Marxism (Split from RCC thread)

[Rye]

This is irrelevant.

No, it isn't. People having sex didn't decline in the amount they had sex, but it's likely that at least some used condoms, unless you're claiming the results are entirely due to people abstaining and staying faithful?

"• Condom use rose steeply among unmarried sexually active men and women. Among unmarried women who had had sex in the last four weeks, the proportion who used condoms at last intercourse rose from 1% in 1989 to 14% in 1995; among unmarried men, condom use rose from 2% to 22%."

Not impressive, it also does not prove that they always used a condom, not does it prove that condoms were a major element.

22% and 14% from 2% and 1% are significant increases.

condom usage is a significant part of the program

You did not prove this; the article only said condom usage went up,
and some organizations promoted them along with abstinence.

What official non-catholic organisations dedicated to dealing with AIDS shun condom use and education?

" Uganda, he noted, "pioneered approaches towards reducing stigma, bringing discussion of sexual behavior out into the open, involving HIV-infected people in public education, persuading individuals and couples to be tested and counseled, improving the status of women, involving religious organizations, enlisting traditional healers, and much more."

This is why Uganda's program is successful, not condoms.

You've not supported this.

I absolutely agree, but this still does not prove the effectiveness of condom programs. All this proves is that there are other behavioral and cultural issues to look at such as sex workers, consouling, education etc.

I'm unsure why you think using condoms would not have an impact.

This once again proves the effectiveness of abstinence. 46% stooped having sex; 67% used a condom. So what happened to the 33% who did not use a condom? Did they still have unprotected sex? How exactly does someone know whether or not 67% who used a condom will always use a condom? Rates are declining, but how do we know weather these are among the people that used a condom, or the ones that abstained?

How do you know that condoms don't make an impact?

Okay, but again, how do we know whether the decrease in aids was due to condoms or people abstaining from sex; the artice does not answer this question.

It's probably a mixture of both? That's why they're delivered in a mixture? Because they're both important?

Sure, but it is unclear whether or not the success was due to medicine or condoms. It also mentioned "frank talk about sex" what is that exactly? Brazil also is not applicable to Africa where there are cultural differences.

What are these insurmountable cultural differences?

Complicated issue, I agree that if you sleep with a whore you should probably use a condom, but at the same time I think you should not sleep with a whore. I also agree that handing out condoms to brothels legitimizes prostitution. While condoms look like a good band aid fix; I would like to see more effort go in to ending prostitution.

That's not going to happen well. It would be better to regulate prostitution and mandate that condoms must be worn.

HIV treatment helps people who are already sick, it does not have a disinhibiting factor.

That doesn't make sense. By your reasoning, if you know you can get treated, you'll risk getting ill.

The United States is primarily a condom country; if condoms are effective, why are rates rising in the U.S.?

How much do you think it's rising amongst people who always use condoms vs those who don't?

That is Their opinion. I have yet to see convincing data to prove that this is the case.

Why would they not work?

So, you agree then that the catholic church is not spreading aids, and that they are actually helping to solve the problem?

False dilemma. This is the organisation that believes 1 and 3 are the same number when God is involved. Doublethink and dogmas above material truth is their bread and butter.

Again, it was the primary focus.

Which is irrelevant to my claim, even if true.

The only way for aids to go down is for people to either die or be cured. The success in Uganda was that they prevented new people from being infected.

Yes, and the success of the abstinence part has been overstated because a lot of carriers died. Also, you've still not answered: "What evidence is there that condom distribution aggravates HIV transmission when it's part of a program like the ABC?"

Sub-Saharan Africa is prove that condoms aggravate aids. I already cited sources that back this statement up.

As part of an ABC program? Or when they are unrealistically expected to be the only line of defence?

Condom promotion, at least in Africa, fails to adequately educate people to use condoms, therefore it is an ineffective solution for aids.

Yet it's effective elsewhere with proper education. Weird!!

Yes, that's why breaking up sexual groups is the best solution, but this does not require condom distribution.

So? Not requiring condom distribution doesn't mean that condom distribution is a bad thing, it certainly doesn't mean it encourages group sex.

I would prefer we put an end to the sex trade, but sex workers are not as big a factor in Africa as they are in Cambodia or Thailand, therefore, this is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant at all, and it's a huge problem. In fact, some of the world's leading research on immunity to HIV comes from African prostitutes who are HIV+ but asymptomatic.

And no I don't what hookers to die from aids; you misunderstood me.

You just don't want them to have easy access to things that could save their lives?

It makes even more sense to drill the dangers of sex in general into them.

False dilemma.

The article he posted proved that people can control there sexual behevior, especially if they have a fmil member who has dies from aids.

So what? What about everyone else?

Talk about ad hominum attacks!

Okay. They are permissable here if someone relies on dishonest or broken record debating.

You yourself said that aids rates are lower where the church has greater "influence" in peoples lives. By the way, do you really think that dirt poor Africa people from third world countries really have access to these statements?

Yes. Does that Archbishop's name look non-African to you?

If they are catholic i'm sure they do, but aids rates are lower among Catholics. The ones who do have aids on the other hand, live in predominately non-catholic countries, and I highly doubt that they read the news paper every day to see this kinds of comments. you're argument would only be valid if ids rates were higher among Catholics, but, i'm sorry, they are not.

Yes, I forgot misinformation from catholic sources is somehow limited to catholic audiences. A catholic would never tell a friend that condoms are laced with AIDS and convince them to never use them.

Not even close to the same thing.

You said only marxists did land grabs, which is stupid. Why would owning a jewish cinema be substantially different to owning a white farm?

""The term "Leninist" is used purposefully. There is no indication that Mugabe (or his colleagues, supporters, or mentors among the African liberation movements leaders, such as Amilcar Cabral in Guine Bissao, Samora Machel of Mozambique, and Sam Nujoma of Namibia) ever read Marx. If anything, they perhaps read Lenin and Stalin's brief treatises on how to take and keep power. One of Mugabe’s colleagues in this regard is Mengistu Haile Mariam, a briefly American-trained Ethiopian dictator and Stalin emulator, who has been a guest of Mugabe's since 1991, while he faces charges of crimes against humanity in Ethiopia, whose government has been seeking his extradition.""

So he's hardly a Marxist then is he? He's clearly using poor-man's populism to guarantee personal power and permanence.

You're the one that brought up Somalia; my point was it is not a mark against free market economics. Somalia's problems are due to piracy, civil war and anarchy. They are not due to overpopulation or the free market.

Yes, it is a response to the preposterous notion that having a load of people and a free market = no famines. Turns out if that's all you have, it's Mad Max.

Why don't you disprove the argument.

If it's a solid argument, you can make it, but it's not, it's just spin and No True Scotsman whining.

[Knobbyboy88]

Quote:
So, you agree then that the catholic church is not spreading aids, and that they are actually helping to solve the problem?


False dilemma. This is the organisation that believes 1 and 3 are the same number when God is involved. Doublethink and dogmas above material truth is their bread and butter.

How is that a false dilemma? How does making ad hominem attacks against the Church's dogma prove anything? He has already stated that he believes that condoms can work. He simply stated that they do not work as a primary means for combatting the AIDs epidemic.

Okay. They are permissable here if someone relies on dishonest or broken record debating.

No, they are never admissible in rational debate. Frankly, what is "dishonest" or "broken" in your opponent's debating style is not for you to decide. Ever heard of a conflict of interest?

Quote:
It makes even more sense to drill the dangers of sex in general into them.


False dilemma.

Once again, how do you figure?

You said only marxists did land grabs, which is stupid. Why would owning a jewish cinema be substantially different to owning a white farm?

Seizing the land of "bourgeoisie" property owners, in order to "redistribute" it among "more deserving" and oppressed minorities is a classic tenant of Marxist ideology.

So he's hardly a Marxist then is he? He's clearly using poor-man's populism to guarantee personal power and permanence.

In other words, Marxism.

[Samuel]

Yes, and they were briefly affiliated with the Soviet Union as well. The Iron Curtain simply fell before this could become a real issue.

I still think that they are questionable to be perfectly honest.

Well given that I was refering to the Cuba as their ally and Cuba is still around and communist I'm going with the much more reasonable "African leaders make alliances of convience in order to achieve their goals".

By that definition, neither Mao nor Stalin would be strict "Communists" either.

There were 10 points that Marx mentions. Stalin and Mao manage to hit almost all of them.

Has Mugabee nationalized all the nation's businesses? Taken over all the banks? Seized control over all transportation and communication?

They are doing this (rather successfully in some nations I might add) now. By the time they actually finish building up such a base, they will utterly outclass us.

Unless something causes them to slow down growth, regress, causes richer nations to accelerate growth or anything else that changes the picture.

