I agree 110% with Joe!

[Ana the Ist]

LOL. No.

Yes.

Communism is an outgrowth of socialism. Various forms of socialism were practiced for decades before communism came along.

Socialism was already a prominent European political/social school of thought by the mid 1810s - see, for instance, the writing of David Ricardo, Saint-Simon, Robert Owen and Charles Fourier.

Communism (at the least in its Marx-Engles form, which seems to be what you're talking about here) didn't appear until the 1840s, and wasn't a prominent feature of European political/economic thought until the 1850s.



Again, no.

Read JS Mill's 'Socialism', where he outlines the significant differences - both in though and practice - between 19th century Socialism and Communism.

Oh wow....three whole decades.

Let's take a look at some of these early socialists...

Socialism - Other early socialists

Blanqui, by contrast, was a revolutionary who spent more than 33 years in prison for his insurrectionary activities. Socialism cannot be achieved without the conquest of state power, he argued, and this conquest must be the work of a small group of conspirators. Once in power, the revolutionaries would form a temporary dictatorship that would confiscate the property of the wealthy and establish state control of major industries.

Hmmm...if I called this Blanqui a Marxist-Leninist instead of a socialist....how would their methods differ?

Let's look at another socialist....

Proudhon memorably declared, “Property is theft!” This assertion was not quite as bold as it appears, however, since Proudhon had in mind not property in general but property that is worked by anyone other than its owner. In contrast to a society dominated by capitalists and absentee landlords, Proudhon’s ideal was a society in which everyone had an equal claim, either alone or as part of a small cooperative, to possess and use land and other resources as needed to make a living.

The fact of the matter is that communists and socialists agree on far more than they disagree. There's a difference in methodology, but that's more recognizable later. Communists became associated with violent revolutions....but it's a method they got from early socialists. There's also a later difference in "who owns property"....but it's much later. Early on, communists and socialists have the exact same ideas about "property being theft" which is a slogan we more commonly associate with communism and not socialism. Is that where the slogan comes from? Communists? No....it's a socialist invention.

 

[RDKirk]

One man? The Early Church, who had this idea long before Marx even was born, was more than "one man".

And are you calling the Early Church and Christianity "dumb"?

Ana the Ist reports as atheist so I'd figure he would.

God does. And He provides it in His Word. And that's why the Early Church was able to do this but the ideal doesn't work when you bring in certain non-Christians.


Well, we could if all people were following God's Word.

Those are critical points.

So Christianity was (is?) a "dictatorship"? Who is the dictator - the Apostles? Christ?

Well, yes, it is, and Christ is the dictator. I could argue that Christianity has the three critical components of fascism, but in reality, fascism is a crude facsimile of Christianity.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

You can interpret the passages of a 2000 year old Jewish sect however you want.

At no point does that phrase appear in the bible.

LOL! You're clearly not familiar with the Bible. Anyway, I just showed that the basic principle of communism clearly comes from the Bible, I even pasted it with the chapter and verses referenced.

I've figured out that in the face of undeniable proof the conservative tactic is to double down on outright denial anyway.

Also, noted that you're a huge fan of the 2,000-year-old-Jewish-Sect Forums. Does atheistforums.com just not cut it for you?

 

[DaisyDay]

No - it isn't. Perhaps you have the fair tax mixed up with a flat tax.

How FAIRtax Works

The FairTax provides a progressive program called a prebate. This gives every legal resident household an “advance refund” at the beginning of each month so that purchases made up to the poverty level are tax-free. The prebate prevents an unfair burden on low-income families. Learn more .

It is an interesting read.​

I see a major loop hole - that corporations aren't taxed and only new goods are taxed. What is to prevent corporations being formed to buy goods, then resell them to its members at used, untaxed rates?

 

[Ana the Ist]

LOL! You're clearly not familiar with the Bible. Anyway, I just showed that the basic principle of communism clearly comes from the Bible, I even pasted it with the chapter and verses referenced.

Again, you're free to interpret the bible any way you want?

