Can a Christian be a communist?

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I'm against revolution just because someone hates Capitalism. Killing people is not cool!

You have to differentiate the underlying political philosophy from the way it get's implemented.
I have come from a country who had for half a century an openly anti-communist, absolute dictatorial regime, complemented with taught police, persecution and oppression of its citizens, with full blown capitalist economy.

Wait...Did I just blow your mind?

 

[tuxbox]

You have to differentiate the underlying political philosophy from the way it get's implemented.
I have come from a country who had for half a century an openly anti-communist, absolute dictatorial regime, complemented with taught police, persecution and oppression of its citizens, with full blown capitalist economy.

How does a capitalistic economy equal an absolute dictatorial regime with an oppressive police state that persecutes its citizens? That does not follow. As you said, it is all in the way it gets implemented. That said, capitalism can lead to Corporatism, like what has happened here in the States, which screws the majority of people of their voice, but that has more to do with the corruptible politicians than it does with an economic system.

Wait...Did I just blow your mind?

hehe...

 

[malicious_bloke]

Communism would be great...if humanity lived in a post-scarcity society.

But unfortunately, The Culture is a fictional political entity and when you have a society trying to allocate limited economic resources you will ALWAYS end up with a central authority administering it simply out of practicality.

Giving up all rights to private ownership of property so this authority can redistribute the fruits of everyone's labours is, and always has been, a recipe for disaster.

But as for the topic at hand, the Jesus character had many of the hallmarks of a revolutionary socialist. It makes 'merkins picking him as their figurehead while operating a lovely system of cut-throat capitalism quite deliciously ironic.

 

[Deleted member 619]

that has more to do with the corruptible politicians than it does with an economic system.

I'd suggest that the corruptibility is a product of the economic system.

 

[tuxbox]

I'd suggest that the corruptibility is a product of the economic system.

You may be correct, but I would suggest that America for example, is corrupt due to Corporatism and The Military Industrial Complex , which in turn creates an Oligarchy that usurps individual rights. Marxism is not he answer to these problems. However, I am not opposed to a socialist economy as long as it does not bleed into the social and Natural Rights of individuals.

 

[aka Frank Lee Seaux]

Sorry for the long winded post. I'm a late arrival to the conversation and as I read through the thread I found so many of your posts to contain what I perceive to be misunderstandings, probably built by a long standing tradition of cold war propaganda.

In order to get to Communism you have to kill the people who do not want it, via a revolution. At least that is what Marx believed. So if a Christian is a Communist, they are not following the teachings of Christ.

<i></i>

While I will confess I've never actually read either 'The Communist Manifesto' or 'Das Kapital,' I don't think Marx argued for, or sanctioned, the wholesale slaughter of countless millions who would disagree with the notion of communism. Though, I am aware that he did say it would require a revolution to come about, and a progression in stages of social and societal development.

But that isn't even my main bone of contention.

When it comes to Christ, as with most of the remainder of biblical text, we see a wildly erratic narrative that seems to swing from the Hippie love fest freak we find in Paul's Testimony, and the war starved murderous savage, Hell bent on rending the flesh from the bones of all non-believers, we find in all the other books.

So, there is certainly plenty of room for murderous Christians. Even those who would be communists.

Also, it should be noted that communism could never survive if it must be imposed by force since it is founded on the principle of anarchy (i.e a stateless society).

I was unaware of Marinaleda. I had to use Wikipedia to look it up. They are described as communist, but I doubt Marx would agree.

<i></i>

As do I since Marx as much as said that no society which has a state can be communist, though they can be in transition toward that.

Marinaleda is part of a state and it is not a "dictatorship of the proletariat."

<i></i>

If Marinaleda exists independent of the state (despite its physical location within state boundaries), and does not engage in open trade with other regions of the world then it can be a self contained communistic society.

I doubt Christ would agree with the greed of capitalism and damn certain that he would not agree with an all powerful state dictating what, when, where and how people lived under threat of imprisonment or death.

<i></i>

Your speculations about what Christ would or would not agree with aside, it appears as though you believe all communism must, by necessity, be forced upon people by some totalitarian auto-dictatorial authority. However, I challenge you to explain how that could possibly be in a stateless society.