Some of it was obviously already there. However, this doesn't change the fact that these moves gave Germany and Italy direct control over a much, much larger population base who served as the basis for a greater industrial base.

More workers simply = more productivity (granted that you can manage them efficiently of course).

Do you even know what productivity means? It is a measure of output per worker.

It still doesn't explain how Germany managed to go from some industry to economic powerhouse.

Once again, there have been quite a few anti-homosexual Communist regimes and philosophers. Castro and Stalin are simply the examples which come up right off of the top of my head.

In both cases due to the behavior of individual tyrants. Ask Stas Bush about the details- I believe the origional revolutionaries decriminalized it.

He may never have read Marx, but he was a communist. He also used Stalinist economics.

I wasn't aware Zimbabwe has the Urals or Siberia. Did he conduct massive canal programs with political prisoners? Switch to communal farming? Trade with the Germans for technical aid? Really "Stalinist economics" is a bit vague.

If anything, they perhaps read Lenin and Stalin's brief treatises on how to take and keep power.

Do you honestly think Stalin would be dumb enough to write and publish something like that?

The most likely work they would have read is Lenin's work about how imperialism is the final stage of capitalism.

Yes, Spanish salvery in the New World was absolutely appauling. However, it is also a somewhat complex issue.

Cheap labor for the economic win is a complex issue?

Seizing the land of "bourgeoisie" property owners, in order to "redistribute" it among "more deserving" and oppressed minorities is a classic tenant of Marxist ideology.

So Mexico is a marxist state? They did a massive land distribution program. What about just about every other populist or left wing state in Latin America (excepting Cuba of course)?

In other words, Marxism.

Peasent revolts aimed for the same goal but I wouldn't call them Marxist.

[Knobbyboy88]

Well given that I was refering to the Cuba as their ally and Cuba is still around and communist I'm going with the much more reasonable "African leaders make alliances of convience in order to achieve their goals".

"Socialism" was simply a highly popular idea in the "post-colonial" regions of the world during the Cold War. Mugabe and even Mandela (to a certain extent) were simply indicative of this greater trend. It was much the same in the Middle East where "Arab nationalism" was concerned during this period.

Obviously, the Soviets tried to capitalize on this fact where they could. It is sad but true to point out that these Socialist policies caused more harm than good in most cases, and in Africa in particular.

Has Mugabee nationalized all the nation's businesses? Taken over all the banks? Seized control over all transportation and communication?

Frankly, apart from bitching about the West and tearing down entire towns when they vote against him in elections, what has Mugabe done? He is essentially just a more psychotic African version of Hugo Chavez.

However, this does not change the fact that he claims to adhere to Marxism, and that his presidency has its roots in leftist revolutionary activity.

Unless something causes them to slow down growth, regress, causes richer nations to accelerate growth or anything else that changes the picture.

That is an unknown variable. We cannot know if something might change in the future or not. We can simply extrapolate upon current trends.

While I would love to think that the West might get its act together and start to reverse current global economic trends, such a claim would amount to nothing more than baseless speculation lacking even the tiniest shred of empirical evidence to back it up.

It still doesn't explain how Germany managed to go from some industry to economic powerhouse.

Once again, most of the industry and population were already there. The Prussians basically took a bunch of relatively powerful but very small German kingdoms and united them into one very powerful nation state which combined the economic bases and populations of all of these various states.

Cheap labor for the economic win is a complex issue?

Not at all from the Spanish standpoint. The "complicated issue" is just how culpable the Church can really be said to be on this matter.

There is also the issue of the Spanish being responsible for providing care to several million former Aztec, Inca, and Mayan citizens after they ransacked these empires. What amounted to basically transplating European Feudualism to the New World under a "plantation owners/ slave" system may have seemed like a reasonable solution at the time (the fact that they were absolute amoral pricks about this process and that they created the problem to begin with not withstanding). lol

So Mexico is a marxist state? They did a massive land distribution program. What about just about every other populist or left wing state in Latin America (excepting Cuba of course)?

Quite a few of those "Left Wing" states more or less were Marxist. They simply chose not to call it that.

However, redistribution of land is almost always a "Socialist" or at the very least "Socialist influenced" policy. One need not necessarily live in a Marxist or Socialist state to have Socialists or politicians with Socialist sympathies in office.

Peasent revolts aimed for the same goal but I wouldn't call them Marxist.

What exactly is Marxism if not a system deliberately designed to validate and even codify such Peasant revolts?

[Samuel]

However, this does not channge the fact that he claims to adhere to Marxism, and that his presidency has its roots in leftist revolutionary activity.

Can you show me such a claim? I'm curious to see exactly what he says.

That is an unknown variable. We cannot know if something might change in the future or not. We can simply extrapolate upon current trends.

While I would love to think that the West might get its act together and start to reverse current global economic trends, such a claim would amount to nothing more than baseless speculation lacking even the tiniest shred of empirical evidence to back it up.

Yes we can. Poor countries are supposed to grow faster and than have growth slow down. It certainly fits with what happened with Japan and other countries. There is no real reason to believe that China's growth rate will continue at current rates indefinately.

Once again, most of the industry and population were already there. The Prussians basically took a bunch of relatively powerful but very small German kingdoms and united them into one very powerful nation state which combined the economic bases and populations of all of these various states.

Okay, than where did the small kingdoms get the industry? You have been mentioning a large population is necesary to industrialize.

There is also the issue of the Spanish being responsible for providing care to several million former Aztec, Inca, and Mayan citizens after they ransacked these empires. What amounted to basically transplating European Feudualism to the New World under a "plantation owners/ slave" system may have seemed like a reasonable solution at the time (the fact that they were absolute amoral pricks about this process and that they created the problem to begin with not withstanding). lol

Yeah, I imagine there is a way to politely inform people that they now have to work for you for free because if they don't you will kill them.

Quite a few of those "Left Wing" states more or less were Marxist. They simply chose not to call it that.

So are you saying that Marxism encompasses all left wing movements? I'm pretty sure Marx would disagree with that statement, but let me guess Marx wasn't a true Marxist? You know the whole part about world revolution, class struggle, communism... the essential parts of Marxism these states lacked. The man lambasted other socialist movements for not being scientific- he hardly includes all possible left wing movements.

However, redistribution of land is almost always a "Socialist" or at the very least "Socialist influenced" policy. One need not necessarily live in a Marxist or Socialist state to have Socialists or politicians with Socialist sympathies in office.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=138624

Does this mean the US is socialist influenced now?

What exactly is Marxism if not a system deliberately designed to validate and even codify such Peasant revolts?

The fact that Marxism is focused on industrial society? The fact that Marxism believes that society goes through stages and "successful peasent revolt" is not one of them? The fact that communism is expected to be established on the backs on wage laborers?

Sorry, but your the one who is illiterate. look at the order of the words. A is first, B is second and C is third. Condoms are the tertiary concern, not the primary.

Or alphabetical order.

[Knobbyboy88]

Can you show me such a claim? I'm curious to see exactly what he says.

"Mugabe rose to prominence in the 1960s as the Secretary General of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU). For many years in the 1960s and 1970s Mugabe was a political prisoner in Rhodesia. His goal was to replace white minority-rule with a one-party Marxist regime.[3] Having been a political prisoner for 10 years, immediately on release with Edgar Tekere, Mugabe left Rhodesia in 1974 to join the Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle (Rhodesian Bush War) from bases in Mozambique. At the end of the war in 1979, Mugabe emerged as a hero in the minds of many Africans.[4][5]"

It is also stated that....

"Mugabe returned to Southern Rhodesia and joined the National Democratic Party (NDP) in 1960.[30] The administration of Prime Minister Ian Smith banned the NDP when it later became Joshua Nkomo's Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU). Mugabe left ZAPU in 1963 to join the rival Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) which had been formed in 1963 by the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole, Edgar Tekere, Edson Zvobgo, Enos Nkala and lawyer Herbert Chitepo. ZANU was influenced by the Africanist ideas of the Pan Africanist Congress in South Africa[31] and influenced by Maoism while ZAPU was an ally of the African National Congress and was a supporter of a more orthodox pro-Soviet line on national liberation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_mugabe

Okay, than where did the small kingdoms get the industry? You have been mentioning a large population is necesary to industrialize.

I never said that you couldn't industrialize with a small population. I simply stated that it can be easier with a large population and that nations with larger populations will usually be more powerful than those without.

So are you saying that Marxism encompasses all left wing movements? I'm pretty sure Marx would disagree with that statement, but let me guess Marx wasn't a true Marxist? You know the whole part about world revolution, class struggle, communism... the essential parts of Marxism these states lacked. The man lambasted other socialist movements for not being scientific- he hardly includes all possible left wing movements.

