Communism and Marxism in relationship to atheism

Zed Bank

Now im sure there's going to be plenty of different opinions on this. But me myself think that atheism, Darwinism and (dialectic) Materialism will inevitably lead to some form of communism, socialism or Marxism. Let the debate begin.

goose2005

I don't think that you can just start a thread with a statement and "discuss."

Zed Bank

goose2005 wrote: »

I don't think that you can just start a thread with a statement and "discuss."

Why not ? Dont all discussions start with a statement?

Zed Bank

Zed Bank wrote: »

Why not ? Dont all discussions start with a statement?

Usually with some justifications following.

Godeatsboogers

Im not seeing it, what has made you draw this conclusion?

Zed Bank

Godeatsboogers wrote: »

Im not seeing it, what has made you draw this conclusion?

Engles was the modern day creater of materialism more or less or atleast was the one who publicized it and made it popular. Both Engles and Marx supported Darwin and Darwin supported Engles and Marx in return. In fact the communist manifesto and on the origin of species were originally produced together. Marx and Engles believed in Dialectics which means that things cannot advance or evole without conflict. This fits in fairly well with evolution. Dialectics is especially relevant with communism as the basis of communism is that the oppressed workers revolt (conflict) against the government. Religion and communism are incompatible and thus so an atheist world would inevitably be a communist world.

No

28064212

Zed Bank wrote: »

In fact the communist manifesto and on the origin of species were originally produced together

Even though they were published 11 years apart?

Zed Bank wrote: »

Religion and communism are incompatible and thus so an atheist world would inevitably be a communist world.

The second statement does not follow from the first

Godeatsboogers

You dont think there are greedy atheists?

Zed Bank

Godeatsboogers wrote: »

You dont think there are greedy atheists?

Of course.

Godeatsboogers

I suspect the kinda change you speak of is, despite the emergence of atheism, still a couple of generations away. We could also end up with one seriously evil atheist dictator for the whole world, that would be cool

Sulla Felix

"Some form of communism, socialism or Marxism" is such a broad result that it makes the premise essentially meaningless. Arguably, every historical polity included "some for of communism, socialism or Marxism" so you'd really have to identify an ideology that would not include any form of the above in order for a proper comparison to take place. Otherwise we might as well say, "capitalism will inevitably result in..." or "theocracy will inevitably..."

Godeatsboogers

I think you are underestimating the ingenuity of the human race, im sure the future atheists of this world will be enlightened enough to make the changes necessary without reverting to failed ideology's of the past

Nodin

Zed Bank wrote: »

Now im sure there's going to be plenty of different opinions on this. But me myself think that atheism, Darwinism and (dialectic) Materialism will inevitably lead to some form of communism, socialism or Marxism. Let the debate begin.

Wtf?

KyussBishop

Presumably those with a more atheistic view, are generally more scientifically minded (though agnostic would come closer to the mark there), and thus would not be taken in by the flawed Labour Theory of Value, which is regarded as being false.

The trouble there is: Applying a more scientific view to economics (and actually holding theory to empirical/real-world scrutiny - something economists are loathe to do), discredits a huge portion of what people are taught about economics (there is a lot of economic 'common knowledge' out there, that is just wrong...).

It's called the 'dismal science' for a very good reason - good luck to anyone that attempts to read-up-on/learn-about economics in detail, without unintentionally indoctrinating yourself into some form of nonsense or other; I've found it very valuable to start by searching out and learning the faults in every theory first (i.e. to just be skeptical).


Here's a good clip from the Richard Feynman's documentary/interview "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out", which I watched recenly, on the social sciences (which economics is classed as):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

The characterization of the social sciences, particularly if applied to economics, as pseudo-science where the proponents of any one theory or another, try to use their 'knowledge' to intimidate others, is a very accurate observation and summing-up, of what economics (and discussion of it) is almost always like.

Brian Shanahan

Zed Bank wrote: »

Now im sure there's going to be plenty of different opinions on this. But me myself think that atheism, Darwinism and (dialectic) Materialism will inevitably lead to some form of communism, socialism or Marxism. Let the debate begin.

Yeah, :rolleyes:<SNIP>
[/thread]

feargale

Zed Bank wrote: »

Religion and communism are incompatible and thus so an atheist world would inevitably be a communist world.

This statement breaches one of the basic rules of logic. It implies that Communism and atheism are one and the same thing. It's as if I said Belmulletmen are poor footballers, therefore Mayo will be defeated by Dublin.

ShooterSF

The mistake you seem to be making here is taking the idea that communists find atheism as a useful stance because it allows your followers to only answer to political leaders and not religious ones and confusing it to think that, in reverse, atheists must see an advantage in communism. It's not a clear 2 way street I'm afraid.

Blowfish

Zed Bank wrote: »

Religion and communism are incompatible and thus so an atheist world would inevitably be a communist world.

Given that religion places itself as the ultimate authority, then technically it's incompatible with every form of government bar theocracy as all other forms have some other ultimate authority which will inevitably cause conflict with religion.

Corkfeen

Communism also draws heavily upon religion. Deities are merely substituted with infallible leaders.

Brian Shanahan

Corkfeen wrote: »

Communism also draws heavily upon religion. Deities are merely substituted with infallible leaders.

Well actually that would be the dictators who clothed themselves in the apparel of communism, while doing the exact opposite of what was demanded of them by communism.

recedite

Zed Bank wrote: »

In fact the communist manifesto and on the origin of species were originally produced together.

That's the kind of "fact" a preacher-man pulls out of his ass :pac:

Zed Bank wrote: »

Religion and communism are incompatible and thus so an atheist world would inevitably be a communist world.