In anticipation of your inability, I will say this: No state which has been called communist, yet, has ever actually been communistic. Most have been socialist republics, with a totalitarian dictator at the helm.

That said, Fox News is an entertainment network with right leaning staff. Just like all the other networks in America that have left leaning staff. All news outlets in America are bad jokes and do not represent the people, which is harmful to the Republic.

<i></i>

I've heard and seen statements and claims like this before. You know what else is accused of being left leaning? Science. Truth. Reality.

So, here's the question, "Are all those institutions actually left biased? Or is it a matter that left leaning biases tend to fall in line with reality?

I should probably note that I am neither left nor right leaning. I tend to take my cues from reality, critical thinking processes, and scientific inquiry. If that leads me to the left in some instances and to the right in others, then so be it.

I never said that they were not Christians. All I said, is that to follow Marx teachings is to not follow Christ's teachings. They are not compatible. Just like the Christians of Germany that followed Hitler were not compatible with his teachings.

<i></i>

Except for the fact that they were compatible. Christ said he was coming with both a sword and an army, to turn brother against sister, son against father, etc, etc, etc, to cleanse the land of all non-believers. That, would, of course, include all those Jews who "rejected" him, and didn't believe he was the Christos (i.e. savior). That is, if you pay attention to that sort of thing. It's all there in Matthew, in vivid gory detail.

Communism is not what is evil, how you get to communism is what is evil. I'm against revolution just because someone hates Capitalism. Killing people is not cool!

<i></i>

Well, we agree about the revolution and killing people part. We disagree on the notion that that is the only way to communism, or that it is even possible to get to communism that way.

Sure, it will require a revolution. But what most people don't get is that it is, by necessity, a revolution of the mind and a revolution of our value systems. The killing part only becomes necessitated by slow witted minds who resist violently, rather than intellectually.

How does a capitalistic economy equal an absolute dictatorial regime with an oppressive police state that persecutes its citizens?

<i></i>

Because you asked so nicely:

In a capitalistic system there is typically an individual who, singularly, owns the means of production. Thus, he is the Boss/dictator in his company. For instance, as a carpenter with a full set of tools and a stack of business cards and other assorted paperwork, I am a capitalist. I own the means of production within my company. Thus, when I tell a helper I need something, he better do it or suffer the consequences (suspension, leave without pay, fired, reduced wage, etc) legally at my disposal. Since, as a business owner, I am perpetually entering into and completing contracts, I find my self in need of some form of enforcement. Thus I rely heavily on a system set up and established by the state to protect my interests. And, since the state, in turn, relies upon my tax dollars to survive, it is at my bidding.

Now, one of the ways that can turn against people like you and me is when large corporations move in, usually lured by looser restrictions, lower tax burden, and or other incentives, and despite those incentives have bigger pockets for the state to dip into than yours or mine. Thus, the state gives deferential treatment to those large corporations because it simply makes fiscal sense to do so, regardless what it will do to the ecology, and ultimately the economy. The capitalist systems relies heavily on short term gains rather than long term sustainability.

Fortunately, several people are waking up to the harsh reality that it is proving detrimental to our survival as a species.

That does not follow.

<i></i>

How could it not? A capitalist system is hierarchical by design.

As you said, it is all in the way it gets implemented.

<i></i>

Well, to be fair, with capitalism the problems are inherent and systemic, regardless of implementation.

That said, capitalism can lead to Corporatism, like what has happened here in the States, which screws the majority of people of their voice, but that has more to do with the corruptible politicians than it does with an economic system.

<i></i>

The politicians are so corruptible because of both the economic system and the political system which supports it. As I said, the problem is inherent and systemic.

You may be correct, but I would suggest that America for example, is corrupt due to Corporatism and The Military Industrial Complex , which in turn creates an Oligarchy that usurps individual rights.

<i></i>

Okay. And, I will have to point out that all of those conditions came into being under the current economic system. Even our founding forefathers warned of this, prior to the implementation of the banking system and the capitalist system of market economics.

Marxism is not he answer to these problems.

<i></i>

Probably not. But, something akin to it obviously is. Look at all the places where it is working out exceedingly well. Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc.

However, I am not opposed to a socialist economy as long as it does not bleed into the social and Natural Rights of individuals.

