Communism - should it be banned??

[MKSheppard]

Precisely. We already know the answer.

Then why the last couple of pages of Bible/Old Testament/God Is An Evil SOB debate if the answer is already known?

[Morning Star]

Hmmm... Strange, most Communists I know are infact Pasifists as well.

Then technically wouldn't it be democratic socialism? Because I would consider myself a pacifist and yet I have no love for Stalinism or Marxist-Leninism. The whole idea of marxist (and marx related) ideologies is for the destruction of the 'bourgeoisie-imposed state' or whatever.

[Sir Sirius]

And Pol Pot was a school teacher, Stalin a seminarian. Who fucking cares?

Communism almost certainly requires the striking down of human rights and human suffering to be implemented--the nature of your Leftist friends is totally irrelevent.

Strawman. The point was that most Communist don't advocate violance as Kast claimed.
Hmmm... Strange, most Communists I know are infact Pasifists as well.

Then technically wouldn't it be democratic socialism?

They call them selves Communists, I don't know, or care, what their actual agenda is.

Because I would consider myself a pacifist and yet I have no love for Stalinism or Marxist-Leninism.

I never meant to implie that Pasifists are communists, only that the Communists I know are Pasifists.

[Darth Wong]

Precisely. We already know the answer.

Then why the last couple of pages of Bible/Old Testament/God Is An Evil SOB debate if the answer is already known?

Because when I posted what I thought was a non-contestable statement (that the silly idea of banning ideologies for potentially inciting violence could not snare Communism without snaring Christianity as well), Axis Kast made the moronic statement that Christianity cannot lead to violence (for someone who seems to read a lot of history, he seems to have a rather frighteningly large historical blind spot).

[Glocksman]

Darth Wong wrote:

But the fact remains that banning ideologies instead of criminal ACTIONS is wrong.

I agree.

But what about 'hate speech' codes and laws (such as the anti-Klan laws in the US)?

The US Supreme Court recently decided a couple of cases dealing with cross-burning and free speech. They basically decided in one of the cases that if you burned a cross on someone else's property, your intent was criminal imtimidation and not the exercise of free speech.

In the other case, a group of Klan members held a rally on a farm with the permission of the farm owner and were arrested and convicted for cross burning. The Court in this case ruled that the cross burning was a form of speech and thus protected under the first amendment.

Pretty much common sense, which is kind of surprising coming out of the courts these days.

[Darth Wong]

I agree.

But what about 'hate speech' codes and laws (such as the anti-Klan laws in the US)?

Well, the Klan is an organization with a history of actions, not just words, aren't they?

The US Supreme Court recently decided a couple of cases dealing with cross-burning and free speech. They basically decided in one of the cases that if you burned a cross on someone else's property, your intent was criminal imtimidation and not the exercise of free speech.

That is an action, not just an idea. And as it takes place on someone else's property without their permission, it is obviously illegal on other levels already. Free speech does not give you the right to spray-paint slogans on your neighbour's garage door.

In the other case, a group of Klan members held a rally on a farm with the permission of the farm owner and were arrested and convicted for cross burning. The Court in this case ruled that the cross burning was a form of speech and thus protected under the first amendment.

Pretty much common sense, which is kind of surprising coming out of the courts these days.

I'd agree with that. If the property owner gives permission, it's a whole different matter. If I went and built a cross in my backyard and then burned it (mind you, I do have much better things to do with my time), I would think it utterly ridiculous to be arrested and charged for it. After all, the act of doing so did not hurt anyone.

Same goes for flag-desecration. While some may wish to ban it, it is technically a victimless crime (being offended is not a legitimate claim to victimization). Some eastern fishermen were pissed off about the cod fisheries closing recently, so they defaced a Canadian flag with a swastika and hoisted it aloft in protest. I found this EXTREMELY offensive, but at the same time, I think the only suitable response is to call them fucking assholes, not to throw them in jail.

[Peregrin Toker]

Well, the Klan is an organization with a history of actions, not just words, aren't they?

The Communist movement also has a history of actions as well as words.

Do you see the inherent hypocrisy in banning a political party for opposing democracy? What if it has a decent number of followers?

The more followers a Communist organization has, the more dangerous it is.

And why do you believe that anti-democracy is inherent to communism?