I never said that all Leftist movements were "Marxist." I pointed out that the vast majority of Left Wing movements which sprang up in the Third World during the Cold War certainly were (or belonged to some variation there of; Stalinism, Maoism, Leninism, etca, etca).

Besides, unless the ideology in question is some form of Democratic Socialism or an Anarchism, it is very likely that it is based off of Marxism to a certain extent anyway.

Does this mean the US is socialist influenced now?

Yes, and it has been for quite some time. "Progressive" is pretty much just a pretty word for "watered down Democratic Socialist."

The fact that Marxism is focused on industrial society? The fact that Marxism believes that society goes through stages and "successful peasent revolt" is not one of them? The fact that communism is expected to be established on the backs on wage laborers?

Yes, but once again, none of this really changes the fact that Marx was simply elaborated upon the same kinds of "lower class" uprisings that had already been witnessed in France and other nations.

Yeah, I imagine there is a way to politely inform people that they now have to work for you for free because if they don't you will kill them.

There was also the fact these people were by most accounts starving to death from the near total collapse of food production and infrastructure in their society. A few of them may have even chose slavery if given the choice.

[Samuel]

Neither of those are statements by the man. He could simply have joined them because he felt they had the best chance of overthrowing the white regime.

I never said that all Leftist movements were "Marxist." I pointed out that the vast majority of Left Wing movements which sprang up in the Third World during the Cold War certainly were (or belonged to some variation there of; Stalinism, Maoism, Leninism, etca, etca).

Besides, unless the ideology in question is some form of Democratic Socialism or an Anarchism, it is very likely that it is based off of Marxism to a certain extent anyway.

Communalism, Technocratism, Populism, the origional welfare state... need I go on? NONE of these came from Marxism.

Yes, and it has been for quite some time. "Progressive" is pretty much just a pretty word for "watered down Democratic Socialist."

Except what I mentioned was from the origional version of the US constitution. The framers were many things, but socialists was definately not one of them.

Yes, but once again, none of this really changes the fact that Marx was simply elaborated upon the same kinds of "lower class" uprisings that had already been witnessed in France and other nations.

How does this disprove my point that Marx was not at all interested in peasent revolts and didn't concern himself with them except how they fit into his theory?

[Rye]

How is that a false dilemma?

It's a false dilemma because an organisation like the church can and does do both at the same time, while he wants to make out that it can only do one.

How does making ad hominem attacks against the Church's dogma prove anything? He has already stated that he believes that condoms can work. He simply stated that they do not work as a primary means for combatting the AIDs epidemic.

Where has he claimed they can work? According to his own statements, he thinks they increase HIV transmission because they're bundled with free love ideology and make it okay to sleep around ...for some reason.

No, they are never admissible in rational debate.

See top left.

Frankly, what is "dishonest" or "broken" in your opponent's debating style is not for you to decide. Ever heard of a conflict of interest?

There's only so many times I can ask for evidence supporting a position (like the claim that condom charities in Africa are spreading the free love mantra of the 60s) and get back nothing.

Once again, how do you figure?

It's not an option of one or the other and you can in fact use both. That's why it's a false dilemma.

Seizing the land of "bourgeoisie" property owners, in order to "redistribute" it among "more deserving" and oppressed minorities is a classic tenant of Marxist ideology.In other words, Marxism.

No, racist populism. Oh, incidentally, Zimbabwe attempts democracy.

"Mugabe rose to prominence in the 1960s as the Secretary General of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU). For many years in the 1960s and 1970s Mugabe was a political prisoner in Rhodesia. His goal was to replace white minority-rule with a one-party Marxist regime.[3] Having been a political prisoner for 10 years, immediately on release with Edgar Tekere, Mugabe left Rhodesia in 1974 to join the Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle (Rhodesian Bush War) from bases in Mozambique. At the end of the war in 1979, Mugabe emerged as a hero in the minds of many Africans.[4][5]"

It is also stated that....

"Mugabe returned to Southern Rhodesia and joined the National Democratic Party (NDP) in 1960.[30] The administration of Prime Minister Ian Smith banned the NDP when it later became Joshua Nkomo's Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU). Mugabe left ZAPU in 1963 to join the rival Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) which had been formed in 1963 by the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole, Edgar Tekere, Edson Zvobgo, Enos Nkala and lawyer Herbert Chitepo. ZANU was influenced by the Africanist ideas of the Pan Africanist Congress in South Africa[31] and influenced by Maoism while ZAPU was an ally of the African National Congress and was a supporter of a more orthodox pro-Soviet line on national liberation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_mugabe

So you say Mugabe claims to be a Marxist, you get asked for evidence, so you repost two paragraphs from the wiki that explained he joined multiple parties both for and against what the others stood for. Either you think Mugabe speaks in the third person about himself via wikipedia or you have very little in the way to show he is a Marxist from his own mouth.

[K. A. Pital]

Sub-Saharan Africa is prove that condoms aggravate aids. I already cited sources that back this statement up.

Condoms "aggravate" AIDS? How can the 100% prevention "aggravate" the disease, you idiot? It requires a little more than your say-so to believe that.

You're the one that brought up Somalia; my point was it is not a mark against free market economics. Somalia's problems are due to piracy, civil war and anarchy. They are not due to overpopulation or the free market.

An ideally free market is anarchy. Anything less is deviating from the ideal. If you are striving to the ideally free market which is only driven by supply and demand, no matter how violent, this is anarchy. Basically, if you're entrusting someone with protecting private property, that's already a deviation. The agent should bear these transaction costs on his own. Too bad for him if he can't.

Why don't you disprove the argument.

Because an argument requires proof in the first place. A person shouldn't "disprove" bullshit, much less waste his time and effort on refuting something not substantiated by evidence ROCK-HARD as my penis in your mom. Oh, and sorry - that's an SDN moment. Let me savor it. Mmm. A taste of the dark side.

Condoms are just a piece of rubber they cannot perpetuate any mentality.

Yeah, but they also save from AIDS 100%. Abstinence, sadly, doesn't do that, because even if you bang up that ONLY girl you love, you'll still be able to get AIDS if she had HIV, but you didn't know.

Basically, only abstinence coupled with preventive FORCED HIV screening, done mandatory before every FIRST act of sex of a person is 100% guarantee against AIDS. That, or a condom.

And guess what, a condom is... cheaper, but no less efficient. A condom also doesn't severely restrict a person's sexual freedom. Which is better? Not a hard question, really.

Once again, there have been quite a few anti-homosexual Communist regimes and philosophers. Castro and Stalin are simply the examples which come up right off of the top of my head.

The communist philosophy (Lenin and his co-revolutionaries' legal system) decriminalized homosexuality. Stalin re-criminalized it in the 1930s of his own will, and largely not without massively HUGE Orthodox church influence (see thread for details). There's actually nothing in atheism or Marxism par se explicitly speaking out against homosexualism. But there is in Stalin's orthodox roots, because Orthodoxy like any widespread branch of Christianity, explicitly condemns homosexualism in it's holy screeds, for the Bible says that.

But I see you're kinda disinterested in knowing the factual history of stuff. You're saying that RCC crimes weren't a medieval Holocaust while at the same time referring to Diderot's line about strangling priests (I wonder if Diderot really strangled as many priests as the RCC murdered witches and heretics - uh, unfair comparison, my bad :lol; )

I believe the early Soviet Union also attacked the church but given that the czar was head of the Eastern Orthodox Church this isn't a surprise.

The aristocracy was a system quite like a caste system, and the Orthodox church occupied a higher class position. Priests basically robbed the fuck out of the common man. Were it not so, the anti-religious campaign would've never been heavily supported by the people.

[Knobbyboy88]

An ideally free market is anarchy. Anything less is deviating from the ideal.

If the "ideal" is impossible (which in most cases it is), then a reasonable compromise will do. Somalia doesn't represent much of anything leaning towards either the "ideal" or any form of "compromise." It is simply a wartorn disaster.

There's actually nothing in atheism or Marxism par se explicitly speaking out against homosexualism.

There is nothing speaking for it either. However, the politcial situations in many "Communist" nations speak for themselves.

The government of Vietnam has been more open about its disapproval of homosexuality, running several features in the government-based press that homosexuality is a "social evil;" comparing it to prostitution and gambling, and promising for strict laws to be introduced that would allow for police to arrest homosexuals and same-sex couples.[30]

LGBT rights are very limited and the subject of homosexuality remains fiercely a taboo in North Korea. While homosexuality is not explicitly outlawed, "practices against the socialist lifestyle" are forbidden. There have also been reports of homosexuals being sent to labor camps in North Korea for their homosexuality, though these claims have not been confirmed. While the government has acknowledged its belief that homosexuality is not a choice and rather due to genetic factors, it rejects the associated "promiscuity and classism" of gay culture in the west.[29]

Homosexuality was decriminalized in China in 1997 and was removed as a mental illness in 2002.[19]

Homosexuality was deemed illegal under the majority of former communist nations, particularly in Europe, but in certain cases, such laws had pre-existed before the establishment of communism. Homosexuality carried harsh penalties under communist Albania, to which convicted homosexuals faced lengthy prison sentences and ill-treatment in prison. Homosexuality was also illegal in the People's Republic of Mongolia, but the extent to which these laws were enforced remain unknown.

