Communism - should it be banned??

[Tom_Aurum]

So, first of all, this is all fine and dandy, but it has nothing to do with banning communism. Even if it is evil and dangerous.

Quoth Axis Kast
"If Communism is evil and dangerous – as you’ve just admitted -, then what’s not to ban?"

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.

COMMUNISM IS NOT MARXISM.

And qouth he further
"You’re walking objective ground.

Communism was modeled on Marxism. "

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.

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.

[AdmiralKanos]

Understand my argument.

Christianity is not inherently violent. Its very existence is not predicated on liquidation of all others peoples. We can't say the same of Communism.

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.

I reiterate: anything you can say about communism can be doubly said about Christianity.

[AdmiralKanos]

In reference to conquest of the Holy Land. I’ll say it again: there is no standing Commandment in the Bible that implies that Jew, Christian, Muslim, or any other faithful adherent should commit slaughter. Whether or not it deals with the history of warfare, the Bible leaves absolutely no orders for mass murder. A marked difference from the Manifesto.

Bullshit.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationis ... lence.html

[Darth Servo]

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationis ... lence.html

Any idea on when you'll be getting around to finishing that page?

[AdmiralKanos]

Any idea on when you'll be getting around to finishing that page?

My laziness has been revealed again

[Illuminatus Primus]

"The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination." - The Communist Manifesto

Sounds like a religious fanatics warblings dressed in pretty diction of a political scientist.

What is sounding like a religious fanatic's warblings dressed in the diction of political science??

The self-righteous and almost religious dismissal of all criticism universally. It's incredible.

[Peregrin Toker]

Red herring fallacy.

How the heck is that a red herring? If someone contends communism should be banned, then you agree that other ideologies, like Christianity, should be banned as well, yes?

Because he tried to drag the subject away from Communism into whether the Bible should be banned.

Which is precisely why it was brought up.

Because very few people, even among Christians, consider the bulk of the Bible, the Old Testament, to be of much worth.

The writings of Marx, however, which encourage terrorism and tyranny, are taken as infallible by the vast majority of communists.

[Darth Wong]

Because he tried to drag the subject away from Communism into whether the Bible should be banned.

That does not make it a red herring. The EXACT SAME LOGIC used to argue for the banning of communism can be used to argue for the banning of Christianity. A logical argument which must be selectively applied is either suspect or being employed by a hypocrite.

Because very few people, even among Christians, consider the bulk of the Bible, the Old Testament, to be of much worth.

Bullshit. I have never (repeat: NEVER) run into a Christian minister who would not quote from the Old Testament for inspiration and/or supposed fact. There are TENS OF MILLIONS of Americans who in fact rely upon it for scientific guidance (as noted by the various Gallup and Time polls showing that nearly half of all Americans believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old). And the Ten Commandments are widely cited by the vast majority of Christians, along with the Book of Leviticus where it suits them (particularly where it condemns homosexuality).

The writings of Marx, however, which encourage terrorism and tyranny, are taken as infallible by the vast majority of communists.

Are you on drugs? The Bible in its entirety is held in much higher regard and has far more societal impact than Marx's communist manifesto ever will.

[Peregrin Toker]

Bullshit. I have never (repeat: NEVER) run into a Christian minister who would not quote from the Old Testament for inspiration and/or supposed fact. There are TENS OF MILLIONS of Americans who in fact rely upon it for scientific guidance (as noted by the various Gallup and Time polls showing that nearly half of all Americans believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old). And the Ten Commandments are widely cited by the vast majority of Christians, along with the Book of Leviticus where it suits them (particularly where it condemns homosexuality).

Maybe it's that way in America, but not in Europe. At least not in Denmark. When I ask my Christian mother about how she would explain how a benevolent god would cause all the evil in the OT, she always says that Christianity is based upon the NT, not the OT.

Are you on drugs? The Bible in its entirety is held in much higher regard and has far more societal impact than Marx's communist manifesto ever will.

Well, Communism caused the death of over a billion people. Is that impact enough for you??

[Darth Wong]

Maybe it's that way in America, but not in Europe. At least not in Denmark. When I ask my Christian mother about how she would explain how a benevolent god would cause all the evil in the OT, she always says that Christianity is based upon the NT, not the OT.

So, based on your mother, you generalize about all Christians, as well as the fundamental nature of the belief system itself? Do I need to spell out the logical fallacy inherent in that argument?

Are you on drugs? The Bible in its entirety is held in much higher regard and has far more societal impact than Marx's communist manifesto ever will.

Well, Communism caused the death of over a billion people. Is that impact enough for you??

In a body-count contest between Christianity and Communism, have you forgotten to include the dark ages, the crusades, the inquisitions, African slavery, Europian colonialism, and Manifest Destiny? And don't tell me that they weren't "true Christianity"; any Marxist worth his salt will say that Stalinism, Leninism, and Maoism were not "true Communism" either.

