beliefs/practice have no place in public schools, and that includes their own point of view. No double standard there.

(It would be interesting to know how fundamentalists react to the news that, when put to the test, atheists showed more integrity than fundamentalists did on this matter. They often say morality cannot exist without belief in God, but the atheists seem much more principled than the fundamentalists do on this issue.)

I suppose you could count the above as evidence that Atheists (esp today) have a stronger correlation with Liberalism than perhaps any other political ideology. Communism included

I believe that when most people say "Communists are Atheist!", I believe they're talking about Authoritative regimes, not merely Communism.

That is not my experience. It may be the case that Hitler may be the more infamous of the 20th century Dictators. (in a survey of the history of Western civilization, Lipson (1993) named Hitlerism and the nuclear bomb as the two great evils of the 20th century.) But on the whole, i find that Marx's and Stalin's atheism is more clear-cut than Hitler's position on religion (hint, Hitler was a believer in God) Although my experiences are based on the "company that i keep" as we say over here.

In many Authoritative societies, religion was not outright banned, but incorporated into the political structure. There is a political motivation for this. If you look at how Authoritarianism works, that is, it requires absolute faith and fealty from the people for it to work indefinitely, you cannot have a being more powerful than the state itself, as that is counterproductive to the goal of an Authoritarian society. We can see many historical examples of this. Many Authoritative states have established the leader as "God", or "Chosen by God" to lead the people. If you look to ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh was held as a "God among men", or "Chosen by the Gods". In Imperial China, there is a concept of the "Mandate of Heaven", in which the Emperor was willed to rule by the Gods, as long as he brought prosperity to the people. In the Eastern Roman Empire, the emperors were established as "Chosen by God" to rule.

Other states have made it a rule to outlaw religion all together. If you look at the Stalinist Soviet Union, any practices of religion were executed, due to Stalin being so absolute in his authority, any questioning would mean the death sentence. In Maoist China, it is not expressly forbidden to worship a chosen deity, but you always walk the fine line of being permanently imprisoned or killed if you try and question the state. In Nazi Germany, Hitler established his own religion, and put himself as a form of "High Priest". I would like to know your ideas on the matter, and if you think my logic is flawed, please explain how so, and what you believe to be the correct reasoning for Authoritative society's use of religion.

As far as the totalitarian systems of the 20th century are concerned, Usage of religion was entwined with Propaganda. In the "Great Patriotic War" It is well known that Stalin re-opened the Orthodox Churches for such purposes.

"Unlike Stalin, who suffered a mental collapse when the reality of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union penetrated his state of denial, on the very day of the attack metropolitan Sergei sent a message to every Orthodox parish. It reminded the Russian faithful of the heroic deeds of their ancestors, and of the saints Alexander Nevsky and Dimitri Donskoi, who had rescued Holy Russia in past crises: 'Our Orthodox Church has always shared the fate of the people. It has always borne their trials and cherished their successes. It will not desert the people now ... The Church of Christ blesses all the Orthodox defending the sacred frontiers of our Motherland. The Lord will grant us victory.' ... When Stalin did finally address the nation on 3 July, he spoke in the uncharacteristic tones of 'Brothers and sisters! My dear friends!' whose religious accents were unmistakable. He may have mentioned Lenin, but the radio address was much more like a simple priest sounding the village tocsin. In October, patriarch Sergei wrote a further address, as the Germans came within sixty miles of the capital. He condemned clergy who had defected to the enemy, notably metropolitan Voskresensky who had been despatched to the Baltic States before the war as part of a wider attempt to exploit Orthodoxy to integrate the newly acquired states into the Red Empire. On 11 November, Stalin harangued troops on Red Square as German troops battled their way towards suburban Moscow, invoking Nevsky, Donskoi, Suvarov and Kutusov, realising that common or garden patriotism and religion had greater mobilising potential than Marxist-Leninism. Typically, patriarch Sergei had been dragged from his sickbed a few days before and deported to Ulyanovsk.