This is not to say that Marxists are explicitly anti-homosexual, but there certainly is a well known precedent for it in Marxist(Maoist, Leninist, whatever) nations.

EDIT: Forgot the source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_ ... osexuality

Where has he claimed they can work? According to his own statements, he thinks they increase HIV transmission because they're bundled with free love ideology and make it okay to sleep around

No, he actually explicitly stated that condoms can work, but simply not as a primary means of treatment. He has made it clear that behavioral modification (i.e. abstinence) should take precedent over the application of sex education which simply teaches about condoms.

(like the claim that condom charities in Africa are spreading the free love mantra of the 60s)

Yes, he has a penchant for "buzz words." I've noticed this. However, this doesn't change the fact that modern programs which teach explicitly about condoms spread "Western" sexual ideals. "Western" ideas about sex have been heavily influenced by the "sexual revolution."

It is the stance of the Church (and I tend to agree) that these ideals are fundamentally flawed and can tend to increase immoral sexual behavior. This subsequently results in an increase of the the negative consequences associated with such behaviors.

It's not an option of one or the other and you can in fact use both

He didn't say that it was. Frankly, if he is guilty of this, so are you.

No, racist populism.

Once again, this means that Mugabe can't be Marxist...how exactly?
"Populism" is one of the political "Left's" most defining traits.

Zimbabwe attempts democracy.

You do realize that Castro more or less does the same, right? That doesn't mean that all of these elections aren't total shams.

Either you think Mugabe speaks in the third person about himself via wikipedia or you have very little in the way to show he is a Marxist from his own mouth.

Frankly, I'm having trouble finding a speech from him online. If anyone could link me a source which has quotes from him, I would be thankful.

However, the fact of the matter still remains that Mugabe certainly was a Marxist in the past and that he still maintains many of his former views even into the present day.

He still uses blatantly Marxist rhetoric. Combined with what I stated above, that makes him a "Marxist" in my book. He is simply a "Marxist" who realized that it wasn't really "politcially correct" to call himself that anymore.

he joined multiple parties both for and against what the others stood for

You do realize that "Maoism" and "Marxism" are almost exactly the same system, right? There are probably Protestant sects with more differences between them than these two systems.

If you had read up on the issue you would know that the spanish was not alone and that slavery was practiced by all the christian states of the time.

Yes, but it is not quite the same issue. Slavery in Europe had been an established societal institution for millenia. It was simply an essential aspect of classical society, and it wasn't even all that heinous in most cases.

The Church wasn't totally for the idea, but it wasn't necessarily against it either. They simply insisted ( as a matter of course) that slaves be treated fairly and humanely.

The Spanish and Portuguese most certainly were not treating their slaves fairly, and the Church actually condemed this several times. The Spanish basicially told the Church to "fuck off."

Furthermore, the Church has officially come out against slavery several at several points in the past. The final condemnation simply didn't come out until 1839 under Pope Gregory XVI.

He could simply have joined them because he felt they had the best chance of overthrowing the white regime.

In that case, he would still be a "Marxist."

Communalism, Technocratism, Populism, the origional welfare state... need I go on? NONE of these came from Marxism.

What is your point here exactly? Marx was a founding member of the First International. By that alone, it can be known that he had a major influence on all subsequent "Leftist" movements.

I never said that he was the first one to come up with these ideas.

Except what I mentioned was from the origional version of the US constitution.

What is? The idea that the government can seize property so long as it provides compensation? The thread you linked doesn't mention the Constitution, just a city in Connecticut seizing property.

In any case, this was included in the Constitution explicitly to protect property rights. In Mugabe's case and in the cases of most land redistribution where "helping the poor" is the primary concern, it is actually quite the opposite.

How does this disprove my point that Marx was not at all interested in peasent revolts and didn't concern himself with them except how they fit into his theory?

Because he was simply elaborating upon what past generations of "radicals" and "revolutionaries" had already attempted.

[Rye]

You're still being a nitpicking, shitlicking little asshole, Ruben. Your initial position was that condoms make a 0% difference, yet the numbers in your latest post give between 80% and 90% effectiveness ratings when properly used. So are you going to ever concede anything, or are you intent on being nothing more than an evasive piece of shit?

Just to nitpick here, in the interests of accuracy; his claim wasn't just that condoms make a 0% difference and all ABC's success is down to abstinence and fidelity, but it was that condoms "aggravate" HIV transmissions by encouraging free love without consequences, even as part of a scheme such as that.

This is not to say that Marxist are explicitly anti-gay, but there certainly is a well known precedent for it in Marxist(Maoist, Leninist, whatever) nations.

There's also Lenin himself going against that precedent.

No, he actually explicitly stated that condoms can work, but simply not as a primary means of treatment.

Don't rewrite the past. It sickens me. He has said in no uncertain terms that he believes that condoms are a license for immorality and aggravate HIV problems. He's repeatedly denied that condoms have had any success in Africa and hides behind the obscurity of African sex lives and inconsistent usage to "support" his views.

It is the stance of the Church (and I tend to agree) that these ideals are fundamentally flawed and can tend to increase immoral sexual behavior. This subsequently results in an increase of the the negative consequences associated with such behaviors.

Mind you, the Church rejects the sexual revolution and yet has a persistent global issue with institutional sexual sadism and the raping of children, as well as the systemic cover up of such problems.

He didn't say that it was. Frankly, if he is guilty of this, so are you.

By all means support this statement.

Once again, this means that Mugabe can't be Marxist...how exactly?
"Populism" is one of the political "Left's" most defining traits.

It's insufficient evidence that Mugabe is a Marxist. Right, left, centre, authoritarian and libertarian all have populist movements.

You do realize that Castro more or less does the same, right? That doesn't mean that all of these elections aren't total shams.

Sure. It just shows that they're not that in line with Marx's views. Like being a catholic and supposedly being a dyed in the wool follower of the guy who compared religion to anaesthetic drug use.

However, the fact of the matter still remains that Mugabe certainly was a Marxist in the past and that he still maintains many of his former views even into the present day.

This is not evidence of him actually being a communist or marxist.

He still uses blatantly Marxist rhetoric. Combined with what I stated above, that makes him a "Marxist" in my book. He is simply a "Marxist" who realized that it wasn't really "politcially correct" to call himself that anymore.

Political correctness is about being polite to avoid offending people, you stupid fucking idiot. Who, aside from the far right are you going to offend by claiming you're a Marxist? What examples of "blatantly Marxist rhetoric" are you thinking of, and how do they differ from straightforward populism?

You do realize that "Maoism" and "Marxism" are almost exactly the same system, right? There are probably Protestant sects with more differences between them than these two systems.

You're braindead. Look again at the bit you inappropriately quoted when asked for proof that Mugabe claimed he was himself a Marxist, let's count how many party changes, swapping of sides and general political paradigm shifts he's done:

• Mugabe returned to Southern Rhodesia and joined the National Democratic Party (NDP) in 1960. The administration of Prime Minister Ian Smith banned the NDP when it later became Joshua Nkomo's Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU).
• Mugabe left ZAPU in 1963 to join the rival Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) which had been formed in 1963 by the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole, Edgar Tekere, Edson Zvobgo, Enos Nkala and lawyer Herbert Chitepo. ZANU was influenced by the Africanist ideas of the Pan Africanist Congress in South Africa[31] and influenced by Maoism while ZAPU was an ally of the African National Congress and was a supporter of a more orthodox pro-Soviet line on national liberation.
• Mugabe unilaterally assumed control of ZANU from Mozambique after the death of Herbert Chitepo on March 18, 1975. Later that year, after squabbling with Ndabaningi Sithole,
• Mugabe formed a militant ZANU faction, leaving Sithole to lead the moderate Zanu (Ndonga) party.

In summary: part of the democratic party, fairly normal, joined a soviet variant, rejected it for its main rival, personally took over it for his own ends, subverted the founder of that party, and then formed a "militant" party under his direct control and ideology that then killed the more "orthodox" communists and Marxists. That alone isn't proof of him not being a Marxist, but it's not down to me to prove he isn't. At any rate it seems more likely that he's not a communist, he is a catholic, and he's a racist, nationalistic, fascistic tyrant. More third way than Marxist.

[Knobbyboy88]

There's also Lenin himself going against that precedent.