[Wedge]

Bullshit. I have never (repeat: NEVER) run into a Christian minister who would not quote from the Old Testament for inspiration and/or supposed fact. There are TENS OF MILLIONS of Americans who in fact rely upon it for scientific guidance (as noted by the various Gallup and Time polls showing that nearly half of all Americans believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old). And the Ten Commandments are widely cited by the vast majority of Christians, along with the Book of Leviticus where it suits them (particularly where it condemns homosexuality).

Maybe it's that way in America, but not in Europe. At least not in Denmark. When I ask my Christian mother about how she would explain how a benevolent god would cause all the evil in the OT, she always says that Christianity is based upon the NT, not the OT.

I must agree with Simon H.Johansen, in europe it's different. I think true christians should base upon the NT, because as "christian" you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and that's the NT. There he doesn't promulgate violence, on the contrary. If you base more upon the OT, you are following more the jewish religion than the christian. IIRC the Pope accepted the evolution as a way of god's creation.

Are you on drugs? The Bible in its entirety is held in much higher regard and has far more societal impact than Marx's communist manifesto ever will.

Well, Communism caused the death of over a billion people. Is that impact enough for you??

Well, i have no numbers, but in the inquisition and the crusades there sure died a lot.

[Darth Wong]

I must agree with Simon H.Johansen, in europe it's different. I think true christians should base upon the NT, because as "christian" you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and that's the NT. There he doesn't promulgate violence, on the contrary. If you base more upon the OT, you are following more the jewish religion than the christian. IIRC the Pope accepted the evolution as a way of god's creation.

It is cyclical. 60 years ago, the Nazis employed a very Old Testament-slanted variation upon Christianity and it was highly popular with the masses. Saying that the OT is somehow excised from the Bible because you know people who ignore it is ridiculous.

Well, i have no numbers, but in the inquisition and the crusades there sure died a lot.

Not to mention the virtual annihilation of science, with all of the attendant misery caused as a result. It got so bad that they were persecuting MATHEMATICIANS in the tenth century. And Manifest Destiny alone killed at least 100 million.

[Peregrin Toker]

In a body-count contest between Christianity and Communism, have you forgotten to include the dark ages, the crusades, the inquisitions, African slavery, Europian colonialism, and Manifest Destiny? And don't tell me that they weren't "true Christianity"; any Marxist worth his salt will say that Stalinism, Leninism, and Maoism were not "true Communism" either.

Communism killed faster than Christianity. (The famine which the Soviet Union intentionally inflicted upon its citizens in 1936 killed over 6 million people in a single year - and that's before we add the Gulags into the equation)

If Communism had been the dominant ideology for 1500 years, it'd probably result in an equal, if not worse, series of atrocities.

And chapter 8 of the Book of Amos exhibits some collectivist tendencies:
"Hear this, you who trample upon the needy,
And would bring the poor of the land to an end,
Saying, When will the new moon pass
That we may sell grain,
And the Sabbath that we may offer wheat for sale,
Making the ephah small and the price great,
And falsifying the scales;
Buying the poor for silver,
And the needy in exchange for a pair of sandals,
And selling the refuse of the grain."

Yes, collectivism apparently causes people to inflict great suffering upon others. Calling it the root of all evil, however, might be an exaggeration.

And Manifest Destiny alone killed at least 100 million.

That took several centuries IIRC. The Communists did it in half a century.

[Darth Wong]

Communism killed faster than Christianity. (The famine which the Soviet Union intentionally inflicted upon its citizens in 1936 killed over 6 million people in a single year - and that's before we add the Gulags into the equation)

Advances in killing technology are a red herring. The point is an underlying propensity for violence, and the historical cruelty of Christianity is unmatched. Nothing in the Gulag ever approached the cruelty of the Inquisitions at their height.

If Communism had been the dominant ideology for 1500 years, it'd probably result in an equal, if not worse, series of atrocities.

You are basing your argument upon the rate at which communism was able to inflict harm, even though this is directly related to the state of technological development at the time of its rise? Pure red-herring.

And chapter 8 of the Book of Amos exhibits some collectivist tendencies:
"Hear this, you who trample upon the needy,
And would bring the poor of the land to an end,
Saying, When will the new moon pass
That we may sell grain,
And the Sabbath that we may offer wheat for sale,
Making the ephah small and the price great,
And falsifying the scales;
Buying the poor for silver,
And the needy in exchange for a pair of sandals,
And selling the refuse of the grain."

Yes, collectivism apparently causes people to inflict great suffering upon others. Calling it the root of all evil, however, might be an exaggeration.