Of the other two remaining Orthodox hierarchs, metropolitan Nikolai was brought back from the Ukraine to Moscow, where he became the regime's main clerical foreign policy propagandist, while metropolitan Alexei rallied the faithful during the terrible siege of Leningrad. The regime made a few cautious and parsimonious concessions to a Church that played a major role in maintaining wartime morale. It tolerated rather than encouraged religion. Overt anti-religious propaganda may have ceased for the duration, perhaps in rueful recognition of Pius XII's leading role in persuading sceptical US Catholic bishops of the legitimacy of their government's Lend-Lease aid to the Russian people despite his predecessor's comprehensive damnation of Communism, a stance that militates against the notion that anti-Communism was the overriding obsession of his pontificate. Sunday was restored as a day of rest, and artists were allowed to repair damaged icons. In 1942 the presses of the almost defunct League of the Militant Godless were used to produce a tome called The Truth about Religion in Russia, in which the weary remnants of a Church the Soviets had tried to destroy were displayed for foreign consumption. Beyond this there were no concessions. At Easter 1942 churches in Moscow were allowed to hold candlelit processions as the curfew was raised for a night. This was a meagre gesture given the enormous role that the Churches had played in the war effort. Starting with Alexei in Leningrad, sermons became appeals to donate money to the war effort. By January 1943, over three million rubles had been raised in Leningrad alone. Another five hundred thousand rubles funded a tank column named after Dimitri Donskoi. By the end of the war, the Church had contributed 150 million rubles.

In November 1942 metropolitan Nikolai became the first cleric since 1917 to have an official function, when he joined a government commission to investigate Nazi war crimes on Soviet territory. That included putting his name to accusations that the Germans had carried out massacres at Katyn for which the NKVD had been responsible. In January 1943, patriarch Sergei sent a telegram to Stalin requesting permission to open a central bank account where the Church could deposit such monies. When Stalin assented, relaying the gratitude of the Red Army, the Church effectively received corporate legal recognition for the first time. It was a sign of the times that in the same month a senior party official in distant Krasnoyarsk formally received a bishop, who was also a brilliant surgeon, the man still being a prisoner at the time. In September, the exiled Sergei was surprised to find himself brought back to Moscow and installed in the former residence of the German ambassador. At 9 p.m. the following night, he and metropolitans Alexei and Nikolai, were driven to the Kremlin for a session with Molotov and Stalin. The former improbably asked what the Church might need. Recovering from the shock of this request, Sergei said the reopening of churches and seminaries, a Church council and the election of a patriarch. As if it had nothing to do with him, Stalin gently inquired: 'And why don't you have cadres? Where have they disappeared to?' Rather than pointing out that most of these 'cadres' had died in camps, Sergei quickly joked: 'One of the reasons is that we train a person for the priesthood, and he becomes the Marshal of the Soviet Union.' This set Stalin off on a monologue about his days as a seminarian which went on until 3 a.m. Stalin helped the elderly Sergei down the stairs, saying, 'Your Grace, this is all I can do for you at the present time,' although he also appointed Georgi Karpov as the regime's liaison with the Orthodox Church. Karpov was the NKVD official who had arrested and shot most of the clergy, though Stalin added, 'I know Karpov, he is an obliging subordinate.' At some point in the course of that night there was oral agreement regarding the future status of the Orthodox Church. Within four days nineteen bishops were found who elected Sergei patriarch, successor to patriarch Tikhon who had died in 1925. They issued a joint exhortation to Christians around the world to unite against Hitler." - From Sacred Causes. The Clash of Religion and Politics, From the Great War to the War on Terror, by Michael Burleigh, pp. 233-236:

Although in general, you're correct about the Soviet Union and it's banning of religion. About Hitler. Like i said before, Hitler was most certainly a believer in God. Whilst Religion was most certainly used as Propaganda in the reich, example, open Speeches like this one which was designed to attract others to his cause.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
Adolf Hitler, Speech 12th April 1922.

But here's the complexity. In his private recordings, Hiter too, espoused Christianity. So the question becomes, To what extent are speeches like the above a Genuine statement of Hitler's christianity as opposed to it being Propaganda? Unsurprisingly, Many are divided on that issue. But Here's one example of a private conversation, and as you're reading it. Ask yourself the question.

