Why we oppose communism

[ego licet visum]

was communism the cause? or was capitalism?

 

[Russebby]

Socialism (communism) is responsible for the most heinous crimes of our century (with the possible exception of abortion). Even the horrors of Nazism pale in comparison to the sheer extent, virulence and cruelty of socialist regimes.

And even if we were to consider the millions of deaths in the goulags, the countless victims of the paredón, the vast number of murdered religious people, the refugees, the torture victims and the slaves all as "unfortunate" accidents which resulted from not following Marxism correctly, we are still left with a doctrinal body that is, in itself, very evil.

The right of private property, besides being natural and given to us by God, when preserved, leads mankind to socially and economically much better societies than socialism ever could.

I don't know, I still think that Holocaust thingee was pretty heinous.

Be careful, though, to not lump socialism and communism together. It would be just as fair to lump conservatism and Nazi-ism together.

 

[Russebby]

the only thing communism is good for is war

Since the end of WWII, the US has been in the following wars and semi-wars (by decade):

1950's:
Korea
Nicaragua
Guatemala
Iran

1960's:
Vietnam

1970's:
Vietnam (still!)

1980's:
Grenada
El Salvador
Libya
Lebanon

1990's
Iraq
Bosnia
Kosovo
Somalia

2000's:
Afghanistan
Iraq (again!)

I'm sure I'm leaving a few out, but you get the gist.

And let us not forget the tens of thousands of soldiers we have stationed around the world maintaining the peace, the thousands of soldiers in the DMZ in Korea maintaining the stalemate, and the billions of dollars we spend every year arming the likes of Israel and other states in perpetual warfare.

Seems to me the US is pretty good at waging war as well, kiddo.

 

[Russebby]

In order to seek for equality, a society must open hand of freedom (because freely there is inequality).
But is it worth it? Actually, is equality good at all?

It is very fair that people in higher, more specialized and sought after positions get a higher income than those who perform lower skill jobs. Afterall, they put all the extra effort in it, and are more individually important for others.

And is there anything wrong or bad about getting less? Nothing at all!

Only one's absolute situation matters: if their material conditions are so bad that they have barely any food, no place to sleep, no education, no access to hygiene, etc, then it doesn't matter whether they are poorer or richer than anyone; their condition must improve.
If someone has all their material needs fulfilled (and the GREAT majority of people in 1st world countries do), then they are fine. It doesn't matter if they are richer or poorer than anyone else.

The equality of socialism is unfair, has a terrible cost (freedom, and with it efficiency and therefore results in a poorer country) and everyone (except the Party Members, of course) gets an equal share of poverty and misery.

Does this post echo some of the Orwellian edicts:

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

 

[Lifesaver]

I don't know, I still think that Holocaust thingee was pretty heinous.

Yes, it was, but the horrors of communism, since they are, for reasons which we may speculate, less interesting to the general public, are very underscored by the media.

Be careful, though, to not lump socialism and communism together. It would be just as fair to lump conservatism and Nazi-ism together.

Socialism is the first step towards communism. That is the Marxist thesis.
And, if you analyze the economic policies of nazis, you'll see they were quite close to socialists as well.

 

[jgarden]

"When they finished praying, the place where they were meeting was shaken. They were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to proclaim God's message with boldness. The group of believers was of one mind and heart. No one said that any of his belongings was his own, but they all shared with one another everything they had. With great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and God poured rich blessings on them all. There was no one in the group who was in need. Those who owned fields or houses would sell them, bring in the money received from the sale, and hand it over to the apostles; and the money was distributed to each one according to his need." (Acts 4:31-35)

- "They were filled with the Holy Spirit ....."
- "No one said that any of his belongings was his own, but they all shared with one another everything they had."
-"There was no one in the group who was in need."
-" ..... bring in the money received from the sale, and hand it over to the apostles; ....."
-" ..... the money was distributed to each one according to his need."

Are you actually saying God drives people towards communism, and that it is His model for people to live by?! That's ridiculous.

In the early Jerusalem (not in Greece, not in Rome, not in Turkey, etc) community the first Christians lived in a communal lifestyle; but notice that they sold their possessions for money (hardly a socialist practice, is it?) and shared it among them. And notice that each individual still owned part of the money (what each needed), not "society", or the government.

As time passed, they abandoned that form of organization for something better suited for a bigger population.

And then comes you saying the Holy Spirit is communist...!

Don't you know St. Paul offered to pay for restitution of a friend's losses? Does that seem like a socialist thing to do?
And what about King Solomon? An evil capitalist who opressed the proletariat and stole their work through surplus-value, going against the egalitarian will of God.

"Ridiculous" as it may seem, Acts 4:31-35 describes how early Christians organizing themselves in a "communal," not a capitalistic, manner." This was done while they were under the influence of the Holy Spirit and their ministry did "bear fruit." Forms of Christian socialism and communism did exist and should not be tainted by any association with atheism and Marxism.

Socialism and communism or any other method of social/economic organization aren't inherently good or evil, but a means to an end. Its the belief system and how that organization is used for the glory of God and the benefit of mankind that deserves a value judgment. The early Christians described in Acts 4:31-35 appear to be very successful on both counts.