The Books of Exodus and Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Numbers and Joshua and Judges contain direct, explicit exhortations to violence. Going after this excerpt is silly.

And Manifest Destiny alone killed at least 100 million.

That took several centuries IIRC. The Communists did it in half a century.

Red herring. See previous rebuttal.

[Wedge]

Returning to the original question "should communism be banned?".

I think that all political parties that promulgate the end of democracy should be banned, wether they are fascist, communists or others.
Of course there should have freedom of speech, but i think they should not have a representation in the parlament if they want to destroy democracy.

For example in Spain, HB (the partie that represented ETA in parlament)
was banned a few months ago. It was a controversial decission, i personally think they should had done this earlier, terrorist have no right to representation if they kill inocent people and want to impose their ideology by force.

[Darth Wong]

Returning to the original question "should communism be banned?".

I think that all political parties that promulgate the end of democracy should be banned, wether they are fascist, communists or others.

Do you see the inherent hypocrisy in banning a political party for opposing democracy? What if it has a decent number of followers? And why do you believe that anti-democracy is inherent to communism? It is arguably so as a side-effect of certain Communist ideologies, but again, the same could be said of Christianity.

[Sir Sirius]

Most Communists – not Socialists – will however acknowledge that they advocate an eventual violent, apocalyptic class struggle.
...
Advocacy of Communism – not Socialism – implies violent intent. Communists desire a liquidation of the bourgeoisie.

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

[Illuminatus Primus]

Advocacy of Communism – not Socialism – implies violent intent. Communists desire a liquidation of the bourgeoisie.

Hmmm... Strange, most Communists I know are infact Pasifists as well.[/quote]

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.

[MKSheppard]

Hey cool, yet another anti-christian screed by Wong. Mike, you really should
make a VB script for this kind of stuff, so that you don't tire yourself out
typing page after page of this stuff.

My opinion: Don't ban communism. It just gives the worthless fucktards some
bullshit excuse to rant about how they're "oppressed" and gives them
semi-legimitacy to the stupid young fucknuts in the area.

[Darth Wong]

Hey cool, yet another anti-christian screed by Wong. Mike, you really should make a VB script for this kind of stuff, so that you don't tire yourself out typing page after page of this stuff.

Notice the utter lack of a rebuttal, in favour of an ad-hominem attack and dismissal based on source. Another stunning refusal to employ anything remotely resembling logic from Shep.

My opinion: Don't ban communism. It just gives the worthless fucktards some bullshit excuse to rant about how they're "oppressed" and gives them semi-legimitacy to the stupid young fucknuts in the area.

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.

[MKSheppard]

Notice the utter lack of a rebuttal, in favour of an ad-hominem attack and dismissal based on source. Another stunning refusal to employ anything remotely resembling logic from Shep.

Don't need to. Go look up the stats on the Muslim slave trade from Africa.

More africans were impressed into slavery in the Muslim world than were
shipped across the atlantic to America by Christians.

[Darth Wong]

Notice the utter lack of a rebuttal, in favour of an ad-hominem attack and dismissal based on source. Another stunning refusal to employ anything remotely resembling logic from Shep.

Don't need to. Go look up the stats on the Muslim slave trade from Africa.

More africans were impressed into slavery in the Muslim world than were shipped across the atlantic to America by Christians.

Ah, the ever-popular "defend A by attacking B" red-herring fallacy. Too bad for you I have no sympathy for Islam either. The Koran is just as hateful and scientifically laughable as the Bible. Try again.

[Wedge]

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

Yeah, we should bann the followers too, problem solved.

No, seriously I see the hypocricy in that, but I don't want history to repeat itself like in the Weimar Republik where antidemocratic parties had most of the seats in parlament.

And why do you believe that anti-democracy is inherent to communism? It is arguably so as a side-effect of certain Communist ideologies, but again, the same could be said of Christianity.

I have no problem with a communist party, if they swear to preserve the constitution and we can vote another partie to office in the next election.

[MKSheppard]

Ah, the ever-popular "defend A by attacking B" red-herring fallacy.

Hey cool. Too bad I don't really give a shit about this debate. I
mean, what the fuck is the point of debating to the Nth power
of how evil Christanity/Islam/Organized religion in general is
when we already know the answer?

[Darth Wong]

Ah, the ever-popular "defend A by attacking B" red-herring fallacy.

Hey cool. Too bad I don't really give a shit about this debate. I mean, what the fuck is the point of debating to the Nth power of how evil Christanity/Islam/Organized religion in general is when we already know the answer?

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.

In YOUR case, you are not advocating the banning of communism, so you only entered the debate to complain that I shouldn't be taking potshots at the Bible for some reason (I'm not even sure what your position on the Bible is). But the fact remains that banning ideologies instead of criminal ACTIONS is wrong.