Godlessness, Leftism, and the World's Holes
One of the least known but most influential characters of early American history is the industrialist Samuel Slater. One of my significant resources in documenting Slater's life and work came from author George S. White, who, in 1836, published his book, Memoir of Samuel Slater: The Father of American Manufactures. I found White's book a fascinating account of early industrial America.
In the introduction to Slater's memoir, while singing the praises of the industrious Slater – he's known today as the "Father of the American Industrial Revolution," – Mr. White also speaks against the "Occupy" fools of the early 19th century:
We envy not those self-styled patriots, whose thirst for office and distinction allows them to deceive and cajole their fellow citizens, by prejudicing them against the talented and enterprising part of society[ – t]hus teaching them discontent, and prejudicing them against the necessary arrangements to promote the general welfare, making them the tools of their sordid selfish policy[.]
Likewise, and no doubt aware of the "bickering caudillos" (military dictators) who plagued 19th-century South America, White contrasts life in the United States with that of South America:
A state of society, not founded the principles of honest industry, must be degraded and low; and like the inhabitants of South America must be wretched miserable. Mankind must be usefully and hono[]rably employed, in order to be virtuous and happy. In proof of this position, compare the condition of South America with the United States, and more especially with that part of the United States manufacturing establishments have come into being and risen eminence. ... South America, particularly that part in the neighbo[]rhood of the La Plata, in the hands of New Englanders, would at once become the paradise of world, did they retain their moral and intellectual habits[.] ...
[In South America, t]he finest fields in the world for agriculture are suffered to remain barren and desolate, or to be traveled by wandering herds. Indolence ... enfeeble[s] the hands and put[s] out the eyes of the inhabitants. Roaming in poverty, filth, and pollution, they are totally blind to their advantages and privileges: they are tossed about by wind of prejudice and passion. Trained to view labour as a degradation, while trampling the most prolific fields and possessing everything requisite, and of the first qualities, for food and clothing, they would be obliged to go naked and starve, were it not for the industry of other nations. As it now is, robbers and assassins fill their streets, and thousands are disappearing by the only species of industry for which they have an adaptation, that of destroying each other.
Sounds like much of South America today – or, if you prefer, and as President Trump allegedly put it, an "s-hole" (or "s-house"). In other words, what makes a society a literal you-know-what-hole hasn't changed much in nearly two centuries. If you want to find these holes of the world, you need look no farther than where godlessness or leftism – often found together – dominate.
Of course, the world's holes are often riddled with poverty. According to Business Insider – and as I alluded to years ago – most of the world's poorest nations are "under authoritarian regimes where corruption is rampant." Few things are more synonymous with modern leftism than corruption and authoritarianism.
Note as well how many of the poorest and most authoritarian nations are run by Islamists. The godless false religion of Islam is an enforced religion with a violent founder, a violent founding, and a violent past and present. Islam is generally repressive to women and to those of other faiths. Islam is typically financially devastating and technologically backward and thus has produced many of the world's holes.
Naturally, the world's holes are filled with filth. Along with garbage, human waste, and nasty water, and no matter what list you use, the world's dirtiest cities are typically also filled with some form of leftism and spiritual darkness. The same goes for the world's most dangerous countries. Note again that those plagued by Islam dominate the list.
Often accompanying danger and filth is death. Unsurprisingly, the nations with the lowest life expectancy are the same ones showing up on the other s-hole lists.
Two hole-producing products of leftist ideology that, in spite of numerous and horrific failures, still plague the world today are socialism and communism. No matter the specifics of the "ism" or the frequency or the scale of the devastation, modern leftists continue to seek to put so much power in the hands of so few.
If you think I'm being unfair to the rest of the world, fret not. Tragically amazing – given our vast amount of rich natural and human resources – the United States has more than its fair share of s-holes. Almost always, these are municipalities where democrats have ruled for decades and where godlessness – typically accompanied by a good dose of hedonism – and leftism – usually called "liberalism" in America – dominate the landscape.
It's not the skin color of the people, but rather rotten political and religious ideologies that produce toilet-like living conditions. Also, the vast majority of people living in the holes of the world are there through little to no fault of their own (except for those who continue to elect Democrats) and, in most cases, need the help of others to escape or improve their conditions. The United States can't import all of those suffering in the world's holes, but we can certainly play a role in exporting what they really need.
The surest way to keep people from living in an s-hole is to provide them with liberty, but not liberty alone. As the great Edmund Burke put it when observing the French revolution, "[t]he effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: [w]e ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations."
Liberty should always be accompanied by the "moral chains" provided by Christianity. Otherwise, you end up with Detroit, St. Louis, Chicago, and Baltimore. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/godlessness_leftism_and_the_worlds_holes.html
Tags
Most of those rwnj progressives voted for trump.
In 100 years Communism murdered 100 Million people. Religion has been around much, much longer and has yet to reach those kinds of numbers.
To be fair, communism had better weapons. Religion had hundreds and even thousands of years with swords and spears. Imagine if they had guns and bombs. Not to mention greater population concentrations nowadays than thousands of years ago.
But there are progressives around who to this day mourn that the wrong country won the Cold War.
Really?? Here on NT? How could I have missed that?
What is their logic to arrive at such an extraordinary conclusion?
The Islamic contestation for India alone, has 80 to 100 million deaths attributed to it....
The 30 year war in Germany, between Protestants and Catholics claimed between 8 and 11 million souls.
Then there were the Crusades .....
and those Popes, all of those empire building greedy Popes....
But there are progressives around who to this day mourn that the wrong country won the Cold War.
Would that be the same country that helped put trump in the WH?
But they would defend the ideology that still committed those brutal acts of savagery.
Really? Someone would defend the idea that one should control the people of a nation by brutality and mass murder?? Because that was the 'ideology' at play.
The most common thing I hear is "That wasn't real Socialism" or "that wasn't real Communism" or "It's still a good idea, it just hasn't been tried the 'correct' way yet".
Is it your view that socialism = brutal, murderous authoritarian rule? If not then you should be one of those people noting that the practices of Stalin, et. al. were not acts of socialism but rather those of a brutal dictator.
Communism is a failed idea that seeks to do away with private property and seeks to take control over resources and production. All attempts to accomplish this, since the writing of Karl Marx became popular among ideologues, have been authoritarian and murderous in nature. On paper it is a bad idea, and in practice it is even worse.
If the people of a society do not want to share economic control over their productive resources (private property) then socialism is not for them. There is no way IMO to force socialism. Forced socialism is an oxymoron - it is illogical.
Also, do you recognize a difference between personal property and private property? If so, what is the difference in your opinion?