You think that communism comes from the bible? Fine.

Also, noted that you're a huge fan of the 2,000-year-old-Jewish-Sect Forums. Does atheistforums.com just not cut it for you?

Are you suggesting I'm unwelcome here?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Again, you're free to interpret the bible any way you want?

You think that communism comes from the bible? Fine.

Nothing really open to interpretation. The Bible and Karl Marx both stated the concept of common ownership and redistribution of wealth such that those in need received according to their need. They aren't using exactly the same words but they are stating exactly the same principle,

Clearly, Marx got the principle from the Bible. Marx was raised as a Christian with a religious education. The main principle of Communism definitely came from Christianity. However, Marx developed atheistic methods for implementing communism and disregarded the Christian framework of the ideal; but the principle is clearly from the Bible. I even provided a link to a Wikipedia article specifically about that.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs - Wikipedia

Are you suggesting I'm unwelcome here?

Hardly. I'm just noting that you deride Christianity by dismissing it as "a 2,000 year old Jewish sect" while at the same time making this Christian Forums website your discussion home on the internet. This Christian website welcomes all but they do also have rules against derision of Christianity.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nothing really open to interpretation.

Sure it is. You want to do a poll and see how many Christians agree with your interpretation?

The Bible and Karl Marx both stated the concept of common ownership and redistribution of wealth such that those in need received according to their need. They aren't using exactly the same words but they are stating exactly the same principle,

Aren't the same words, you say? I'm shocked.

Clearly, Marx got the principle from the Bible.

The guy who said religion is the opiate of the masses and dreamed of a world without it?

Hardly. I'm just noting that you deride Christianity by dismissing it as "a 2,000 year old Jewish sect" .

I'm an atheist. And 2000 years ago it was an obscure Jewish sect. That's not derision, it's facts.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Sure it is. You want to do a poll and see how many Christians agree with your interpretation?

My statement that they are the same saying despite not being the same exact wording is not open to interpretation. If you feel you need a poll to help you comprehend that they by all means create one, but I don't need one to tell me what I can plainly read and comprehend.

Aren't the same words, you say? I'm shocked.

Not exactly, no. Why does that shock you?

The guy who said religion is the opiate of the masses and dreamed of a world without it?

Yes. Why do you question that? It's historical fact.

I'm an atheist. And 2000 years ago it was an obscure Jewish sect. That's not derision, it's facts.

It's belittling and dismissive of what Christians believe. Christ is The One True God and Christianity was not an obscure sect but rather the fulfillment of Judaism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My statement that they are the same saying despite not being the same exact wording is not open to interpretation.

Actually that's exactly what it is...

Definition of INTERPRETING

Don't you understand what interpretation is? Or do you think that somehow you got it right and other Christians got it wrong?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Actually that's exactly what it is...

Definition of INTERPRETING

Don't you understand what interpretation is? Or do you think that somehow you got it right and other Christians got it wrong?

Of course I know what interpretation means - that's how I know I'm not interpreting anything. I'm comparing two similar statements and observing that they are presenting the same thing. The two statements interpret each other and I'm simply observing that they do.

There are a lot of things that I get right that other Christians get wrong. There are probably some things that other Christians get right which I get wrong. But this fact is clear that the basic principle of communism is found in the Bible long before Marx paraphrased it.

It's no different from how The Golden Rule is often restated but in different words, even among different translations of the Bible, and even within the same translation of the Bible in different passages.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course I know what interpretation means - that's how I know I'm not interpreting anything. I'm comparing two similar statements and observing that they are presenting the same thing.

According to the meaning that you personally derive from them aka your interpretation.

We know this for a fact....because they don't say the same thing. You just believe they do.

There are a lot of things that I get right that other Christians get wrong.

I'm sure you think that.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

According to the meaning that you personally derive from them aka your interpretation.

We know this for a fact....because they don't say the same thing. You just believe they do.