Frankly, so what? That is irrelevant to the fact that roughly half of the "Communist" world was blatantly anti-homosexual. I never claimed that anti-homosexuality is an explicit tenant of Marxism.

Don't rewrite the past. It sickens me

Hardly... He said this not too long ago....

The ABC program is the best program for aids prevention because it's primary focus is on abstinence. I never once stated in any of my comments that condoms should be removed, nor, did I say that they do not work.

He may have a thing for hyperbole, but he hasn't said that condoms don't work.

Mind you, the Church rejects the sexual revolution and yet has a persistent global issue with institutional sexual sadism and the raping of children, as well as the systemic cover up of such problems.

Oh please! The Church has no more pedophiles than any other comparable institution. The adminstration simply fucked up royally in trying to cover up the problem (which was inexcusable) and ended up creating a media circus (as if the "mainstream" media weren't already practically devoted to tearing down the Church).

Furthermore, most of these "pedophiles" were only "child molesters" in the legal sense of the word. Having consensual sex with a 15 year old boy does not make one a pedophile from a biological perspective, it makes one gay.

It's insufficient evidence that Mugabe is a Marxist. Right, left, centre, authoritarian and libertarian all have populist movements.

Sure. It just shows that they're not that in line with Marx's views. Like being a catholic and supposedly being a dyed in the wool follower of the guy who compared religion to anaesthetic drug use.

This is not evidence of him actually being a communist or marxist.

I am honestly perplexed...

Where in the Hell is all of the controversy coming from here? The fact that Mugabe is for all intents and purposes a Marxist is common knowledge! Honestly! Just google the guy!

Once again, I'm sorry people, but if it looks like a turd, smells like a turd, and feels like a turd, it very likely is a turd.

I'm honestly curious, is the issue here that you have some soft spot for marxism and don't want to accept that such a failure could be one? Would you deny that Hugo Chavez is basically a Marxist? Is the problem the fact that I keep using the word "Marxist?"

If this is the case, let me make something clear, I make NO differentiation between "Socialism" and "Marxism."

Political correctness is about being polite to avoid offending people

No, political correctness is about avoiding the "800 pound gorilla" in the room by using deliberately euphemistic language. A formerly "Marxist" leader magically becoming a "Democratic President" as soon as the Iron Curtain falls fits this bill perfectly.

You're braindead. Look again at the bit you inappropriately quoted when asked for proof that Mugabe claimed he was himself a Marxist, let's count how many party changes, swapping of sides and general political paradigm shifts he's done:

Once again, THEY ARE BOTH RED COMMUNISM! Frankly, Maoism is simply Stalinism which has been tied to Chinese communist nationalism, and BOTH are Marxist derived ideologies.

[Rye]

Frankly, so what?

Well if you're prepared to accept that Leninists can go completely against Lenin on this, their anti-homosexuality is likely not a product of them being Leninist, correct? It's far more likely to be a consequence of something cultural that precedes or is otherwise external to the parts of the philosophy. Whatever influence Marxism has on Zimbabwean politics, it's not, apparently, that important to Mugabe, therefore it would be inappropriate to claim he is a communist or marxist because it's not key to his ideology.

That is irrelevant to the fact that roughly half of the "Communist" world was blatantly anti-homosexual. I never claimed that anti-homosexuality is an explicit tenant of Marxism.

Yet it is of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that are usually popular in these countries. Weird.

Hardly... He said this not too long ago....

The ABC program is the best program for aids prevention because it's primary focus is on abstinence. I never once stated in any of my comments that condoms should be removed, nor, did I say that they do not work.

He may have a thing for hyperbole, but he hasn't said that condoms don't work.

Yes he has. He's claimed that they always aggravate rather than slow or stop HIV transmission. He's persistently rejected the idea that condoms have any positive impact on HIV transmission in Africa.

Oh please! The Church has no more pedophiles than any other comparable institution.

So?

The adminstration simply fucked up royally in trying to cover up the problem (which was inexcusable) and ended up creating a media circus (as if the "mainstream" media weren't already practically devoted to tearing down the Church).

Why would the mainstream media be devoted to tearing down the church? (It isn't, of course, but I want to know what bizarre conspiracy you've constructed to justify this statement. SATAN perhaps?)

I am honestly perplexed...

Where in the Hell is all of the controversy coming from here? The fact that Mugabe is for all intents and purposes a Marxist is common knowledge! Honestly! Just google the guy!

I don't believe he believes in Marxism anymore than O'Brien and IngSoc do in Nineteen Eighty Four.

Once again, I'm sorry people, but if it looks like a turd, smells like a turd, and feels like a turd, it very likely is a turd.

I'm honestly curious, is the issue here that you have some soft spot for marxism and don't want to accept that such a failure could be one? Would you deny that Hugo Chavez is basically a Marxist? Is the problem the fact that I keep using the word "Marxist?"

No, I just don't believe he is one, I think he's an opportunist and a racist-religious demagogue.

If this is the case, let me make something clear, I make NO differentiation between "Socialism" and "Marxism."

Then you're even more stupid than you look. Socialism predates Marx.

No, political correctness is about avoiding the "800 pound gorilla" in the room by using deliberately euphemistic language. A formerly "Marxist" leader magically becoming a "Democratic President" as soon as the Iron Curtain falls fits this bill perfectly.

Since you're cool with using the wiki:

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term denoting language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social offense in gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap, and age-related contexts.

Once again, THEY ARE BOTH RED COMMUNISM! Frankly, Maoism is simply Stalinism which has been tied to Chinese communist nationalism, and BOTH are Marxist derived ideologies.

But what we're talking about here is African socialism, and like most things in Africa, it's corrupt and shambolic to the core. Any distinct ideologies are more likely to be along tribal and religious lines, or as in Mugabe's case, personal power.

Edit: I should also add that I can't even remember why we're discussing Mugabe's ideology, unless it's to show how little good the Catholic Church has done in fixing him.

[Samuel]

There is nothing speaking for it either. However, the politcial situations in many "Communist" nations speak for themselves.

You mean extremely poor countries that have a heavy emphasis on family and comformity are against homosexuality? What a surprise!

You do realize that "Maoism" and "Marxism" are almost exactly the same system, right? There are probably Protestant sects with more differences between them than these two systems.

Not really. Marxism is about how the inevitable tide of history will result in the destruction of capitalism and a new communist world order. Maoism is about establishing such an order on the backs of the peasents.

Slavery in Europe had been an established societal institution for millenia. It was simply an essential aspect of classical society, and it wasn't even all that heinous in most cases.

Didn't slavery fall out of use in Europe during the Dark Ages?

Marx was a founding member of the First International. By that alone, it can be known that he had a major influence on all subsequent "Leftist" movements.

Why exactly? Do you think all left-wing movements were at all connected with the Internationalists?

What is? The idea that the government can seize property so long as it provides compensation? The thread you linked doesn't mention the Constitution, just a city in Connecticut seizing property.

In any case, this was included in the Constitution explicitly to protect property rights. In Mugabe's case and in the cases of most land redistribution where "helping the poor" is the primary concern, it is actually quite the opposite.

It was eminent domain and the case mentioned the government seizing property to provide to a business. The power doesn't exist to protect property rights, but to give the government the power to seize property for the common good. Land distribution is different, but not by much. Your definition of socialism is too broad.

Because he was simply elaborating upon what past generations of "radicals" and "revolutionaries" had already attempted.

You are being too broad. If all that he has in common is changing the existing social order of course he will fall into the same category.

Once again, THEY ARE BOTH RED COMMUNISM! Frankly, Maoism is simply Stalinism which has been tied to Chinese communist nationalism, and BOTH are Marxist derived ideologies.

Given that the Shining Path is Maoist Chinese nationalism does not work.

[Knobbyboy88]

You mean extremely poor countries that have a heavy emphasis on family and comformity are against homosexuality? What a surprise!

Yes....How is this relevant?

Marxism is about how the inevitable tide of history will result in the destruction of capitalism and a new communist world order. Maoism is about establishing such an order on the backs of the peasents.

Which proves that they are fundamentally similar. One simply adds upon the foundation the other provides.

Didn't slavery fall out of use in Europe during the Dark Ages?

For the most part, yes. However, this doesn't change the fact that old traditions die hard. Slavery remained in Italy and Spain for quite some time.

Do you think all left-wing movements were at all connected with the Internationalists?

All left-wing movements in any way relevant to this discussion certainly were.

The power doesn't exist to protect property rights

Sure it does. The Constitution was a very Lockean document. Property rights were a central focus of the Founding Fathers in nearly all aspects of forming the Constitution.