When did I give you the impression it was a religion? Otherwise I don't see the point of asking such a question.
i'm not stating that you are saying Communism was a religion but this statement:
In 100 years Communism murdered 100 Million people. Religion has been around much, much longer and has yet to reach those kinds of numbers.
does compare it to religion and defends religion's lack of "numbers" as opposed to Communism. So my question stands: Is Communism a religion ? if its not - then why compare it to religion ?
the original questions dealt with religion and atheism (lack of religion). In fact the original question was:
were there any heinous acts committed against humanity specifically in the name of a religion ?
yet you felt the need to defend religion by talking about Communism and the numbers of people killed for "Communism" as opposed to religion. Why is that ?
Communism is a different thing altogether and doesn't need a religion (or lack thereof) to exist, its independent of religion (or lack of religion) so i'm not sure where the comparison is valid unless you could possibly state that Communism is a religion of some form ? (i'm not arguing with you and telling you that you are wrong or anything, just seeking clarification)
Communism is a failed idea that seeks to do away with private property and seeks to take control over resources and production.
religion shares this idea as well, especially organized religion (tithing etc), yet religion isn't a failed idea, correct ?
No. That was the methodology used. The ideology was Socialism and Communism . I would think you would know the difference between methodology and ideology.
Indeed I do. You are equivocating and given the snark (never a good approach) I will put your own words on display.
Hippocrates of Cos @ 10.1.45 But they would defend the ideology that still committed those brutal acts of savagery .
You wrote that the ideology committed the savagery . And by crystal clear context the 'ideology' you were referring to was 'socialism / communism'. My responding question:
TiG @ 10.1.50 Really? Someone would defend the idea that one should control the people of a nation by brutality and mass murder?? Because that was the 'ideology' at play.
See? You wrote that the savagery was committed by the ideology of " Socialism and Communism" and I challenged you on that.
Two things now:
- Clearly you cannot show me where someone on NT favors the use of dictators using brutality to control their people.
- Distinguish between the acts of power-driven dictators and the propaganda they use to disguise their methods.
It is my view that the only way to achieve the end results is to use force and that there are no examples where that isn't the case. Ending private property and stealing the ownership of one's labor, without a strong and free social fabric that binds neighbors together, inevitably gets resisted.
Of course that would get resisted. Who would want their property confiscated or their efforts usurped? When an authoritarian force seizes resources and takes control over an economy I cannot imagine how that would ever work out well. I think most everyone agrees on that. You, however, label that 'socialism / communism' apparently accepting the smoke-screen presented by the dictators and in complete disregard for the subject matter.
Brutal dictators trying to establish a Socialist utopia .
You think Stalin, et.al. was trying to establish a socialist utopia ?? Good grief man, not even Lenin (who at least had some altruistic tendencies) was trying to accomplish that. Stalin was always after power and clearly would not let anything stand in his way.
Without the hammer of the state there are few peasants and farmers that would use their sickles to farm without profit.
Of course not. But where do you get the idea that socialism calls for people to work without 'profit' (as in direct personal rewards for their efforts based on success in a market economy)?
As I have written to you every time we have engaged on this topic, socialism is not something that will ever arise out of force. At least I see no way it would happen; makes no logical sense to have a system of cooperation based on force - an oxymoron. If socialism ever emerges as the economic system for a nation, the people of that nation will be bringing it about by their desire - not some dictator. It would also most likely evolve over time from something like workplace democracy into the leasing of public resources and ultimately into a distributed system of capitalization where innovation and production are based upon providing direct (vs. indirect) utility to society (according to the wishes of the people) rather than simply generating profit for profit's sake. I see no nation currently that is within even decades of having an economic system based on a sharing of economic control by the people.
With police or military it [socialism] can and has been forced. In the USSR is was with great purges, secret police and a gulag system that forced the change and established a union of Socialist states.
Stalin labels his system of brutality socialism and you accept that as truth without question? There is a wealth of knowledge out there. No excuse to stop at the labels.
All personal property is private property, but not all private property is owned by a single person. A company or group of peoples can own property. If the entity is a group of private citizens then it is private property. But if the entity is the state, and access to the property is not restricted, then it is public property.
Well in this subject matter, personal property is that which we own such as homes, cars, clothing, jewelry, technology, etc. Private property are productive resources that are owned and controlled by a minority (typically the controlling entity is an organization). Public property are productive resources owned by the people (not the state, the people). The three are distinct (non-overlapping).
Clearly I said people support the ideas of Communism and Socialism, and made no mention of people supporting dictators using brutality to control their people.
So what are the ideas of communism and socialism in your opinion?
Can you name an example of Communism that hasn't used force to accomplish its goals?
I cannot name even one example of communism. I can, however, list at least 1/2 dozen regimes that self-label as communist and/or socialist. But that really is rather pointless since it is just playing the label game. ' Stalin and Mao say they are implementing communism so it must be true. ' What is the goal of the nations you consider to have implemented communism? Note: when you describe the goal you reveal your understanding of the subject area of socialism and communism.
Sorry, but Lenin was a Communist revolutionary and his views (called Leninism) was rooted in Marxist philosophy. His "altruism", as you put it, killed as many as 2 million.
The above is how you answered this point by me:
TiG @ 10.1.56 " You think Stalin, et.al. was trying to establish a socialist utopia ?? Good grief man , not even Lenin (who at least had some altruistic tendencies) was trying to accomplish that. "
Included so anyone reading this can see how you ignored my challenge and instead twisted the meaning of my statement to make it sound as though I deemed Lenin an angel. Boo!
The hammer and sickle is the symbol of international communism. I just substituted the meaning of the hammer (the industrial worker) to represent the force used by the state.
I will repeat my opening question: define the ideas (objectives) of communism and socialism as you understand them. Looks to me that you think they are defined as 'whatever the USSR did'.
You seem to dismiss it was Socialism because it wasn't inline with your vision of what Socialism should be.
I did not invent socialism, nor am I a socialist. But I will challenge those who argue a point based on labels alone and ignore all other information.
Some questions for you:
- Can a socialist economy operate as a market economy where competition, supply and demand determine price and and drive production?
- Do all the workers in a socialist economy make basically the same amount of money?
- Do the workers in a socialist economy have freedom to engage in economic pursuits (aka jobs) of their choosing or are they told what they must do?
- Is a socialist economy controlled by an authoritarian state who holds all the cards?
- Are people in a socialist economy enjoying economic freedom (more control over the opportunities they pursue and the money they make) or are they oppressed?
- Does a socialist economy redistribute wealth? That is, take by force earned money and resources from some and distribute it to the less fortunate? (Not talking about normal taxation.)