Karl Marx dismissed human rights as being hollow freedoms. He also advocated state seizure of the media, which you once sited as evidence for Communism leading to dictatorship. Doesn't this smell like double standard by first writing an essay claiming that a certain tenet of Communism immediately leads to dictatorship, and then claim anti-democracy is inherent to communism.

State seizure of communication services. Insurrectionist activities are criminalized, and the state seizes control of all means of communication. This has the effect of limiting or removing freedom of expression, since the state can easily muzzle anyone they wish.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I'm no fan of communism, but I can't bear to let large falsehoods slip by without comment. I'm not that familiar with Mao, but attributing all or even the majority of Stalin's victims to communism is just false. Stalin killed most of those people because he was a paranoid sociopath hellbent on maintaining power.

Also, as for the "communism killed a billion people" claim, that's an order of magnitude higher than anything I've ever heard before, even attributing all of Stalin's kills to communism. Stalin's 20 million + Mao's 65 million + those that died of hunger caused by shitty communist policies = ~100 million. That's a far cry from a billion. Even Christianity may not have killed that many. I'm not even so sure a billion people have died of unnatural causes period since the Bolshevik revolution.

[Darth Wong]

Well, the Klan is an organization with a history of actions, not just words, aren't they?

The Communist movement also has a history of actions as well as words.

The Klan is a specific organization, not an ideology. Banning all communists would be like banning all racists. While it would be nice in some ways, it would also trample upon many rights.

The more followers a Communist organization has, the more dangerous it is.

Replace "communist" with "Christian fundamentalist". I see you intend to simply ignore this point, no matter how many times it's brought up.

And why do you believe that anti-democracy is inherent to communism?

Karl Marx dismissed human rights as being hollow freedoms.

The Bible does not recognize human rights either.

He also advocated state seizure of the media, which you once sited as evidence for Communism leading to dictatorship. Doesn't this smell like double standard by first writing an essay claiming that a certain tenet of Communism immediately leads to dictatorship, and then claim anti-democracy is inherent to communism.

How is it a double standard? I think communism is a fucked up, stupid ideology. That does not mean I think it should be criminalized.

State seizure of communication services. Insurrectionist activities are criminalized, and the state seizes control of all means of communication. This has the effect of limiting or removing freedom of expression, since the state can easily muzzle anyone they wish.

And I can write a similar essay about the Bible's contemptuous treatment of human rights and democratic principles if you like. You still don't seem to get it, do you?

[Wedge]

You can bann communist parties, without banning christianity and it would not be hypocritical. Because a communist partie that attents against democracy has no right to exist in a democracy ( in my opinion).
If there was a christian fundamentalist partie that wanted to turn the state into a theocracy it also should be banned for the same reason.
There are democratic leaders that are christians in the greatest democracies now, if they maintain their religion out of their workplace i don't see a problem with it.
(Remember what i said before, NOT to bann the ideologie or the communists perse but only the partie if it opposes to the democratic principles)

[Peregrin Toker]

Well, the Klan is an organization with a history of actions, not just words, aren't they?

The Communist movement also has a history of actions as well as words.

The Klan is a specific organization, not an ideology. Banning all communists would be like banning all racists. While it would be nice in some ways, it would also trample upon many rights.

Communists, in turn, wish to trample upon even more rights than the banning of communism would do.

Replace "communist" with "Christian fundamentalist". I see you intend to simply ignore this point, no matter how many times it's brought up.

You have a point.

The Bible does not recognize human rights either.

While a lot of Christians believe the Bible to be the absolute truth, there's also many of them who don't believe in biblical inerrancy and don't follow the parts they find morally objectionable. There are a greater percentage of communists who fashion their moral code upon the Manifesto, than Christians who believe the Bible to be inerrant.

And I can write a similar essay about the Bible's contemptuous treatment of human rights and democratic principles if you like. You still don't seem to get it, do you?

This debate is about communism. Not about christianity.

[Darth Wong]

This debate is about communism. Not about christianity.

No, this debate is about the ethics of banning ideologies you think are harmful to society or hostile to human rights/democracy. Either you think it's OK (in which case Christianity should be banned too) or you don't.

And please, stop trying to bullshit that Christianity is more benign; it has just as much potential for evil as communism, and just as much potential to create harmless followers as well.