(note here that Hitler had a different conception of "socialism" to what we would automaticly describe it)

"Socialism is a question of attitude toward life, of the ethical outlook on life of all who live together in a common ethnic or national space. Socialism is a Weltanschauung!

But in actual fact there is nothing new about this Weltanschauung. Whenever I read the New Testament Gospels and the revelations of various of the prophets and imagine myself back in the era of the Roman and late Hellenistic, as well as the Oriental world, I am astonished at all that has been made of the teachings of these divinely inspired men, especially Jesus Christ, which are so clear and unique, heightened to religiosity. They were the ones who created this new worldview which we now call socialism, they established it, they taught it and they lived it! But the communities that called themselves Christian churches did not understand it! Or if they did, they denied Christ and betrayed him! For they transformed the holy idea of Christian socialism into its opposite! They killed it, just as, at the time, the Jews nailed Jesus to the cross; they buried it, just as the body of Christ was buried. But they allowed Christ to be resurrected, instigating the belief that his teachings too, were reborn!

It is in this that the monstrous crime of these enemies of Christian socialism lies! What the basest hypocrisy they carry before them the cross-- the instrument of that murder which, in their thoughts, they commit over and over-- as a new divine sign of Christian awareness, and allow mankind to kneel to it. They even pretend to be preaching the teachings of Christ. But their lives and deeds are a constant blow against these teachings and their Creator and a defamation of God!

We are the first to exhume these teachings! Through us alone, and not until now, do these teachings celebrate their resurrection! Mary and Magdalene stood at the empty tomb. For they were seeking the dead man! But we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ!

Herein lies the essential element of our mission: we must bring back to the German Volk the recognition of those teachings! For what did the falsification of the original concept of Christian love, of the community of fate before God and of socialism lead to? By their fruits ye shall know them! The suppression of freedom of opinion, the persecution of the true Christians, the vile mass murders of the Inquisition and the burning of witches, the armed campaigns against the people of free and true Christian faith, the destruction of towns and villages, the hauling away of their cattle and their goods, the destruction of their flourishing economies, and the condemnation of their leaders before tribunals, which, in their unrelenting hypocrisy, can only be described as balaphemous. That is the true face of those sanctimonious churches that have placed themselves between God and man, motivated by selfishness, personal greed for recognition and gain, and the ambition to maintain their high-handed willfulness against Christ's deep understanding of the necessity of a socialist community of men and nations. We must turn all the sentiments of the Volk, all its thinking, acting, even its beliefs, away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past, from the egotism and stupid Phariseeism of personal arrogance, and we must educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ's words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man; remember that each one of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers! This youth will, wit loathing and contempt, abandon those hypocrites who have Christ on their lips but the devil in their hearts, who give alms in order to remain undisturbed as they themselves throw their money around, who invoke the Fatherland as they fill their own purses by the toil of others, who preach peace and incite to war"

Hitler, as recorded in Memoirs of a Confinant, by Otto Wagener p.139-140

Overall, I would still say open Religion was used chiefly For Propaganda purposes. Even If Hitler was a religious Man himself.

-----
Now onto that Video itself. I'll make it quick

It presents Two Dystopias, Nineteen-eighty-four and Brave New World. A comparison is made here by Neil Postman in the foreword to his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us."

Vyck's point is that the actions of Modern atheists (in trying to turn me into an atheist: im agnostic) have some totalitarian purpose and he asks, Which of the two dystopias is closer to your heart, or i suppose which would you rather live in?

It's a strawman and suffers from a "Restricting the options fallacy". Both fictional societies operate "command economies" thus making both far-left. I think most western atheists are too liberal for either.

----
Re Labour Party: Despite calling themselves "democratic socialists", they have pretty much rejected socialism and moved to the right, and have adopted many Thatcherite policies, such as the continuing privatizations in Education, the NHS, The proposial to privitize Post offices etc . The Changing of Clause IV of the labour Constitution in 1995 signified a change to the Right. In fact, Political parties in the UK are now considered so close that the elections are now seen as a battle/referendum on competences rather than political ideology.

also see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/06/society.labour

"The better, and in my opinion the correct, modern model of regulation -- the risk based approach - is based on trust in the responsible company, the engaged employee and the educated consumer, leading government to focus its attention where it should: no inspection without justification, no form filling without justification, and no information requirements without justification, not just a light touch but a limited touch." - Gordon Brown. CBI Conference 2005