- Can individuals working in a socialist economy create new businesses, self-organize, compete, earn 'profit', etc.?
Opinion? I prefer definitions and historical examples.Socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods .
Where do you see brutal authoritarian rule in the definition you offered? I have described elements of socialism that would fit into that general definition. Your response is 'the USSR and similar'.
Communism - political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism —a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx .
How does the above definition of communism correlate with the single party brutal authoritarian rule of the USSR, et. al.? Where is the communal control of the economy in the USSR, et. al.? What you had was state control, not communal control.
Sounds like a "no True Scotsman" if you cannot name a single one, except ones that self identify.
If one cannot get past labels. But if one actually digests the subject matter one might understand why socialism (much less communism) could not possibly exist in today's world. No nation may ever be ready for it, but clearly no nation has ever had the means to effect socialism. The ' best ' that any nation has done is to use the labels and promise the promises as a cover for authoritarian rule.
Ending private property and taking control of resources and production. Which is what the USSR and Mao's China implemented to varying degrees.
The goal should be to provide a system where everyone has greater economic freedom. In effect, instead of the productive resources of the economy being controlled by a minority (the government, by the way, is a minority - not just private enterprises) it is controlled democratically by the people with the government serving as a supportive administrator.
There was no challenge for me to ignore there.
You said ' Brutal dictators trying to establish a Socialist utopia' in reference to Stalin, et.al. I challenged your characterization of these dictators. There is no way on the planet Stalin, the prime example, had any intention of establishing a socialist utopia. He use the label socialism as propaganda to engage in taking total control over the USSR. See?
Looks like you think Socialism and Communism is only what you wish it were and that anything else isn't "Real Socialism" or "Real Communism". USSR is just an example, and not even the only example I use. You also seem to think that the USSR was ruled over by only Stalin, while ignoring all their other leaders. I too can put words in your mouth if that is the game you wish to play...
Then show an understanding of socialism that is not USSR or USSR-like. So far that is all you have presented and I have given you tons of opportunity to go beyond the labels.
- Can a socialist economy operate as a market economy where competition, supply and demand determine price and and drive production?
- Do all the workers in a socialist economy make basically the same amount of money?
- Do the workers in a socialist economy have freedom to engage in economic pursuits (aka jobs) of their choosing or are they told what they must do?
- Is a socialist economy controlled by an authoritarian state who holds all the cards?
- Are people in a socialist economy enjoying economic freedom (more control over the opportunities they pursue and the money they make) or are they oppressed?
- Does a socialist economy redistribute wealth? That is, take by force earned money and resources from some and distribute it to the less fortunate? (Not talking about normal taxation.)
- Can individuals working in a socialist economy create new businesses, self-organize, compete, earn 'profit', etc.?
How much do you know about this topic AI?
No, but a mixed economy can. A Socialist state seeks to do away with private property and takes control of resources and production. Since there are no separate groups of private owners who may compete with each other, the socialist economy cannot be driven by markets.
So you have no knowledge of Market Socialism? You can only see an authoritarian state expropriating and controlling and engaging in a command economy. Like the USSR maybe? :)
Not all workers are in the same field or have the same skills.
So you recognize that there is a labor market and that people will generally earn commensurate to their efforts and applicable skills?
Depends on the Socialist state. In many examples, no. But that isn't universal amongst all socialist nations, or even equally applied within those that do dictate some people's career options.
No, it really does not. A fundamental goal of socialism is economic freedom and that absolutely means developing an environment where people are freer to pursue their interests. Do not know how realistic that is, but it most certainly is a goal.
In some cases, yes. But you seem to think they don't count. ... There are also cases where the state is not controlled by an authoritarian despot, but they are in the minority as of yet.
Socialism cannot exist with a state calling the shots. It is the opposite of the fundamental objective - distributed economic control. The presence of a state is at best an administrator - enabling the distributed sharing of productive resources.
Less free than they would be in a capitalist economy, ...
So a society in which everyone was part owner of the businesses in which they worked, engaging in a free market and where the people could encourage (through granting of resources) businesses that meet their needs (e.g. environmentally) is less free than what we have today?
China had an abysmal economy ...
No matter what, you cannot seem to shake labels. It is always 'USSR and similar'. A man on a mission to simply demonize labels and ignore a wealth of information.
Often, yes. Welfare programs, which is wealth redistribution, is heavily associated with Socialism
I was talking about seizing wealth. Every nation has taxation and a certain safety net. That is not an interesting question. I was asking if you think socialism involves the state seizing assets and giving them to others. The welfare programs, etc. are typically associated with social democracies. Do you think a social democracy is socialism?
For an individual to create their own business that would require private ownership over communal or state owned property.
So you have no knowledge of how this is accomplished in socialism? Apparently you think this is not part of socialism.
Self organization?
Nope. Ever hear of workplace democracy?
Isn't that contrary to Communal or State ownership?
Not contrary to communal ownership of the means of production and distribution. Owning a business does not mean owning the productive resources. This is a very fundamental and important concept.
Competition? If the state, or the collective as a whole, owns everything, including the resources, who is there to compete with?
Bingo. Now take this nugget to the next level and figure out the problem with your label-based presumptions. Hint: shared resources used (leased?) by businesses to produce products and services in a competitive market.
Profit? Not personal profit, as the state, or public as a whole, would own the production, resources and its earnings.
The profit (so to speak) goes to the organization (which will pay taxes). It is up to the organization to determine how it uses its profits - distribute to the worker/owners, invest in the business, etc.
Thus far you have shown a good understanding of brutal authoritarian states who label themselves as socialist (or communist) and a dictionary-level understanding of socialism. Oddly you do not even see the differences between those two. I am confident you have never researched methods for achieving socialism such as economic democracy. Unfortunately, I am also quite convinced that you never will. I suspect 10 years from now you will be having this debate with someone else and will deliver the same 'USSR and similar' label-based understanding of the subject matter. Hopefully not.
I recommend you peek under the covers. It really is an interesting (and complex) subject. And do not worry, learning about this topic beyond the superficial label level will not turn you into an evil 'socialist'. 
So basically you have nothing to offer.
Your question compared religion to communism by act of derailing away from Communism to say "well what-about religion?". I brought it back to the original point. You wanted to dismiss the mass murder of Communism by saying "Well didn't religion kill people too". Well Communism killed more and in a much, much shorter time frame. I think the comparison is needed and that context matters. I also didn't say religion lacked the "numbers", but that their numbers were smaller and spread out over a much, much longer period of time. Now you ask if "Communism is a religion." At what point did I give the impression it was? I asked and you said you didn't state I did, but now you ask the same question again. So I must restate my position, when did I give the impression it was?
no, the original question being answered - way up above was a question that was a rebuttal to this:
The only disingenuous thing here is to say that these people weren't following Atheism principles more than anything else when they committed their heinous acts on humanity.
the question (well there were 2) was:
were there any heinous acts committed against humanity specifically in the name of a religion ?
were there any heinous acts committed against humanity specifically in the name of Atheism ?