[RedImperator]

You can bann communist parties, without banning christianity and it would not be hypocritical. Because a communist partie that attents against democracy has no right to exist in a democracy ( in my opinion).
If there was a christian fundamentalist partie that wanted to turn the state into a theocracy it also should be banned for the same reason.
There are democratic leaders that are christians in the greatest democracies now, if they maintain their religion out of their workplace i don't see a problem with it.
(Remember what i said before, NOT to bann the ideologie or the communists perse but only the partie if it opposes to the democratic principles)

Thereby muzzling freedom of speech, press, and association in order to "protect" democracy from itself. Frankly, if these fucknuts are so powerful that they represent a legitimate threat to democracy so grave they need to be threatened with fines and prison for advocating their views, the state's already in such trouble that banning anti-democratic parties is slapping a band-aid on a gunshot wound.

[Peregrin Toker]

This debate is about communism. Not about christianity.

No, this debate is about the ethics of banning ideologies you think are harmful to society or hostile to human rights/democracy. Either you think it's OK (in which case Christianity should be banned too) or you don't.

Hmm.... I see the problem. If one fringe ideology gets banned because it is considered too dangerous, then the government may just start banning ideologies as it sees fit, akin to the way which the Roman Empire declared war upon other nations because they felt thenselves "threatened." (thus providing excuse for rampant militaristic expansionism)

And please, stop trying to bullshit that Christianity is more benign; it has just as much potential for evil as communism, and just as much potential to create harmless followers as well.

I did not intend to imply or claim that Christianity is more benign. I only
saw your argument about banning Christianity as well as a red herring.

While Christianity has almost unlimited capacity for evil, adhering to the religion does not automatically make the adherent blind to human rights violations if they are committed in the name of the particular religion. Communism, on the other hand - is founded upon the idea that property rights ought to be abolished. Therefore, one cannot be a communist without to some extent supporting the restriction of private freedom.

[Darth Wong]

Hmm.... I see the problem. If one fringe ideology gets banned because it is considered too dangerous, then the government may just start banning ideologies as it sees fit, akin to the way which the Roman Empire declared war upon other nations because they felt thenselves "threatened." (thus providing excuse for rampant militaristic expansionism)

Precisely. Do you agree or disagree with that argument?

I did not intend to imply or claim that Christianity is more benign. I only saw your argument about banning Christianity as well as a red herring.

I thought the connection was obvious without being spelled out, but fair enough.

While Christianity has almost unlimited capacity for evil, adhering to the religion does not automatically make the adherent blind to human rights violations if they are committed in the name of the particular religion. Communism, on the other hand - is founded upon the idea that property rights ought to be abolished. Therefore, one cannot be a communist without to some extent supporting the restriction of private freedom.

Christianity is founded upon the idea that one should aggressively attempt to push his religion upon others using any means necessary (why do you think the churches spend so much time trying to influence the schools?), even though that goes against religious freedom. Again, I ask you to address the point: why should we accept the notion that a potentially dangerous ideology should be banned?

[Peregrin Toker]

Hmm.... I see the problem. If one fringe ideology gets banned because it is considered too dangerous, then the government may just start banning ideologies as it sees fit, akin to the way which the Roman Empire declared war upon other nations because they felt thenselves "threatened." (thus providing excuse for rampant militaristic expansionism)

Precisely. Do you agree or disagree with that argument?

It sounds like pretty sensible argument.

Christianity is founded upon the idea that one should aggressively attempt to push his religion upon others using any means necessary (why do you think the churches spend so much time trying to influence the schools?), even though that goes against religious freedom. Again, I ask you to address the point: why should we accept the notion that a potentially dangerous ideology should be banned?

hmm... I see the point. When you think about, it's somewhat hypocritical to take away freedom to protect another freedom.

But the question is: Is this as bad as repackaging despotism as freedom?

[Darth Wong]

But the question is: Is this as bad as repackaging despotism as freedom?

Many forms of despotism advertise themselves as freedom. Why would we want to be as bad as they are?

The solution is good education. This can't be stressed enough. Stupid people vote for stupid ideas. No communist party will ever gain votes in a well-educated, knowledgeable populace. The same solution, interestingly enough, applies for fundies (this is why home-schooling is so popular with fundies; their whole worldview is dependent upon isolation from facts that they can't deal with).