<i></i>

That's a bone of contention. It would require some definitions of terminology.

 

[tuxbox]

Sorry for the long winded post. I'm a late arrival to the conversation and as I read through the thread I found so many of your posts to contain what I perceive to be misunderstandings, probably built by a long standing tradition of cold war propaganda.

No apologies needed.

While I will confess I've never actually read either 'The Communist Manifesto' or 'Das Kapital,' I don't think Marx argued for, or sanctioned, the wholesale slaughter of countless millions who would disagree with the notion of communism. Though, I am aware that he did say it would require a revolution to come about, and a progression in stages of social and societal development.

But that isn't even my main bone of contention.

When it comes to Christ, as with most of the remainder of biblical text, we see a wildly erratic narrative that seems to swing from the Hippie love fest freak we find in Paul's Testimony, and the war starved murderous savage, Hell bent on rending the flesh from the bones of all non-believers, we find in all the other books.

So, there is certainly plenty of room for murderous Christians. Even those who would be communists.

Also, it should be noted that communism could never survive if it must be imposed by force since it is founded on the principle of anarchy (i.e a stateless society).

I have not read them all they way through. That being said, why was it the case with all the Marxist revolutions that have occurred in histories past (with the exception of the Paris Commune) that innocent people were either imprisoned or executed for not agreeing with the revolution? Here is an example of a revolutionary group in America who were willing to kill millions of people.



I do not count the Book of Revelation as the teachings of Christ. I only believe that the Canonical Gospels were the teachings of Christ, if they are truly based on a historical rabbi with the name of Joshua (aka Jesus).

As do I since Marx as much as said that no society which has a state can be communist, though they can be in transition toward that.

Indeed, and there has never been a truly stateless society, but the revolutionaries that "forced" the transitioning on the people have always done it violently! (again, with the exception of the Paris Commune)

If Marinaleda exists independent of the state (despite its physical location within state boundaries), and does not engage in open trade with other regions of the world then it can be a self contained communistic society.

People own houses in Marinaleda, which is not part of the Marxist Communist society in the state owns all property. They also pay taxes to Spain, which makes them part of a state regardless of how they run their community.

Your speculations about what Christ would or would not agree with aside, it appears as though you believe all communism must, by necessity, be forced upon people by some totalitarian auto-dictatorial authority. However, I challenge you to explain how that could possibly be in a stateless society.

There are no stateless societies, nor have there even been a stateles Communist society, again with the exception of the Paris Commune. In Christ's teachings, he said "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." He believed in paying taxes to the state. He never once taught revolution, nor did he ever teach a stateless society outside of Heaven.

In anticipation of your inability, I will say this: No state which has been called communist, yet, has ever actually been communistic. Most have been socialist republics, with a totalitarian dictator at the helm.

I have never once said there was a true stateless Communist society, past or present. I will also take issue with these so called Communist counties as being a Republic.

I've heard and seen statements and claims like this before. You know what else is accused of being left leaning? Science. Truth. Reality.

So, here's the question, "Are all those institutions actually left biased? Or is it a matter that left leaning biases tend to fall in line with reality?

I should probably note that I am neither left nor right leaning. I tend to take my cues from reality, critical thinking processes, and scientific inquiry. If that leads me to the left in some instances and to the right in others, then so be it.

Liberal Bias

Left leaning biases are part of reality but it does not equal all of reality! There are also Right leaning biases. So I'm not really sure what you are talking about? As far as Science is concerned, I believe the the Scientific Method is neutral, however I'm willing to bet most Scientists, especially in academy are left leaning in their politics.

Except for the fact that they were compatible. Christ said he was coming with both a sword and an army, to turn brother against sister, son against father, etc, etc, etc, to cleanse the land of all non-believers. That, would, of course, include all those Jews who "rejected" him, and didn't believe he was the Christos (i.e. savior). That is, if you pay attention to that sort of thing. It's all there in Matthew, in vivid gory detail.

He also said this:

Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. "Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? "How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?

In Matthew 10:34-36, which you seem to be referring, it clearly states that he did not come to bring peace. However, in context, in Matthews 10:33 he is speaking of people who reject him and he would deny them before the father in heaven. I don't think he was condoning violence, as in killing one another. He was speaking in a spiritual sense.