Communism isn't a religion, so its not comparable to an act committed due to a religious belief, correct ? We know there are killings specifically due to religious beliefs (including in this day and age where they yell their god's name while killing, obviously no other motive is plausible), we know there were wars and blood shed all due to religious belief (it was spawned from religion, or the religion was "recruiting" in larger numbers etc). Who committed a murder and said "this was done in the name of Communism !" ? Communism isn't dependent upon a religion nor lack of religion. Comparing them both gives off the impression that the motives are the same - as in either Religion is a political theory or that Communism is a religion.
Ironically enough you did seem to try to defend Communism and Atheism by ignoring the reality of Communism's brutal history only to say "well what-about religion?".
definitely not a defense of Communism nor Atheism nor Religion. Atheism is independent of Communism and not exclusive. I have yet to hear of any heinous acts committed by someone specifically with the motive that there is no god. If you have any examples - please share them. (there is a possibility of it existing - which is why i leave it open to someone giving examples)
When has religion, specifically the Jewish and Christian religion, sought to do away with private property and taking over resources and production? I am aware of no such examples of such. Even the worst acts committed by the Spanish to exploit land, resources and peoples in the New World were heavily condemned by the Church. The Church didn't have a standing army in order to achieve the goals that are at the core of Socialism and Communism.
it seems there is a bit of a debate about that with the Christian religion -- -- in the Jewish religion and Christian religion there is a call to give up private property, donating it if you will, for the good of the religion. Doesn't the Christian religion state that the wealthy can't get to heaven ? (more or less). Its an interesting debate. Of course, how do you explain the requirement for tithing (common with Mormons) ? Of course you could state that with Communism, someone is forced to give up private property or face punishment from the government - isn't the same true with Religion as well ? the only difference is that for Religion - your "punishment" will happen after you die (you won't get into Heaven), correct ? Seems there are some similarities.
thank you for the debate so far, i'm enjoying it
Where in the definition does it specifically exclude the possibility of brutal authoritarian rule?
Where does it include it? Where is brutal authoritarian rule a property of socialism? See when defining terms we typically list the attributes that qualify something as fitting the definition. What distinguishes capitalism from socialism? Certainly nobody could argue that capitalism is that without brutal authoritarian rule, right? Even in the (very basic) definitions provided by a dictionary we can see the major distinction between the two. Capitalism = private (minority) control of the production resources. Socialism = public (majority, collective) control of the production resources. That distinction is simplistic because there are all sorts of ways in which this can be accomplished. So what one must also understand is the intent behind the distinctions. That is, why would a system seek collective control of production resources?
I should ask you that question but I will just go ahead and answer The intent is to have distributed control over the economy so that each citizen in the society plays a more significant role in shaping the economy. This is often labeled 'economic freedom'. Now you could argue that such a goal is unrealistic (and we would probably find some areas of agreement). But you are not even there. Instead you have (and no doubt will continue to forever) stubbornly insisted that socialism = whatever the USSR, etc. did. That is, total control by a brutal authoritarian state. They self-labeled as socialism / communism and you (and many others) accept that as the operative definition while flat out dismissing the content (objectives, principles, proposals) of this complex area.
Look at the former USSR, your prime example, and you see brutal authoritarian rule, a command economy run entirely by a single-party state. The operatives of this state were a small minority yet were the privileged class. The people - the majority - in contrast were subservient to the authoritarian state. Per my opening question, who would promote a system of brutality and oppression? And how does anyone with even the most basic understanding of the concepts perceive socialism in a system where the bourgeoisie rule the proletariat (using the original language of Marx)? Where do you find socialism (much less communism) in the former USSR? Where was the economic freedom? Where do you find the people participating in the decisions that ultimately affect their economic lives? Where do you find people participating in the sharing decisions of the productive resources of the nation?
The former USSR had minority control over the means of production and distribution. You can play semantic games and label that 'state control' and declare 'see? socialism!' but that ignores (or totally misses) the purpose of socialism. Socialism was never meant to empower an almighty state to control the lives of the citizens (especially if said control is brutal). Quite the opposite. The concept of state ownership/control in definitions is a reference to the state serving as an administrator for sharing - an agent of the people. If the state is calling all the shots and the people are simply trod upon, that is the exact opposite of socialism. ( Do you really think socialism / communism grew popular among the people in the 19th century because they were in favor of a system where an oppressive state called all the shots? )
This grows increasingly ridiculous when one considers the USSR, et.al. labeling itself communism. Communism, as coined by Marx, was indeed an end utopia-like state (albeit vaguely defined). Socialism was (per Marx) a means (a path) to communism. The distinguishing characteristic of communism (at least per Marx/Engels) is that the society has evolved to the point where state administration is no longer necessary. In simple terms, communism = socialism where the state is obsolete (and gone / unnecessary).
It is thus amusing and sad to observe, even in 2018, people continuing to run with labels alone. The labels themselves are blatant contradictions. The USSR was, if anything, an all-encompassing powerful state which described itself as communism (and ultimately in reference to that defined by Marx) yet it was the polar opposite of stateless. But Stalin, Mao Zedong, et. al. said it was communism so there you go ...
Based on the lack of response I presume you are off doing research. 
If you can spare 1 1/2 hours (this is actually efficient), here is a video that provides a glimpse into the minds of socialists and also illustrates why I have routinely suggested that this is a rich and complex area of serious thought. You will note, maybe, that what these men are discussing bears almost no resemblance to what you have described.
Here is a link to the domestic initiatives that Gar is referencing.
Their actions can be compared if one wants.
you could try if i hadn't stated a specific motivation - religion (or non-religion)
The OP stated that Communist leaders have been Atheists and their political systems have restricted or banned religion. On those grounds alone they can be compared without making a claim that Communism is a religion.
so the OP is stating that Communist leaders were killing specifically in the name of NO religion (or no such thing as God) ? if that's the case, then its comparable to those who have killed specifically in the name of A religion , right ?
A Communist ruler that murders millions doesn't need to state it was done in the name of Communism. The end result is the same.
absolutely they do for this comparison - since there are people today who are killing specifically in the name of their religion and making it known that this is their specific motivation. For some reason you keep trying to deflect from this fact, almost as if you are defending it.