[Wedge]

Thereby muzzling freedom of speech, press, and association in order to "protect" democracy from itself.

Who said that? That is NOT a direct consecuence of banning dangerous political parties. Like I said before, freedom of speech should (and would) be preserved.

[Darth Wong]

Thereby muzzling freedom of speech, press, and association in order to "protect" democracy from itself.

Who said that? That is NOT a direct consecuence of banning dangerous political parties. Like I said before, freedom of speech should (and would) be preserved.

How is freedom of speech intact if you say that certain ideas must be forcibly removed from politics?

[Wedge]

Thereby muzzling freedom of speech, press, and association in order to "protect" democracy from itself.

Who said that? That is NOT a direct consecuence of banning dangerous political parties. Like I said before, freedom of speech should (and would) be preserved.

How is freedom of speech intact if you say that certain ideas must be forcibly removed from politics?

I want to make myself clear at this point.
An example for NOT having freedom of speech would be the witchhunt of communists in USA in the 50's .
What I am refering, is that someone can declare himself communist, christ, anarquist, moron or whatever he wants without being persecuted for that. But he should have no right to form a political partie whos intention is to destroy democracy.

[Axis Kast]

So... uhm... nice way to take my words out of context and claim that I'm admitting something I'm not. Did you miss the word I put in the middle of the sentence? IF. Some people need to take some english.

“Even if” is generally the precursor to an admission. Not to mention that you continually allude – as in your next quote – to the violent results of Communism, or in your opinion, its derivatives.

No it was not. Communism actually primarily got it's Idea from a short, albeit short-lived, successful application of the concept. A historical event called the Paris Commune. The fact that no one has the imagination to try a different way to apply the lessons of the Paris Commune than how marx would think it would work is rather sad. But it still does not make communism marxism.

You’re going to argue that the Communist Manifesto of 1848 is not the basis on which modern Communism was founded? You’re going to argue that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro draw their inspiration from the Parisians rather than Marx and Engels?

Assuming you’re talking about the Paris Commune of the Franco-Prussian War, there aren’t exactly many lessons to learn. You’re talking about a failed economic experiment by which the people of Paris tried to prevent starvation. If you’re going to hark back to the temporary results of revolutions in 1848 or the 1790s, we might as well not even bother.

There have been plenty of variations of Marxism since 1848. Namely the Soviet Union’s brand of 1917, Maoist China’s brand of 1949, and Minh’s divergent flavor. Hell, you could look at the European Union and brand many of their protectionist policies a hearkening back to notions of command economy worthy of Marx in practice if not in name.

Anyways. <Sighs>. I think we drifted off topic a long while ago. The problem you see, is, no matter how insane the idea of communism may or may not be, banning it is a bad idea on the pure principle. Banning an ideology sets a dangerous precedent. Banning the violent actions of an ideology is usually much safer, as long as they are truly violent and not just mildly disruptive.

From a legal point of view, a Communist is one who advocates the violent overthrow of the existing government in any nation and a general redistribution of wealth – following, of course, the mass slaughter of the bourgeoisie. One could thus easily declare public Communism a form of “incitement to riot” on a technical basis alone.

[Axis Kast]

Nothing in the communist manifesto calls for the liquidation of all other peoples. The Bible, on the other hand, explicitly calls for the extermination of witches, heretics of all kinds, prostitutes, children who swear at their parents, and homosexuals, just for starters. Oh, I know, somebody will say that the NT changes all of that, but any time you have a document which says "kill 'em all" on one hand and "be nice to everyone" on the other, you have more than enough cause to claim that it's a violent document that encourages hate. Certainly more than you have for the communist manifesto, which never explicitly advocates any of the things you're ascribing to it.

While your quotations do indeed bear out that Christianity can be accused of advocating violence – in the form of “Thou shalt not worship false gods on pain of death,” keep in mind that only four or five of your quotations actually have any reference to human action ordered by God. A vast majority are either God’s own judgements upon man – autonomously – or discussions of heinous acts committed under the banner of God but not at His behest. There are only a relative handful of prescriptions for actual, wanton slaughter or targeted destruction of other human beings – and many of these are inevitably meant as punishments or deal specifically with the conquest of Israel.