They say the same thing albeit without using the same exact wording. You just believe they don't, simply because you choose to, not because of anything logical or rational, but because it fits the subjective and biased story you're trying to tell.

I'm sure you think that.

I just said I do. And I think it because I know it.

 

[mark46]

Is this yet another exercise in semantics? I guess, for you, I believe, rather than know, that the US landed men on the moon and that the world isn't flat.

According to the meaning that you personally derive from them aka your interpretation.

We know this for a fact....because they don't say the same thing. You just believe they do.



I'm sure you think that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They say the same thing albeit without using the same exact wording.

Nope.

just believe they don't, simply because you choose to, not because of anything logical or rational, but because it fits the subjective and biased story you're trying to tell.

You're claiming I'm being irrational yet you're the one quoting the bible.

Do you understand the difference between rationality and faith?

I just said I do. And I think it because I know it.

How do you know?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is this yet another exercise in semantics?

No.

It's rather plain and simple. I can give @ArmenianJohn interpretations of those passages that completely disagree with his.

What would be the point though? Every Christian is free to interpret the bible as they choose and there's really no point in arguing.

It's his opinion, nothing more.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Nope.

Yep.

You're claiming I'm being irrational yet you're the one quoting the bible.

What's irrational about quoting the Bible? Are you saying Christianity is irrational?

Do you understand the difference between rationality and faith?

Absolutely. Do you?

How do you know?

By logical application of facts. How do you know anything?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yep.

Nope.

What's irrational about quoting the Bible? Are you saying Christianity is irrational?

Christianity's claims are based on faith.

Absolutely. Do you?

See above.

By logical application of facts.

Is that what you're claiming now? It's a fact that the bible refers to a bunch of communists who lived in the past?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Nope.

Yep.

Christianity's claims are based on faith.

A few things on this:

1. You claimed I was quoting Christianity/the Bible and that this somehow invalidates my argument, but in fact my argument was about a comparison of two phrases from two sources that while worded differently mean the same thing. My argument is about language comprehension, i.e. that I comprehend it while you do not. My argument isn't about the idea itself, it's about the expression of the idea, regardless of the validity of the idea itself, so it wouldn't even matter how true or valid the idea itself is.
2. Christianity's claims are not based entirely on faith.
3. Faith-based beliefs are not necessarily irrational or rational, just as physical-based beliefs are not necessarily irrational or rational.
4. Why don't you answer my question - are you saying that Christianity is irrational??

See above.

Having seen above I can take that as a "no".

Is that what you're claiming now? It's a fact that the bible refers to a bunch of communists who lived in the past?

In the passage i quoted it most certainly did. Nobody lacked anything because the people who had wealth turned it over to the Apostles so that the wealth could be redistributed to everyone based on their need.

In other words,
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

In other words, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yep.

Nope .

A few things on this:

1. You claimed I was quoting Christianity/the Bible and that this somehow invalidates my argument, but in fact my argument was about a comparison of two phrases from two sources that while worded differently mean the same thing. My argument is about language comprehension, i.e. that I comprehend it while you do not. My argument isn't about the idea itself, it's about the expression of the idea, regardless of the validity of the idea itself, so it wouldn't even matter how true or valid the idea itself is.

I'm going to skip 2, 3, and 4 since you're wrong about 1.

No...you aren't making an argument. You're making a claim, a bare assertion, based on your interpretation of a biblical passage for some reason.

The argument was about whether or not the communist idea for economic redistribution was a good idea or not.

I said not.

In the passage i quoted it most certainly did. Nobody lacked anything because the people who had wealth turned it over to the Apostles so that the wealth could be redistributed to everyone based on their need.

In other words,
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

In other words, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Let's start with the obvious...it says nothing about ability. Nothing. You're just making that part up.

Secondly, it doesn't say that they lived this way continually as opposed to a one time charity.

But let's set all that aside since it has nothing to do with the discussion and you're free to interpret 2000 year old religious texts any way you please...

How did this apostolic commune do? Did it last for centuries or did it fail miserably and end quickly?