Rather than simply allowing the state to seize property at will in the name of the state's interests (as was the standard for European Monarchies at the time), it forces the government to provide restitution. This was a rather radical move for its day.

but to give the government the power to seize property for the common good

This is a very "left-wing" oriented modern interpretation of the Constitution. The Founders undoubtedly recognized the importance of requisitioning resources in times of crisis and the other matters to this effect. However, if the focus of this line in the Constitution was to simply serve the "common good," they could have just declared that the state could seize whatever it pleased as the European Monarchies could.

Instead, they chose to focus on the right of individuals not to have their property randomly seized in the name of state interests.

Land distribution is different

The problem with land distribution in most Third World countries is that they totally reject the notions I mentioned above. Largely due to Marxist-influenced views on property rights and "revolutionary" rhetoric, these nations simply decide to seize and "nationalize" everything.

Not surprisingly, this doesn't work particularly well.

If all that he has in common is changing the existing social order of course he will fall into the same category.

Once again, how do you think Marx came upon most of his ideas? His notions of collectivism and revolution were hardly new. He simply put a new spin on them.

their anti-homosexuality is likely not a product of them being Leninist,

Did I say that it was? In any case, this has not stopped many regimes from using Leninist principles to bash homosexuality.

Yet it is of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that are usually popular in these countries. Weird.

In Mongolia, Vietnam, and China?

Yes he has. He's claimed that they always aggravate rather than slow or stop HIV transmission. He's persistently rejected the idea that condoms have any positive impact on HIV transmission in Africa.

Once again...

The ABC program is the best program for aids prevention because it's primary focus is on abstinence. I never once stated in any of my comments that condoms should be removed, nor, did I say that they do not work.

..................

Why would the mainstream media be devoted to tearing down the church?

I dunno...Why are 90% of the people on this board devoted to tearing down the Church (and don't even pretend like they're not)? Prejudice is not often a rational thing.

I don't believe he believes in Marxism anymore than O'Brien and IngSoc do in Nineteen Eighty Four.

This is different from any other Marxist regime anywhere...How exactly? North Korea has a Hell of a lot more in common with the "Absolutist" Monarchies of Early Modern Europe than it does with "Communism."

Then you're even more stupid than you look. Socialism predates Marx.

The kind of Socialism that leads "Revolutionaries" to take over nations in violent Third World coups most certainly doesn't.

Marx is to "Socialism" what Thomas Jefferson, Locke, or Rousseau are to political Liberalism. They may not have invented these ideas, but they are primarily responsible for making them popular.

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term denoting language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social offense in gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap, and age-related contexts.

None of this really disproves what I said earlier. In order to "minimize social offense" to the new Capitalist world order that rose following the end of the Cold War, Mugabe changed his title into something the West would be more willing to accept.

unless it's to show how little good the Catholic Church has done in fixing him.

Mugabe doesn't have jack shit to do with the Church.

[K. A. Pital]

Sorry if this seems like a nitpick, but calling witch hunts and execution of heretics as a "medieval Holocaust" is either a gross exaggeration of their scope

Oh, certainly, I wasn't the one who called them that. Besides, I think that overusing the description of Holocaust (a fairly unique event) towards other mass crimes is just plain incorrect. I thought it was just funny how he rambled about Diderot while saying medieval RCC was not as bad as it's painted. Duh.

This is not to say that Marxist are explicitly anti-gay, but there certainly is a well known precedent for it in Marxist(Maoist, Leninist, whatever) nations.

Leninism (as the revolutionary set of legal code policies in the 1917-1934 USSR) is pro-gay, big surprise to you. Like I said, if you can't even get your history right, you should probably be struggling hard to keep a semblance of civilized debate.

Would you deny that Hugo Chavez is basically a Marxist? Is the problem the fact that I keep using the word "Marxist?"

If this is the case, let me make something clear, I make NO differentiation between "Socialism" and "Marxism."

You're an idiot then, because socialism predates Marxism, and there are like hundreds of variants of socialism outside the Marxist movement. Hugo Chavez is a neo-Marxist, but that's because he himself actually said his policies build on Marx (I distinctly remember that). On the other hand, you've offered no proof of Mugabe endorsing Marxism or utilizing it as an official political doctrine.

A formerly "Marxist" leader magically becoming a "Democratic President" as soon as the Iron Curtain falls fits this bill perfectly.

In that case many post-Soviet nations are still Marxist, since they are led by former Marxists very often. However, that doesn't follow, since many of them are ultra-capitalist and violently so. You're either being very stupid, or very ignorant, or both.

The Church has no more pedophiles than any other comparable institution.

You have a statistical proof of that? I am ears. Where are the criminal records and their analysis? I want to see you back it up.

There is nothing speaking for it either. However, the politcial situations in many "Communist" nations speak for themselves. ... This is not to say that Marxists are explicitly anti-homosexual, but there certainly is a well known precedent for it in Marxist(Maoist, Leninist, whatever) nations.

So the fact that the USSR was the first nation to decriminalize homosexuality is irrelevant here? Why?

And why is the influence of Stalin discounted? Why did you avoid talking about the majority of Communist East European nations (Soviet Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, etc.) - they all had no criminal penalties against homosexuals, the only European nations persisting with it being the USSR itself (thanks to Stalin once again) and Romania.

You're saying there's a known precedent for criminalizing homosexuality it communist nations, but that precedent is not universal. On the other hand, Britain, Germany, et cetera were far from communism and still criminalized homosexuality. This is hardly a trait unique to Soviet nations, and most of this is the influence of Stalin. So you're basically admitting that there's no universal trend, not even historically, for Marxists to be anti-gay, and yet you manage to say that "there's a precedent"? So what? There's a lot of precedents like that in non-communist nations as well. You are completely ignoring all positive and often ground-breaking for gay civil rights examples (early USSR, Eastern Europe, late-era Cuba, etc.) - why? Because they don't fit your worldview?

Condoms are not "100% successfull".

Statistically they offer the highest level of protection possible, and their failures are statistically small, and often stemming from incorrect use actually. So yes, 100% was a hyperbole. But with correct usage, they offer 98-99% protection, and that's basically as high as you can get from a mechanical protection device, isn't it?

So you're just nitpicking a point that still stands. Good, because that will get you into HoS in no time.

[Samuel]

Yes....How is this relevant?

I'm pointing out a factor that explains why certain communist countries were against homosexuality and others weren't. Interestingly ones that lacked these traits were the ones that legalized homosexuality, suggesting that in the absence of other factors communists will be fine with homosexuality.

Which proves that they are fundamentally similar. One simply adds upon the foundation the other provides.

Except Marx believed that it would be caused by the concentration of capital and would trigger a revolt amoung the industrial workers- something that would occur in the most developed countries first. By contrast Maoism goes for the rural population and claims to develop a revolution from there. They aren't fundamentally similar- Maoism adds upon Marxism, but in the completely opposite direction of the Marxism.

All left-wing movements in any way relevant to this discussion certainly were.

Fair enough.

Sure it does. The Constitution was a very Lockean document. Property rights were a central focus of the Founding Fathers in nearly all aspects of forming the Constitution.

Rather than simply allowing the state to seize property at will in the name of the state's interests (as was the standard for European Monarchies at the time), it forces the government to provide restitution. This was a rather radical move for its day.

The government also has the ability to print the money that it uses to provide restitution. As for providing restitution many successful land reform movements (including ones the US were opposed to) actually paid for the land they were seizing.

This is a very "left-wing" oriented modern interpretation of the Constitution. The Founders undoubtedly recognized the importance of requisitioning resources in times of crisis and the other matters to this effect. However, if the focus of this line in the Constitution was to simply serve the "common good," they could have just declared that the state could seize whatever it pleased as the European Monarchies could.

Instead, they chose to focus on the right of individuals not to have their property randomly seized in the name of state interests.

Actually that is because people complained about how the constituion could be used that way and they added on the bill of rights to convince people that the government wouldn't do something like that.

The problem with land distribution in most Third World countries is that they totally reject the notions I mentioned above. Largely due to Marxist-influenced views on property rights and "revolutionary" rhetoric, these nations simply decide to seize and "nationalize" everything.

Not surprisingly, this doesn't work particularly well.

Except that there have been land reforms that included compensation. These were still counted as socialist.

Once again, how do you think Marx came upon most of his ideas? His notions of collectivism and revolution were hardly new. He simply put a new spin on them.

He ripped off Hegel for most of his stuff? I'm not really up on mid 19th century Germany.

Did I say that it was? In any case, this has not stopped many regimes from using Leninist principles to bash homosexuality.

What Leninist principles? Leninism was based on a revolutionary party being a vanguard for the revolution and triggering it in advance instead of waiting for it to be inevitable.

I dunno...Why are 90% of the people on this board devoted to tearing down the Church (and don't even pretend like they're not)? Prejudice is not often a rational thing.