Well, we agree about the revolution and killing people part. We disagree on the notion that that is the only way to communism, or that it is even possible to get to communism that way.

Sure, it will require a revolution. But what most people don't get is that it is, by necessity, a revolution of the mind and a revolution of our value systems. The killing part only becomes necessitated by slow witted minds who resist violently, rather than intellectually.

What? In every Marxist revolution it was the revolutionaries doing the killing! The people who resisted were just protecting their freedom to choose.
And I take issue with you calling people who don't think that a Communist society are "slow witted"! Name one revolution that the opposition to Communism started the violence! Also, name one revolution where the Communist revolutionaries were trying to bring about change peacefully!

Because you asked so nicely:

In a capitalistic system there is typically an individual who, singularly, owns the means of production. Thus, he is the Boss/dictator in his company. For instance, as a carpenter with a full set of tools and a stack of business cards and other assorted paperwork, I am a capitalist. I own the means of production within my company. Thus, when I tell a helper I need something, he better do it or suffer the consequences (suspension, leave without pay, fired, reduced wage, etc) legally at my disposal. Since, as a business owner, I am perpetually entering into and completing contracts, I find my self in need of some form of enforcement. Thus I rely heavily on a system set up and established by the state to protect my interests. And, since the state, in turn, relies upon my tax dollars to survive, it is at my bidding.

Now, one of the ways that can turn against people like you and me is when large corporations move in, usually lured by looser restrictions, lower tax burden, and or other incentives, and despite those incentives have bigger pockets for the state to dip into than yours or mine. Thus, the state gives deferential treatment to those large corporations because it simply makes fiscal sense to do so, regardless what it will do to the ecology, and ultimately the economy. The capitalist systems relies heavily on short term gains rather than long term sustainability.

Fortunately, several people are waking up to the harsh reality that it is proving detrimental to our survival as a species.

People have a choice to work for the asshole who you are representing. Capitalism works not only short term but also long term. America has been in business for 230 plus years. Which if I'm not mistaking, is the longest Constitutional Republic in recorded history. That being said, America has turned it's back on Capitalism and is now run by greedy politicians who give Corporations people status, so they can manipulate the tax code to their best interests and not the interest of the the "True People . As I have said before, America has turned to Corporatism and not Capitalism. Which is why America will go bankrupt and the rich will move to a different country and in the process screw American workers.

So, tell me this, what happens in a stateless society when a worker does not do the work needed to produce for the community? I seriously doubt that he will get paid or keep whatever position he holds within that community either.

A capitalist system is hierarchical by design.

As is a stateless society and state run economy. Even in a chimp troop society there is a hierarchy. That is life and there is no way around it.

Well, to be fair, with capitalism the problems are inherent and systemic, regardless of implementation.

Please explain? Capitalism is an economical system where the production is owned by individuals or corporations and not the state. People are free to work for these entities and get paid based on their abilities. They are also free to create their own businesses. What is wrong with this type of system? It seems pretty fair to me.

The politicians are so corruptible because of both the economic system and the political system which supports it. As I said, the problem is inherent and systemic.

And I have said before, the problem with America at least, is Corporatism. America is no longer a Capitalistic society. So you can't blame Capitalism on this problem, unless you can prove that all Capitalist systems morph into Corporatism. You can only blame the politicians and the electorate for continuing to vote the corrupt into office.

Okay. And, I will have to point out that all of those conditions came into being under the current economic system. Even our founding forefathers warned of this, prior to the implementation of the banking system and the capitalist system of market economics.
.

The founding fathers were not all in agreement on what type of economic system to go with. A lot of them warned of a central bank (Federal Reserve) too. So using the founding fathers as an example does not work. A lot of the founding fathers also used slave labor or at least allowed slave labor to continue.

Probably not. But, something akin to it obviously is. Look at all the places where it is working out exceedingly well. Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc.

Those countries are not Marxist societies nor are they full blown socialist economies.

That's a bone of contention. It would require some definitions of terminology.

Most of the counties with mixed socialist economies have restrictions on natural rights, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms comes to mind.

*Edited* However I'm too lazy to correct all my mistakes.