Usually their motive is disdain for religious people or religious institutions. Stalin's banning of religion, or an Atheist shooting up a church in Texas are easy enough examples of such behavior.
so they have both stated at some point that their heinous acts were done specifically because they hated religion or believed in no religion ? you do realize that Stalin was religious at one point, right ?
it seems like Joseph Stalin's motivation was power - he didn't want religion during his reign because he knew there'd be loyalty to someone (or something) else besides him. It doesn't look like his motivation was due to NO such thing as god - unless you can prove otherwise.
it also seems the motivation for the Texas Church shooting was not due to religion (or non religion):
it does seem he was an Atheist - they state he kept posting about Atheism, but that wasn't his motivation for the shooting. I'm asking about a specific motivation - religion (or non-religion) .
Before I address your latest round of responses let me note that there is a substantial difference between state controlled and public controlled MoP/MoD. If the public (as a collective) does not control (ultimate source of power) the MoP / MoD then you will not have socialism. Whether the MoP / MoD are controlled by capitalists in the private sector or by officials in the public sector, one still has minority control over the MoP / MoD. It is the minority control aspect that distinguishes capitalism from socialism.
This means that a state could indeed be fully engaged in the running of a socialist economy but only if it was administering the wishes of the ultimate source of power - the people - the collective. The USSR, et. al. used a state-run and state- controlled economic system. The state called the shots - not the people. The people, in fact, were oppressed by the state - the exact opposite of socialism. Even socialism as conceived by Marx (versus modern models).
When trying to evaluate if socialism is in effect for a nation, follow the power. Who ultimately controls the MoP / MoD? If it is a minority (do not care what the minority is) then you have capitalism. If it is the people (collectively) then you have socialism. From that point one can delve into the various forms of the capitalism or socialism at play.
So those who argue that the socialist-by-name nations such as the former USSR, China, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. are indeed socialist necessarily must attempt to make the case that in these systems the people were predominantly in ultimate control over the productive resources (the MoP / MoD). Hardly.
That established ...
Your question was about a Socialist economy, not the theory of "Market Socialism" or "Mixed economy".
You do not consider market socialism to be socialism?? Wikipedia has an overview on market socialism that would be a decent starting point (but just a starting point).
Yet you seem to always fall back to the USSR?
I could always list (as I have several times) USSR, Red China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. but that is awkward. Given you focused on the USSR I figured that using USSR as the exemplar for what you think is socialism was sufficiently clear.
But most places with Socialized medicine find themselves losing their skilled doctors to nations that pay better, like Canada or the UK for example.
I agree with what you wrote, but in the context of a debate on socialism what you wrote is absurd. Do you consider Canada and the UK to be socialist nations? Do you consider theirs to be socialized economies ? Offering medical services as a public offering managed by the state is independent of the economic system. Test: when the USA eventually adopts a single payer model will we ipso facto be a socialist nation?
No, not really. The goal of Socialism isn't economic freedom, but rather economic equality/parity.
Maybe you should go set all these socialists straight because clearly they are not listening to you. You think socialists are devising ways to ensure everyone has the same economic rewards regardless of their contributions? Where do you get this stuff? More egalitarian yes because that is a condition of distributed economic control. A goal to make everyone equal / on parity is not only impossible, it is distasteful and truly stupid in terms of socio-economic factors. No, that is not what socialists seek.
It also doesn't do much for the GDP of the nation or the earnings of the citizen. Even China had to Reform their economy and become a consumer based economy that loves the benefit of quasi-capitalism.
Definitely a good move to go from strict authoritarian state / command-economy to one in which there is more participation from the producers and consumers. Now if they continue in that direction that might eventually evolve into a socialistic economy (to match their label) or even a capitalist economy with more economic freedom. (Doubt it though.)
Actually it [ socialism ] can and most often does operate with the state calling the shots.
Only for those who think an authoritarian state = socialism. A state administering resources is not 'calling the shots'. One that takes the power from the people is calling the shots and in so doing is not socialism. Socialism is about economic empowerment of the people (as a collective) - not economic empowerment of government operatives.
The state is suppose to work for the people, instituted by the people.
I am surprised to read this. This is indeed an attribute of socialism. So when a state controls the people how can you fail to realize this makes socialism impossible? This is one key reason why your primary example (the former USSR) was socialism in name only. The state controlled everything. The people were cogs in a machine with very little economic (or socio-political) freedom.
But often when power is handed over to a top heavy government it can, and often has, become despotic.
The normal condition in all of history is authoritarian rule. One might consider it the default condition. So those with half a brain would not seek to hand such power to government. Right? Would we not seek the opposite?
Being an Authoritarian state doesn't mean they stop being being a Socialist state.
An authoritarian socialist state is an oxymoron. Why would ordinary people be in favor of socialism if they understood it to be nothing more than an oppressive authoritarian state that controls everything (and, by the way, kills citizens by the millions to maintain its control)? Just a little critical thinking should raise at least that question and the question should drive one to seek the answer. In the process one will discover that those who think the former USSR, et. al. were engaging in socialism (other than in name only) are those who do not understand this subject matter.
If they have a Free Market then they are not a Socialist nation. A Free Market, by definition, is an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. Key words are "unrestricted" and privately owned". Socialism is heavily restricted and publicly owned.
From where did you get this demonstrably wrong idea? If a nation labels itself 'socialist' then you say ' Yes Indeed! - you state you are socialist so therefore you are socialist ' but when it comes down to how socialism is actually defined (in detail) you reject it as 'not socialism'. Someone who says that socialism cannot be based on a market economy needs to buy a clue. (By the way, a socialist economy could indeed be a planned or command economy but even today nobody really knows how to pull that off - market based economies for commodities is still vastly superior.)
And you seem to only accept labels that fit your puppy dog, fluffy cloud delusion of what Socialism can or should be.
It is not my puppy dog, I did not invent it. I am just sharing information with you and watching you (in amusement) ignore everything that does not fit a simplistic cold war era model. If you did do some reading you would know that this puppy dog is a sophisticated and complex body of work that is essentially the polar opposite of the simplistic understanding you have presented throughout.
Taxation is a form of seizing wealth, and Welfare is a form of wealth redistribution. The only way this is done without seizing wealth and redistributing said wealth is by voluntary Charity.
Miss the point? You had written " Welfare programs, which is wealth redistribution, is heavily associated with Socialism ". Again the presence of welfare programs, taxation, wealth redistribution is not a defining characteristic of socialism since the USA and most every established nation on the planet has these mechanisms. Is the USA a socialist nation?
Also, since you characterize taxation a form of seizing wealth are you against taxation? After all seizing wealth cannot be a good thing, right?