You deny that the Communist Manifesto calls for the slaughter of the bourgeoisie in an attempt to redefine society?

We agree, but for different reasons. Banning communism without banning Christianity would be completely hypocritical, and all of your whining will not change that fact.

Hypocrisy matters almost not at all. You can argue that banning Communism will give “unfair” legitimacy to the cries of “martyrdom,” although that would be the case even were Christianity and all other political movements similarly banned. The accusations of hypocrisy is a false appeal to emotion rather than a solid argument. Keep in mind that when you cry, “hypocrisy,” you are generally claiming that somebody has failed knowingly to uphold past precedent. You thus accuse them of personal inconvenience rather than crime.

Precisely. We already know the answer. My only point was that if you want to ban an ideology because you can find intrinsically objectionable or dangerous things in it, then you must be consistent with this policy.

According to whom must we be consistent?

In the isolated case – and necessarily isolated, charges of hypocrisy notwithstanding -, the violent decrees of Communism could be grounds for its outlawing, no? The only real charge is the same brought up vis a vie alcohol or cigarettes: better to leave free and yet decry or warn against than make illegal for the sake of difficulty in policing and the problem of mass underground use or practice.

Because when I posted what I thought was a non-contestable statement (that the silly idea of banning ideologies for potentially inciting violence could not snare Communism without snaring Christianity as well), Axis Kast made the moronic statement that Christianity cannot lead to violence (for someone who seems to read a lot of history, he seems to have a rather frighteningly large historical blind spot).

That’s inaccurate, Wong. I challenged whether the Bible had ever prescribed slaughter outside the capture of the Promised Land in the Old Testament. Apparently however, the same Text does advocate the deaths of non-repentant worshippers of other Gods.

I'd agree with that. If the property owner gives permission, it's a whole different matter. If I went and built a cross in my backyard and then burned it (mind you, I do have much better things to do with my time), I would think it utterly ridiculous to be arrested and charged for it. After all, the act of doing so did not hurt anyone.

If you’re a member of the Ku Klux Klan, the likelihood is that your burning a cross on anyone’s property is an act of intimidation by extension. That you have to admit. Cross-burning is almost universally designed as a man-made portent or symbol for white supremacist groups and their doctrines.

I'm no fan of communism, but I can't bear to let large falsehoods slip by without comment. I'm not that familiar with Mao, but attributing all or even the majority of Stalin's victims to communism is just false. Stalin killed most of those people because he was a paranoid sociopath hellbent on maintaining power.

And yet he was able to deploy the power structure of Communism to achieve his ends. Your argument is akin to suggesting that Hitler would have been as easily able to commit his crimes with parliamentary democracy rather than dictatorial Fascism. Divergent or not, the forms of Communism or Fascism practiced by both were directly related to and partially to blame for the extent of their crimes.

The Klan is a specific organization, not an ideology. Banning all communists would be like banning all racists. While it would be nice in some ways, it would also trample upon many rights.

It’s a matter of shades. The government might for instance ban (1) the public circulation of Communist materials and (2) the public gathering of those advocating or considering specifically Communist doctrine.

And I can write a similar essay about the Bible's contemptuous treatment of human rights and democratic principles if you like. You still don't seem to get it, do you?

If we’re talking about results – and that seems to be the case, since the chief argument is that banning Communism would be effectively impossible and ultimately self-defeating -, then Christianity is automatically beyond retribution anyway.

[Andrew J.]

You’re going to argue that the Communist Manifesto of 1848 is not the basis on which modern Communism was founded? You’re going to argue that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro draw their inspiration from the Parisians rather than Marx and Engels?

No, he's arguing that Marx and Engels got their inspiration from the Parisians. The Communist Manifesto is a short introduction to Communism; Das Kapital is the basis you're thinking of, and THAT was heavily inspired by the Paris Commune.[/i]

[Darth Wong]

(sigh) I forgot that Axis Kast thinks hypocrisy is a good thing

[Stuart Mackey]

Thereby muzzling freedom of speech, press, and association in order to "protect" democracy from itself.

Who said that? That is NOT a direct consecuence of banning dangerous political parties. Like I said before, freedom of speech should (and would) be preserved.

What a crock. the very act of banning a political movement, however stupid, is anti-democratic. What dont you grasp about this?