Even the retards at conservepedia have admitted that "It was once a bastion of socialism but has largely abandoned socialism in practice and in rhetoric" and on the page of the Conservative Party, it says that "By 1997 the Labour Party had finally embraced the more conservative direction for the country and abandoned many of its socialist economic policies of the past." Overall, the party has become one of the Centre Right with the Conservatives More right wing still. Tthe Liberal Democrats occupying a space just left of Labour (Very centrist, although socialy, they're far removed from both and are more inclined towards a more libertarian line than an authoritarian one.)

mitchl1107 Hopefully i've done enough to adress your issues here.

 

[BoundToTell]

mitchl1107 Hopefully i've done enough to adress your issues here.

I believe you've answered everyone's questions ever.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

There is no such concept as there being a 'modern left' that is different in conception to a 'non-modern or past Left.

Ditto "neo-" vs. "paleo-" conservatives. Subheadings would have helped, but a fine read nonetheless.

 

[Fictionarious]

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Great Book for this topic here

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Ditto "neo-" vs. "paleo-" conservatives. Subheadings would have helped, but a fine read nonetheless.

I'll take your case about subheadings for later and perhaps other posts

A couple more points concerning socialism and communism.

One point that is frequently raised to distinguish socialism from communism is that socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism generally refers to both an economic and a political system. As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control. Communism, however, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively, and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. Both socialism and communism are similar in that they seek to prevent the "ill effects" that are sometimes "produced by capitalism".

Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. Socialism asserts that the distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals' production efforts, however, while communism asserts that that goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals' needs.

Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists assert that both capitalism and private ownership of the means of production must be done away with as soon as possible in order to make sure a classless society, the communist ideal, is formed. Socialists, however especialy in the modern era, see capitalism as a possible part of the ideal state and believe that socialism can exist in a capitalist society. In fact, one of the ideas of socialism is that everyone within the society will benefit from capitalism as much as possible as long as the capitalism is controlled somehow by a centralized planning system.

Another difference between socialism and communism is centered on who controls the structure of economy. Where socialism generally aims to have as many people as possible influence how the economy works, communism seeks to limit that number to a smaller group.

It is for the reasons above, fallacious to automaticaly associate mainstream Socialists and leftists with the Horrors of the Soviet Union, Just as it is fallacious to associate Mainstream Right wingers with the Nazis. Just have a look at scandanavia (That great collection of social democracies) for example.

"As I write in 2007, Sweden and other Scandivanian places have somewhat lowered the fraction of GDP they use to devote through government. But still they are the most "socialistic" by Hayek's crude definition. Where are their horror camps? Have the vilest, elements risen there to absolute power? When reports are compiled on "measurable unhappiness," do places like Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway best epitomize serfdoms? No. Of course not" - Paul A Samuelson on F.A Hayek's Road to Serfdom.

To come back to your point Pennies for thoughts. I have already stated, Left and Right are best determined by the Political economy. You can have ideologies within one side of the Left/right spectrum that are incompatiable (i gave the example of Communism vs Social Democracy, perhaps expanded upon here in this post. But i like your example of Neo vs Paleo conservatives too.) But overall, I think you'll find that the line of "There is no such concept as there being a 'modern left' that is different in conception to a 'non-modern or past Left" is easily defendable.

I believe you've answered everyone's questions ever

Maybe i have, But i'll leave that for you to judge.

 

[BoundToTell]

Maybe i have, But i'll leave that for you to judge.

I thought I knew a lot about this topic, especially from the historian's perspective, but it's always nice to be reminded that there's still so much more to learn about anything.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Maybe i have, But i'll leave that for you to judge.

I thought I knew a lot about this topic, especially from the historian's perspective, but it's always nice to be reminded that there's still so much more to learn about anything.

Dont worry, My knowledge and arguments are evolving all the time and in fact i plan to weave the posts above concerning political science together to create one single piece for later threads. I've already incorporated elements into my Longest work on these forums thus far. (what do you think?)

do you feel that there are any points where i need clarifying or need expanding upon thus far?