Typically? But there are examples where it is done by non-social democracies, correct? ...
What does the word 'typically' mean to you? When I wrote: " The welfare programs, etc. are typically associated with social democracies." you clearly read the word 'typically' (you repeated it) and then put forth a response as if the word was not there?
Do you think Free Market capitalism is Social Democracy? Do you think Authoritarian Socialism is Social Democracy? See how this game can be played two ways??? Because I can play just like you if that is what you would prefer???
Well first off I am not playing a game. (You are.) I am asking a question based directly upon your comment. Why refuse to answer my question? It was not a difficult question to answer: " Do you think social democracy is socialism? "
They [ workplace democracies ] don't exist, as even a Union doesn't really accomplish that.
Since when do they not exist? All you had to do was review the links I provided and you would know better. Just Google to get working examples of workplace democracies.
Very much in contrast of private ownership.
Well yes, worker-owned organization is quite in contrast to private ownership. We are talking about a different method of organization after all - one that is intended to be more democratic. The contrast is actually the point.
But owning a business does require owning the profits and the risks.
Correct. A workplace democracy benefits from its profits and runs the risks of losses. The internal organization does not change the fundamental dynamic of a business in a competitive market.
You seem to think you can privatize the business, but socialize the risks or rewards.
Not even close to what I described. Besides, I have spent almost no time expressing my opinions (positive and negative) on socialism. Most all my comments are just regurgitating facts you could have researched on your own.
That's not how private business is done. Unless you want to talk about Crony Capitalism/Socialism or Corporatism, where that is the case.
You are off on a tangent here based on your privatize business, socialize risks/rewards nonsense.
If the resources and business are all publically owned the only competition can be with themself or another nation.
Square zero (again). As I stated, the business itself (the organization) is owned by the workers. Everyone who works in the workplace democracy is part owner of the business. Indeed, in most models the compensation of each worker is essentially profit sharing. So you should now understand that the business itself is owned by the workers. The resources of the business (and here we are talking about means of production and distribution) are (in effect) leased to the business. Imagine a shoe manufacturing company. The building, land, equipment, etc. are the productive resources the business uses to produce its products (shoes). These are leased. But the shoes it produces (the results of its labor) are sold for 'profit' in the market. The 'profit' is then owned by the business. The business (the owners) then decide what to do with the 'profit'. The competition (the differentiation) comes from normal sources. Two shoe manufacturers would produce different types of shoes at different price points, quality, style etc. They will compete with very different products and will get (typically) different results. They will have different talents in the worker / owners, different views, different strategies and tactics, etc.
Competition requires a business to have different costs and profit margins in order to have a different sell price.
Yes. What makes you think different businesses would have the same costs and same profit margins? That would be tough to pull off even if that were an objective (and it is certainly not an objective). See above - not being different would be quite a feat. Simple answer: do you think a high-end shoe has the same material costs as a low-end shoe? Do material costs vary per design? And look, that is just poking at the cost side. Do you not recognize all the other dimensions of business required to go from raw material to sold products?? You really cannot see the many degrees of freedom that will almost invariably result in two companies naturally not having the same costs and profit margins?
Then that [ 'profit' (by any name) goes to organization which distributes to workers and pays taxes ] isn't Socialism. That's a Mixed-Economy.
Again, where do you get this stuff? It seems that every time I provide you information you try to find some silly way to reject it. Yet you could just as easily look it up yourself. No wonder you do not understand this subject - refusing to consider anything that does not match preconceived notions is classic confirmation bias.
You're talking about the Mixed-Economy style Socialism-lite that we see in the Nordic nations, which have 60% personal taxes on even the Middle Class and 100% Luxury tax on things like cars. And it doesn't even work there as Sweden and Denmark are going broke trying to maintain the cradle-to-grave Welfare state. And their economies have been stagnant for decades, as their GDP's are not even keeping up with inflation.
So you do think social democracy is socialism! That is what I figured. Explains why you avoided answering my question. Well, no, that is absolutely not what I am talking about. The Nordic nations are social democracies - they have a capitalist economy. (Hint: virtually every nation on the planet uses a capitalist economy.) If the MoP/MoD are controlled by a minority you have capitalism. That minority (by the way) could be the operatives of the state.
Even a little basic research would do wonders. Read up on workplace democracy and see the profound difference between that and unionization. Learn why a social democracy necessarily uses a capitalistic economic engine. Understand the difference between social democracy and socialism and social programs. Look up market socialism and learn how and why socialists (and economists in general) typically favor market based solutions for commodities (vs command economies).
I gave you an easy to understand (but very informative) video that alone offers a peek into this area. One speaker, Gar Alperovitz, is engaged in practical initiatives in the USA exploring alternative methods attempting to correlate productive work with the needs of the community. The other speaker, Dr. David Schweickart is the founder of the market-based model known as Economic Democracy. That alone would illustrate how dramatically socialism differs from your USSR/China/Cuba/Venezuela/.... model of oppressive regimes who (successfully) self-label as socialism.
Where does it exclude it?
Already answered that. You are not even reading my answers are you?
Just keep reading from where you quoted:
TiG @ 10.1.72 - Where is brutal authoritarian rule a property of socialism? See when defining terms we typically list the attributes that qualify something as fitting the definition . What distinguishes capitalism from socialism? Certainly nobody could argue that capitalism is that without brutal authoritarian rule, right? Even in the (very basic) definitions provided by a dictionary we can see the major distinction between the two. Capitalism = private (minority) control of the production resources. Socialism = public (majority, collective) control of the production resources. That distinction is simplistic because there are all sorts of ways in which this can be accomplished. So what one must also understand is the intent behind the distinctions. That is, why would a system seek collective control of production resources?
The OP stated that Communist leaders have been Atheists and their political systems have restricted or banned religion. On those grounds alone they can be compared without making a claim that Communism is a religion.
Do you think atheism is a religion??
Democrats used propaganda from Russia non stop from 1917 to 1991 non stop.
Don't sell Obama short. Remember how Mr. Flexibility after the election was so aghast at Romney for suggesting Putin was a threat?
Godlessness, Leftism, And The World's Holes
I'll take those descriptions any day. Better by far than:
Godbothering hypocrisy, Fascism and Holy Whores
Fundies say the darndest thangs. There is nothing like a heaping dose of false grace in the morning /s...
First of all, Islam is not a godless religion ( in truth it is a rip off of Christianity to a large degree), I believe they refer to their god as Allah.
Secondly I must say that one of the founders of modern socialism (Karl Marx) was wrong when He opined that " religion is the opium of the people", it seems to be the PCP of the people of late.