Actually given that a good portion opening admit to being anti-theist this isn't "pretend they are not". Some of course do so because they are of rival faiths, but for those of us atheists it is because the Catholic Church is the biggest religious organization on the planet and since you can get the largest benefit taking down no 1 we aim for that. Of course we go after every other faith whenever they pop up and claim to be a force for good.

Marx is to "Socialism" what Thomas Jefferson, Locke, or Rousseau are to political Liberalism. They may not have invented these ideas, but they are primarily responsible for making them popular.

Rousseau wasn't a political liberal. Thomas Jefferson's ideas were rejected in the US.

Also Marx didn't make socialism popular. The USSR made socialism popular.

None of this really disproves what I said earlier. In order to "minimize social offense" to the new Capitalist world order that rose following the end of the Cold War, Mugabe changed his title into something the West would be more willing to accept.

Political opportunism does not count as political correctness.

[TheKwas]

I think it's pretty clear at the moment that Knobby doesn't understand anything about communist ideology beyond "lots of socialism and BAAAAAD".

So far, we have had:
Stalinist economics: Apparently occured/is occuring in Zimbawae
Maoism: Just Marxism with a Nationalist Chinese slant, despite existing in Peru, Nepal, and countless of other non-chinese countries.
Leninism: Causally correlated with anti-homosexual policies.
Leninist principals: Used to bash homosexuals.
All socialism is Marxist: This speaks for itself.
Land redistribution: Only Marxists do it.

The trend is pretty obvious this far. Knobby has the following thought process when it comes to politics.

Step A: Is it bad in Knobby's worldview?
Step B:If yes, connect it to communist country, claim it is thus part of communist ideology and try to put a famous communist's name in front of it. History be damned.

[Knobbyboy88]

After looking back over the last dozen posts or so, I have come to the conclusion that a few certain posters have been increasingly seeking to simply nit-pick my arguments for sheer obstinate nit-picking's sake. I feel that this has lead to the spawning of quite a few irrelevant tangents in this discussion and a large degree of "missing the point" in general on both sides.

To quote Frank Herbert...

Above all else, the mentat must be a generalist, not a specialist. It is wise to have decisions of great moment monitored by generalists. Experts and specialists lead you quickly into chaos. They are a source of useless nit-picking, the ferocious quibble over a comma. The mentat-generalist, on the other hand, should bring to decision-making a healthy common sense. He must not cut himself off from the broad sweep of what is happening in his universe. He must remain capable of saying: "There's no real mystery about this at the moment. This is what we want now. It may prove wrong later, but we'll correct that when we come to it." The mentat-generalist must understand that anything which we can identify as our universe is merely part of larger phenomena. But the expert looks backward; he looks into the narrow standards of his own specialty.

I. On the issue of Robert Mugabe

It's time that we simply face facts here. Mugabe is every bit the "Marxist" that Hugo Chavez or any other similarly "Left Wing" leader can be said to be. He has very clearly been an open advocate of the Marxism (and Marxist derived ideologies) in the past, and he continues to advocate policies and rhetoric that are suspiciously reminiscient of those advocated by other Marxist leaders around the globe to this very day. You quite honestly cannot deny this fact.

Land redistribution is one of these policies.

The only real arguments my opponents have been able to bring up to dispute this fact at all lie in semantic defitions of the word "Marxism" and baseless and frankly irrelevant speculations about how "just because Mugabe said he was a 'Marxist' doesn't mean he was one."

I'm sorry, but....Are you people freaking serious?

Where the first claim is concerned, if you want to make the case that Mugabe's actions haven't been in keeping with the "ideal" definition of Marxism as set out by Marx *or any other number of other similar Leftist philosophers* (*the fact that I actually have to explicitly state this speaks to just how nit-picky this argument has truly become), that is absolutely fine. However, it is also completely irrelevant to this discussion. Frankly, not one "Marxist" (*Leninist, Maoist, Stalinist, whatever...) regime has actually lived up to this "ideal" standard.

Bottom line: It is a moot point.

Where the second is concerned, simply use Occam's razor. What is more likely? That Mugabe is what he claims to be (*or at the very least believes some variation thereof) , or that he is secretly involved in some incredibly vague conspiracy to deliberately mask his true motives?

Would it even be relevant if he was? In a word, no! It is very likely that some combination of the two is truly the case. This need not be a false dilemma.


To be perfectly honest, ALL OF THIS is absolutely irrelevant to the original topic of this debate. Mugabe was only even brought up to begin with in order to demonstrate that...

A) Most of Africa's problems aren't due to overpopulation, but extraordinarily incompetent leadership.
B) Zimbabwe is a state in which a "non-abstinence" approach to solving the AIDs epidemic has failed miserably.



II. On the Issue of Leftist ideology

Obviously, Marx is not the basis of all Left Wing ideology. He himself simply built upon what other philosophers scholars had already developed.

Once again, however, this is ALL completely irrelevant to the topic at hand!

Marx IS one of the single most influential Left Wing philosophers in history. He was a founding member of the First International. You would have a hard time finding a single Leftist ideological system which has not been in some way influenced by his ideas.

Marxism's nearest competitors, Anarchism and Democratic Socialism, hold no where near the same level of historical or international political power and influence. This is especially true in the case of Third World nations. If you want to include Left Wing ideologies which were not influenced by the various Internationals in this figure, the comparison only becomes even more lopsided!

Once again, it is a moot point.


Furthermore, Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism are all derivatives of Marxism and are all historically interrelated. What in the Hell is the point of quibbling over this issue? Frankly, I don't even really care to know much more about them than this. ALL are failed ideologies, and ALL are no longer followed in any meaningful political circles.

ALL are simply varations of the same general concept.

Like those points mentioned above, this whole tangent amounts to little more than an irrelvant red herring where the issue of Mugabe's political affiliation is concerned.


III. On the matter of Homosexuality in Marxist nations.


I never claimed that anti-Homosexual agendas were an explicit tenant of Marxism or the politcial Left. I simply pointed out the fact that the Communist World was hardly a bastion of tolerance where this issue was concerned.

Additionally, it is an undisputed fact that many Communist regimes actually used Marxist principles in order to justify their anti-homosexual stances. The claim that homosexuality was some kind of "plague" caused by the "decadence" of Capitalism was hardly uncommon.

The cultural reasons why this may have been the case are completely irrelevant. Frankly, isn't Marxist philosophy supposed to transcend such influences anyway?

[Samuel]

Land redistribution is one of these policies.

Land redistribution is not a Marxist policy. Remember how under communism all property belongs to the government is held in common by the workers?

Frankly, not one "Marxist" (*Leninist, Maoist, Stalinist, whatever...) regime has actually lived up to this "ideal" standard.

As for implementing policies, Castro actually got pretty close. He is the only one that off the top of my head implemented the idea of linking schools and industrial labor.

Besides, we aren't talking about results (given the whole failure of utopian goals), but the methods they have used.

What is more likely? That Mugabe is what he claims to be (*or at the very least believes some variation thereof) , or that he is secretly involved in some incredibly vague conspiracy to deliberately mask his true motives?

A one man conspiracy? Have you never heard of politicians lying in order to stay in power? That is why we have to look at his policies in order to determine what he is.

A) Most of Africa's problems aren't due to overpopulation, but extraordinarily incompetent leadership.

Most of Africa's problems are due to poverty. Poor leadership means stay the same and overpopulation means the situation will actually get worse. It isn't like the factors can be taken apart- added together they start to snowball.

Additionally, it is an undisputed fact that many Communist regimes actually used Marxist principles in order to justify their anti-homosexual stances. The claim that homosexuality was some kind of "plague" caused by the "decadence" of Capitalism was hardly uncommon.

Oh come on, Mao blamed pollution on captialism. Blaming things they don't like on capitalism is what communists do for a living.

The cultural reasons why this may have been the case are completely irrelevant. Frankly, isn't Marxist philosophy supposed to transcend such influences anyway?

I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is no.

[K. A. Pital]

Land redistribution is one of these policies.

You claimed that Mugabe is employing Stalinist economics. Either you know fuck nothing about Stalin and the collectivization of agriculture - i.e. a direct opposite of land redistribution, or you're just trolling the board, in the latter case I wish you good luck. Because you should be well aware that land redistribution occured only under Lenin; later the land was collectivized back by the state under Stalin.

He has very clearly been an open advocate of the Marxism ... That Mugabe is what he claims to be

Show me. Show me how he claims it.

I simply pointed out the fact that the Communist World was hardly a bastion of tolerance where this issue was concerned.

Neither was the capitalist world.

Additionally, it is an undisputed fact that many Communist regimes actually used Marxist principles in order to justify their anti-homosexual stances.

There's nothing in Marxism to justify it.

The claim that homosexuality was some kind of "plague" caused by the "decadence" of Capitalism was hardly uncommon.