Have you never heard it said that Jesus was the first communist?
All that guff about helping and healing everybody, and everybody helping each other out.
And him redistributing the wealth by dividing up the loaves and fishes, while magically multiplying them.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

That's the kind of "fact" a preacher-man pulls out of his ass :pac:



Have you never heard it said that Jesus was the first communist?
All that guff about helping and healing everybody, and everybody helping each other out.
And him redistributing the wealth by dividing up the loaves and fishes, while magically multiplying them.

'He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.' Luke 3:11

Sound distinctly Commie to me...;)

feargale

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.' Luke 3:11

Sound distinctly Commie to me...;)

What Jesus forgot to add was " As sure as myself he that acquireth two coats ceaseth forthwith to be a communist."

Bannasidhe

feargale wrote: »

What Jesus forgot to add was " As sure as myself he that acquireth two coats ceaseth forthwith to be a communist."

Still looking for the passage that says

'and he that speaketh in my name shall have many coats and they shall be bling fests of gold and silk and he shall placeth his arse on a throne of gold and be waited upon hand and foot while living in a palace.'

ShooterSF

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Still looking for the passage that says

'and he that speaketh in my name shall have many coats and they shall be bling fests of gold and silk and he shall placeth his arse on a throne of gold and be waited upon hand and foot while living in a palace.'

Its in there somewhere. the quote finishes with "oh and I do mean HE"

Bannasidhe

ShooterSF wrote: »

Its in there somewhere. the quote finishes with "oh and I do mean HE"

'and yeah though he doth officially shun the dipping of his wick, were he to dippith it would be with a she.'

feargale

True, sad story : Some decades ago there was a couple in Italy who belonged to the Red Brigade. One of them inherited an absolute fortune from an aunt. They wrestled with their consciences and the bout ended in a draw : they donated half the inheritance to the Red Brigade and kept the other half. The Red Brigade then got a walkover against its conscience - they kept the money and summarily expelled the couple from their ranks. I wonder what OP thinks of that.

Hotblack Desiato

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well actually that would be the dictators who clothed themselves in the apparel of communism, while doing the exact opposite of what was demanded of them by communism.

Communism - that great theory that has created a living hell everywhere and every time it's ever been tried :rolleyes:

Now whether it's the theory that's crap, or human nature that inevitably screws it up, is one of those interesting but ultimately irrelevant questions

Odd that atheism is always being linked (by non-atheists) with communism, when communist societies always resemble theocratic dictatorships far more than they do any sort of secular democracy. The dogma that may never be questioned. The state-imposed conformity. The cult of the leader. The subjugation of the self for some alleged 'greater good' that's never going to arrive.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Still looking for the passage that says

'and he that speaketh in my name shall have many coats and they shall be bling fests of gold and silk and he shall placeth his arse on a throne of gold and be waited upon hand and foot while living in a palace.'

The outcome is always the same with any absolute ruler - whether they are monarch, pope, emperor, or General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party of the People's Revolutionary Socialist Democratic Republic.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'and he that speaketh in my name shall have many coats and they shall be bling fests of gold and silk and he shall placeth his arse on a throne of gold and be waited upon hand and foot while living in a palace.'

Closest you'll get are Matthew 23:9, Matthew 6:5 and [url=]Matthew 19:21[/url].

Matthew 23:9 wrote:

And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Matthew 6:5 wrote:

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

Matthew 19:21 wrote:

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Some helpful context should excuse the obvious errors in the above.

Benny_Cake

Acts 4:32

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common

Communism has become largely associated with Marxism-Leninism, which is the form devised by the Bolshevik party and later implemented around the world. These regimes have generally held a low opinion of religious organisations as they were outside the control of the party and state (unless the could be subverted, which they often were). To say that atheism inevitably leads to that is complete nonsense though.

Actually, I've often thought that some religious communities, such as the Amish, practice a form of communism which is closer to anarchism in a way (mutual support, separation from the state, and so on.

Brian Shanahan

ninja900 wrote: »

Communism - that great theory that has created a living hell everywhere and every time it's ever been tried :rolleyes:

If you look at fascism and nazism they pretty much dressed themselves up in the trappings of democracy. If you look at any dictatorship the professed ideology is meaningless, the true goal is the retention of power and supression of dissent.

That's one thing Orwell got right.

Hotblack Desiato

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

If you look at fascism and nazism they pretty much dressed themselves up in the trappings of democracy.

As a handy means to seize power 'legitimately' using an election, while your private militia beats up and murders your opponents.

Germany 1932/33, Czechoslovakia 1948, the means and the outcome are the same. I'm not sure what point you're making (if that's not it.)

If you look at any dictatorship the professed ideology is meaningless, the true goal is the retention of power and supression of dissent.

That's one thing Orwell got right.

This is also true of religious leaders.
Our two largest political parties have no real ideology either, other than keeping the other lot out, and neither has been above a bit of suppression of dissent either.

Brian Shanahan

ninja900 wrote: »

Germany 1932/33, Czechoslovakia 1948, the means and the outcome are the same. I'm not sure what point you're making (if that's not it.)

My point is that it is usually meaningless to accept that a dictatorship will perform according to the dictates of the political ideology which it claims to work for, whether of the left or the right. Therefore whatever any particular dictator calls himself or herself we should ignore that label. The nation of Oceania in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is a perfect (if fictional) example of the point.

Often when someone attacks a dictatorship, it is a veiled attempt to attack a philosophy claimed by that dictator (but which they invariably ignore or oppose in reality) as they are against that ideology and want to use easy straw men rather than engaging with the ideology they oppose and developing a logical and coherent argument against it.