As to the violence, most religions have had more than their fair share of bloodletting over the ages. Yup, Kill a Commie for Christ, after all it's the Christian thing to do. I don't think that Jesus would approve of this brand of Christianity.
Perrie has to decide whether or not she is going to continue to allow Newstalkers to be an anti-Muslim site.
Be careful what you wish for because Anti-Muslim rhetoric and Anti-Christian rhetoric are pretty much the same so if one were banned chances are so would the other.
I don't use any anti-Christian rhetoric.
God is free to smite me any time he wishes. Instead, my life just continues to get better. Go figure.
Perrie has to decide whether or not she is going to continue to allow Newstalkers to be an anti-Muslim site.
Muslims are the adherents, Islam is the religion, please don't confuse the two.
It should be noted that there are also Christian Countries that fit the description of authoritarian and poor.
godlessness in South America ? is someone's Google broken ? let me help you:
oh dear... looks like they aren't godless down there after all, huh ?
Is that supposed to be some kind of justification for biases against liberals? Either way, biases are inherently intellectually dishonest.
Ever watch the series "Brain Games" on Netflix? We are hardwired to believe we know things that we don't. This makes it difficult to communicate honestly.
I wish that I had the link to the 2nd part of the following episode. It asks people to give estimates and it shows how we make up answers to make ourselves feel comfortable.
Are you trying to make us feel bad and even more paranoid then we already are?
'Creed' ? "Just an ILLUSION !"
SOme of us realize, realizing how little we actually know, is a sign of how intelligent we may never become, but actually are.
Agreed. Intelligent people rarely run of questions.
Another interesting study shows that atheists are more intelligent than religious people - probably because we ask more questions.
No. Just sharing an interesting fact that I had recently learned about how our minds work....or don't.
Religious people are more happy
Are religious people happier than non-religious people? The short answer is yes. There has been a considerable amount of research addressing this question and findings tend to indicate that religious people are (or at least report being) happier than non-religious people. There are some studies out there that do not find this effect. However, the lion’s share of the data on this topic suggests that levels of happiness are greatest amongst religious folks.
Atheists are less tolerant also -
Highlights
•
In 3 secular countries, we compared nonbelievers to Christians on aspects of rigidity.
•
Non-believers were lower in self-reported dogmatism, i.e. certainty in beliefs.
•
But were higher in subtly measured intolerance of contradiction and myside bias
•
Results were similar for atheists and agnostics and across the three countries.
•
Religious believers seem to better perceive and integrate diverging perspectives.
thank you for my first headache of the day
LOL..nothing was said about ignorance in the article, but you always spout off without reading anything.
You did not provide any factual support for your comment again. I already asked that you stop trolling. In case you missed it before...stop responding to my comments.
From your link...
Religious people firmly hold beliefs, some of which are implausible or even contrary to the real world evidence.
Do you think this is intelligent?
I don't really care. Doesn't mean they are ignorant either.
As an atheist, I care very much about learning about the world around me.
When I was a Christian, I was taught to reject all knowledge that contradicted the Bible and that some questions should not be asked because Yahweh was in charge of everything and as one of his creations, I was too stupid to understand his divine plan.
look at Jeffrey Dahmer, baptized in prison to become Born Again and get "forgiven".......
meanwhile he constantly made "limbs" out of his meals (with ketchup for blood) to taunt the guards and other inmates
until another inmate killed him for it...
I didn't say I didn't care about learning....your question was in regards to beliefs.
I guess Atheist are more intelligent than all who have beliefs or is it just Christians?
from her link:
do you see "just Christians" in there ?
in fact, i clicked on the link and read the entire article - i can't find "just Christians" or "Christians" specifically mentioned anywhere in the article. Did you read the article ?
Yes it was.
And when learning contradicts beliefs, which do you choose - evidence or belief?
If you choose belief that is implausible or contrary to evidence, then isn't that limiting your ability to learn and understand the world that you live in?
And no actually intelligent person has ever said "my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.".
Because that was your experience does not mean it applies to everyone.
I think many people religious and atheist understand their world, and many atheist and religious people don't even know anything. I believe it is more targeted towards the person than a group.
hence, why studies are fallible.
I've met some really intelligent Christians on the internets and IRL. Calbab is one of the smartest people here and he is definitely a Christian. I've met some dumb atheists, too
You might as well say "Are people who got an "F" on their exams but were told that didn't really matter, they graduate anyway, happier than those who had to actually learn facts and get good grades to graduate?" I'd say sure, they're happy because they got away with doing the least, by relying on their guts for the answers, albeit wrong answers, but if they're never held accountable for their inaccuracies and are allowed to believe them anyway, then sure, they're probably happy about that. Most kids would say they're happier getting candy for every meal of the day, and the reality is it may not catch up to them for decades. Let's just wait and see if their belief they don't have diabetes and rotten teeth overcomes the reality. But they were happy!
It's why Religion has been called the opiate of the masses. Opiates almost always make you feel good in the short term, but end up ruining your life if you rely on them too much.
you come up with very irrelevant analogies.
True.
However, it is truly amazing how much knowledge I have gained when I quit answering questions with "because it is Yahweh's will" or "anyone and everything that contradicts my religious beliefs are wrong, evil and/or sinful".
I am glad you made the best journey for you.
I rather think it was a very relevant analogy. If you took a biology exam and answered all the questions with "God did it" and of course failed the exam, you might be proud of yourself, you might get accolades from other believers for standing up for your religious beliefs. But would you ever actually get a job working in a biology field? Would you be any more educated after having taken the class if you refused to accept scientific findings and just dismissed all the evidence for evolution or science that conflicted with your religious beliefs? You might think you're happier without that knowledge, as they say, ignorance is bliss, but would you really be better off staying in your protected little bubble of belief?
As always throughout the history of belief in spirits, those who lay claim to being the most "godly" or "pious" are the worst humans to be found. This article bears witness to that yet again.
Hardly, when Atheists do evil they usually go big. Really big. I give you the following reminder of some of the finest Atheism has had to offer in history:
- Stalin
- Mao
- Pol Pot
- Jeffery Dahmer
- Jim Jones
Plenty of evil fucks in this world that were Atheists.
Those of faith don't have the "evil" market cornered. Not by a very long shot.
Interesting list.....
Stalin - Greek Orthodox, son of a Greek Orthodox priest and spent 5 years in a seminary.........before rejecting all religion except state naturalism.
Pol Pot- a Buddhist whose education was in Catholic schools before taking the same path as Stalin.
Mao - another Buddhist who remained a Confucianist and Taoist even while attacking all religion and supporting atheism and state naturalism
Jeffrey D - Dahmer was born into a family of devout members of the Stone-Campbell denomination known as the "church of Christ" or "Churches of Christ - largely inactive as an adult
he was baptized in prison and became Born Again.