Your source being? I mean, I've just shown you like a dozen of examples of communist nations which were not anti-gay. You proceed to claim that some nations were anti-gay. So what? I mean, what are you trying to prove? Marxism is anti-gay?

The cultural reasons why this may have been the case are completely irrelevant. Frankly, isn't Marxist philosophy supposed to transcend such influences anyway?

Yes, it should. But you can't just completely wither away 1000 years of cultural history with a new ideology. That's impossible.

Condoms- An artificial contraceptive device composed of rubber that is believe to be 85-95% successful, if used correctly.

Condom Promotion- The promotion of condoms in schools as the most effective source of preventing aids. This usually includes terms such as "safe sex". The clases usually end with a condom hand out. Condoms are also not considered a last resort.

Hmm. I don't know where you live. Here in Russia there's "safer sex" (not "safe sex" any more), and I heard it's the same in other (Western) nations too. The condoms are promoted (at least here) in school only with a clear explanation that other measures (including preventive HIV-screening, which the women/man should never be shy to demand of his/her partner) should be used to ensure safety.

Condoms are clearly not considered a "last resort" and the advisors recommend everything from pre-screening to picking "non-risky partners" to condoms. I.e. a combined protection strategy.

Now, if there is an educational program which teaches WRONG about condoms, well, that's bad and it should be brought up to necessary quality. However, that's no grounds to rally against condoms, or - worse yet! - deny their use to known HIV-positives, like I said there are incidents in Africa. This is just preposterous.

However, I believe that someone who is a condom user but still partakes in sexually promiscuous behavior is putting himself at an extremely high risk for contracting a sexually transmitted disease, or getting a woman pregnant. For this reason, I believe that promoting slogans like "safe sex" or that condoms will protect you without any need for you to change your behavior is irresponsible. I also do not see any evidence that Uganda ever promoted condoms under my definition.

And you have evidence that such was promoted and led to bad results? Or, that Uganda achieved good results without promoting condoms? As I gathered, Uganda and other sub-Saharan African nations under PEPFAR actually FAILED to stem NEW INFECTIONS, and the improvement in HIV situation was a result of mass ARV provision. And if it fails to stem new infections (which it does, according to the study I referenced), probably abstinence-only doesn't work, right?

[Knobbyboy88]

Frankly Stas, I'm beginning to suspect that the only "troll" in this conversation is you. Are you really just so psychologically invested in defending Marxism that you can't let this go? All of your arguments so far have been nit-picky and evasive and I have already pointed out numerous times that this entire conversation is an off topic waste of time as is.

You claimed that Mugabe is employing Stalinist economics.

No, I claimed that Mugabe was employing a variation of MARXIST economics in Zimbabwe. The best evdence for this lies in his blatantly Marxist rhetoric (Western Imperialism, "Rah Rah! Native Africans," stick it to the White European "bourgeoisie, etca, etca) and the fact that he freaking belonged to a number of Marxist and Marxist inspired politcial movements before coming to power, and only came to power in the first place through a Leftist Revolutionary group!

Honestly Stas, I'm not really seeing how any objective individual can really deny that Mugabe is a Marxist. Whether he is a good one or not is frankly irrelevant.

Show me. Show me how he claims it.

See above.

Neither was the capitalist world.

Relevance?????

There's nothing in Marxism to justify it.

No shit! I have said just that several times!

Your source being? I mean, I've just shown you like a dozen of examples of communist nations which were not anti-gay. You proceed to claim that some nations were anti-gay.

"SOME nations?!" China, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba, and nearly all of Eastern Europe is "SOME" of the Communist world?

So what? I mean, what are you trying to prove? Marxism is anti-gay?

I didn't even bring up this fucking topic. Don't look at me.

Remember how under communism all property belongs to the government is held in common by the workers?

Yes, which is exactly why the government much seize this property before hand in order to parcel it out to "more deserving" peasants. In nearly all incidences in modern history, such policies have been either Marxist/Socialist, or at the very least Marxist/Socialist inspired.

It is no accident that such policies became so prevalent in the Third World only after the Revolution in Russia.

A one man conspiracy? Have you never heard of politicians lying in order to stay in power? That is why we have to look at his policies in order to determine what he is.

Ahem...I believe that I explicitly stated that...

Would it even be relevant if he was? In a word, no! It is very likely that some combination of the two is truly the case. This need not be a false dilemma.

.......................................................................................................................

Most of Africa's problems are due to poverty

Which is largely due to the politcal systems embraced by most African governments.

[K. A. Pital]

No, I claimed that Mugabe was employing a variation of MARXIST economics in Zimbabwe. ... the fact that he freaking belonged to a number of Marxist and Marxist inspired politcial movements

So did Mussolini. Shove your bullshit logic down your sore ass, boy.

Honestly Stas, I'm not really seeing how any objective individual can really deny that Mugabe is a Marxist. Whether he is a good one or not is frankly irrelevant.

So was Mussolini. Shove your bullshit logic down your sore ass, boy.

Relevance?????

You said communist theory is anti-gay, or something to that effect. That's a blanket statement which is full of shit.

"SOME nations?!" China, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba, and nearly all of Eastern Europe is "SOME" of the Communist world?

Russia: decriminalization of homosexuality in 1917, 1924. Recriminalization in 1934 thanks to Stalin personally and his pro-Orthodox policies
.
And "all of Eastern Europe"? You're a liar. ALL Eastern European nations EXCEPT the USSR and Romania did not criminalize homosexuality in the late XX century.

DDR sexologists in 1981 on a pan-COMECON conference investigated which nations among socialist countries of Europe have anti-homosexual laws and the USSR turned out to be the only one with such leftovers (Romanian representatives were not present as Romania by that time went into full autarkia). This means Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and Yugoslavia did NOT have anti-homosexual laws. That's 5 socialist nations, or almost half of those actually existing as socialist nations. You're a liar, and with this I think the topic can be decisively closed. I have no desire to argue with liars.

And lastly, Cuba decriminalized homosexuality recently and pro-gay policies are actively helped by the power, including even a clinic for sex-change operations.

So you're willing to admit you lied your ass out? Or you're still trying to weasel out?

[Samuel]

No, I claimed that Mugabe was employing a variation of MARXIST economics in Zimbabwe. The best evdence for this lies in his blatantly Marxist rhetoric (Western Imperialism, "Rah Rah! Native Africans," stick it to the White European "bourgeoisie, etca, etca)

Marxist economics is the government seizing control of all the nations property. Western Imperialism is from Leninism, not Marxism, "stick it to the man" is not communist rhetoric... really you need to show that he is nationalizing industries for him to really count.

Yes, which is exactly why the government much seize this property before hand in order to parcel it out to "more deserving" peasants.

No, that is land reform. When the government seizes control of the property and runs it, than you can call him a communist.

In nearly all incidences in modern history, such policies have been either Marxist/Socialist, or at the very least Marxist/Socialist inspired.

Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Malaysia were not in the communist camp and they all enacted land reform policies.

It is no accident that such policies became so prevalent in the Third World only after the Revolution in Russia.

It only became popular in Africa and Asia after the revolution because most of those nations were colonies until after the second world war. Land Reform in Mexico was related to the Mexican Revolution which began in 1910. I don't know about the rest of Latin America, but I think the constant intervention of US marines helped deal with some of the related political unrest.

Which is largely due to the politcal systems embraced by most African governments.

Actually it is because they started out dirt poor to begin with, experienced internal unrest/civil wars, lacked infrastructure, lacked an educated workforce, had disease problems, etc.

Also, you mean economic systems- there is nothing inherent in dictatorships or one party states that prevents investment. However, socialist economies can still grow even if not as efficiently as capitalist ones. The problem would be foreign investment which really poor nations need to grow- none of these new nations was big enough to replicate the USSRs growth (although you can get the USSR to subsidize you).

[Knobbyboy88]

So did Mussolini. Shove your bullshit logic down your sore ass, boy.

What in the fuck does Mussolini have to do with any of this? How about you step off of your fucking soap box, stop with the logical-fucking-fallacies and baseless speculation already, and simply admit that all available evidence points to the man being exactly what he fucking claims to be mother fucker.

Once again, all Marxist/Communist/Socialist nations ANYWHERE have ultimately ended up betraying "Marxist" principles in one way or another. Frankly, I could care less if Mugabe fits your obviously far too narrow definition of what constitutes a "Marxist" or not.

You said communist theory is anti-gay, or something to that effect.

I never said anything of the kind. I simply pointed out that Communism and homoseuxality have a sorted history.

DDR sexologists in 1981 on a pan-COMECON conference investigated which nations among socialist countries of Europe have anti-homosexual laws and the USSR turned out to be the only one with such leftovers (Romanian representatives were not present as Romania by that time went into full autarkia).

Good for them! I never claimed that some of these polcies weren't eventually changed!