Jim Jones ? Jones, "obsessed with religion" as a young man, was an ordained pastor of the Disciples of Christ, he lost his beliefs at some point and declared himself to be God. Not a text book atheist.
How can anyone call Jim Jones an atheist?
Yeah, if i was an Atheist i'd try to run away from this list as well but you can't run nearly fast enough
Mincing words. Stalin was an Atheist during his murderous time leading the USSR. He murdered an estimated 3-10 million of his own people, largely for their faith. His government pushed Atheism in schools with organized propaganda campaigns and led a massive terror campaign against the religious in general. Concentrating his ire on his former Russian Orthodox church killing tens of thousand of priest, monks and nuns while razing many churches off the face of the earth. Yeah he was clearly Atheist then.
All undeniable facts no matter how hard you two try to run from them.
So what? When he perpetrated his little present to the world he was clearly Atheist. Once again you can run from the truth but you can not hide.
More rationalizations. The guy clearly was more atheist than a believer. Even by your description. Saying otherwise is simply obtuse.
Again, when he did his thing he was Atheist. Even going as far as to say:
"“if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”
Sounds like an Atheist to me. Ya, you betcha!
Lol and the justifications and rationalizations just keep coming. Jones was quoted as saying he used the Church to bring people to Atheism. His own words. He was clearly an Atheist. So nice try but you need to come up with a better line of BS to cover for Atheists that were evil.
Atheists seem to have a need to go to great lengths to justify their behavior or claim that bad people who were clearly Atheists, are not Atheists. Even defending total pieces for shit like the guys on this list. And yet you have no problem calling our POTUS every shitty name in the book. Folks who go to such lengths are severely disturbed and need help IMO. Their grasp of reality has clearly slipped and/or their cheese has finally slipped completely off the cracker.
If it wasn't such a sad sack attempt to shield their chosen narrative from the basic human nature of evil it would be funny. But it is a very weak justification so therefore it's not funny at all.
Well if you could, ask Jones himself.
It is what he considered himself to be.
As noted above he only used the church to attract people to his bat shit crazy idea of church
And you know Trout, this tantrum of yours is getting a little childish. Don't ya think?
Even if you could prove these dictators and authoritarians were atheists, did anyone you list murder and commit genocide in the name of atheism?
Should we claim all vegetarians are genocidal maniacs just because Hitler was a vegetarian? If he had tried to wipe out all meat eaters on the planet and claimed his attack on other countries were in the name of vegetarianism, then you could claim that as causal, but you can't. It's the same with atheism. Your premise is false on the face of it.
Really? You think Stalin woke up one day and decided to kill 100,000+ Priest/Nuns/Monks in the name of what? The flying spaghetti monster?
That said i agree in concept that one can no more prove the Atheism angle here, beyond a reasonable doubt, any more than one can't. The empirical evidence is pretty damning but certainly not 100% in all cases. But, it's already started, plenty of folks here will try to prove Atheism is not at fault at all. Not in the least and that is obtuse.
Did you miss the implication that they were all atheists as a result of their religious upbringing?
Not running away from anything. Where did I defend them?
Where did I defame our POTUS? NV? Minds? Not likely. Here? Not in my comments.
Your lengthy 'defense' of your statement was an unnecessary wasted rant.
Stalin was baptized and raised Greek Orthodox, went to the Gori Church School that was normally reserved for children of the clergy and was a choir boy. Later his teachers declared he had claimed to be an atheist for which he was regularly locked in a cell. But it wasn't his atheism that he was proclaiming as he formed the Socialist Revolutionary Army and culled the Russian orthodox Church, it was a power struggle and his pure socialist ideology. Stalin was really a lot like Trump, ignorant, bullying and narcissistic. Despite their comradeship, Lenin disliked what he referred to as Stalin's "Asiatic" manner, and told his sister Maria that Stalin was "not intelligent". So really, they had an ignorant bully fearful of losing his grip on power having entire towns torched, not in the name of atheism, but to secure food for his armies, create fear and to consolidate his own power. To try and lay the blame on atheism is simply dishonest and does not reflect the real history of Joseph Stalin.
He didn't do this for Atheism, they were a threat to Communist control.
Don't get me wrong I don't agree with the other posters either. I don't see Theism a the causal factor, power, control, and fear, these are what I see as the causal factors. The only common denominator in all these cases is humanity.
We are the issue, not god, not communism, or any other political/social ideology, it's us!
Irrelevant. The really cogent point here is what they were when they committed their heinous acts. That is to say .... Atheist.
Where did i say "YOU" did? Although you do seem to be holding on to that a little too tightly. Hmmmm?
Interesting that you would bring up NV and Minds ..... right out of the blue. Hmmmm again. That said, i never said YOU did any of that either. Others here clearly do and as often as they can fabricate an opening to do so. Regularly dumping that nasty venom in here.
Yes, i understand why you might find a need to say something like that.
We'll just chalk this you up as a loss for you and leave it at that.
I agree but my point was any presumption that ANY religion or lack thereof somehow has the high ground here is invariably wrong. And for the very reason you mention. Human nature being inherently flawed.
I'm sure there might be some exceptions to that but Atheism certainly isn't one of them. Something that seems to piss off some Atheists to no end.
That point has already been made and answered.
The only disingenuous thing here is to say that these people weren't following Atheism principles more than anything else when they committed their heinous acts on humanity.
were there any heinous acts committed against humanity specifically in the name of a religion ?
were there any heinous acts committed against humanity specifically in the name of Atheism ?
Researched that childish thing yet ?
Your next assignment today is to pick up your Merriam Webster, look up the word "Tantrum" and refresh your memory because it's obvious you've lost any understand you might of had of that word as well.
And I'm sure Trout can defend herself tessy. I never said she couldn't.
Which begs the question, why do you feel a need to defend her tessy?
Agreed, yet it's an all too common presumption.
communism or atheism is the reason ? they are two different things. what would a person shout when killing in the name of atheism ?
i also noticed you conveniently forgot to address this question:
why didn't you answer that question ?
it seems like you should read the following to get yourself educated --
i found this interesting as well:
what are your thoughts on this ?
i also noticed you conveniently forgot to address this question:
why didn't you answer that question ? where exactly did anyone state they were killing in the name of Atheism as you claim ?
It's not the first time either. There's a pattern of ignoring questions or points, especially if they prove him wrong or blow his argument apart.
well it's difficult for anyone to play the victim if they are proven wrong and are actually apart of a system that is guilty for the heinous acts and not the victims of those acts
That reminds me of an episode of