"The people of the northern tribes sent for him, and they all went together to Rehoboam and said to him, "Your father Solomon treated us harshly and placed heavy burdens lighter and make life easier for us, we will be your loyal subjects." .......... He (Rehoboam) said, "My father placed heavy burdens on you; I will make them even heavier. He beat you with a whip; I'll flog you with a horsewhip!" .......... So the people of Israel rebelled leaving Rehoboam as king only of the people who lived in the territory of Judah. Then King Rohoboam sent Adoniram, who was in charge of forced labor, to go to the Israelites, but they stoned him to death." (1 Kings 12:3,4,14,17,18)

You choice of Solomon as an example was prophetic. At the end of his reign, he was actually viewed by the 10 northern tribes as "an evil capitalist who oppressed the proletariat and stole their work ....." Solomon's extravagent excesses and Rehoboam's later response to their plea set the stage for the splitting the kingdom. The fact that the official, representing the king, and who was in charge of "forced labor," was stoned to death gives some indication of the deep seated hostilities.

In reality, the division of the kingdom was not "going against the egalitarian will of God." (1 King 12:24)

 

[Starcrystal]

Just read my signature. Luke describes the perfect Socialism in Acts 2 and 4. Whereas traditiona (and unbiblical) Christianity suppresses womens rights, Kark Marx and Engels promoted the rights of women to be equal to men. While I disagree with Engels mention of the dissolving of the traditional family, one must also consider what exactly did he mean?
Capitalism always keeps the poor poor and there will always be a class of rich elite in the upper eschelons of society.
I cannot live in a cabin or house because I cannot afford the land to build it on. I could go into the woods and build like Henry David Thoreau did, and for nearly just as cheap, but today some official will eventually come by and evict me, claiming private or government rights to the land. In fact I have already lost 2 or 3 small dwellings I built to this very form of oppression. They destroyed my homes, pure and simple. Yet these are the children of the oppressors who invaded Native American land and squated on it, then killed the Natives because they wanted the land to themselves without "heathen savages."
Chief Seattle addressed the U.S. President and told him that his people could not understand the white mans concept of owning land. The Earth was made by the Creator for all to share equally. Even the Bible mentions that strangers can go upon the land of others and harvest some of their fruits without being subject to punishment. Try that today. Go on someones farm and pick some apples or corn, and see if you don't get a possible trespassing charge, or shot at in some cases.
When Christ returns he will establish a true and perfect socialist society and none shall lack. There will be no homelessness or hunger like there is under the regimes of nations today. All will be shared. Thank God, no one will be able to resist in that day!

 

[Paladin Dave]

Since the end of WWII, the US has been in the following wars and semi-wars (by decade):

1950's:
Korea
Nicaragua
Guatemala
Iran

1960's:
Vietnam

1970's:
Vietnam (still!)

1980's:
Grenada
El Salvador
Libya
Lebanon

1990's
Iraq
Bosnia
Kosovo
Somalia

2000's:
Afghanistan
Iraq (again!)

I'm sure I'm leaving a few out, but you get the gist.

And let us not forget the tens of thousands of soldiers we have stationed around the world maintaining the peace, the thousands of soldiers in the DMZ in Korea maintaining the stalemate, and the billions of dollars we spend every year arming the likes of Israel and other states in perpetual warfare.

Seems to me the US is pretty good at waging war as well, kiddo.

Uh, excuse me, but Iraq is most definately not socialist or communist, that is what we call a dictatorship my friend. People have their own private property, money, etc. Plenty of non political rich guys(ok, not plenty, but they're there). Saddam was simply a dictator, and its not the state owning everything like in a socialsm or communism, its SADDAM owns everything kind of deal.

Oops, I just went back and looked at this and I realized that you were quoting someone else about communism and that this wasnt a communist war list, very sorry my friend, please pay no heed to this message, that goes for all of you.

 

[MadeInOz]

I don't think that the current version of democracy that World XP is running is really all that good either. The US doesn't have direct presidential elections, and just look what happened in 2001 anyway.

I think the communist hoodoo is a lot of ******** that the US spread because it dared to oppose the might of the US after the second world war. Communism would work if it weren't for the existence of other forms of government, and the existence of money.

Private ownership is overrated, especially when prominent members of government have their hands in the pockets of said companies.

 

[Starcrystal]

indeep,
I think the communist hoodoo is a lot of ******** that the US spread because it dared to oppose the might of the US after the second world war. Communism would work if it weren't for the existence of other forms of government, and the existence of money.

Absolutely! Actually, Russia (USSR) feared a potential U.S. first strike and was one reason for attempting to station missiles in Cuba. It wasn't so it could have a position to have first strike on the U.S. but only to balance the power. The U.S. had missiles in Europe very close to Russian borders, as well as in other places of the world. Russia had nothing that close to the U.S. The American military freaked when they saw the threat of absolute balance.
America fought against Communism/Socialism in Vietnam, and technically lost because Vietnam is now a Socialist country. I've corresponded with a few people in Vietnam, and it's really not so bad. It certainly isn't anywhere near as bad as when we were over there for years destroying the people, the land, and the economy.
Those in power in the U.S. and Euro countries are the rich, and they see Socialism as a threat to their financial empires. The thought of having to share with the poor and homeless is an abomination to them. "Get to work you bums," they say, but their economic system is such that employment in entry level positions is nothing but economic slavery!
Rent is sky high, and health care we wont even speak of... To purchase a house you either must make it rich, or work many years slaving for the man to perhaps enjoy life during the part of your life you can least enjoy it!
And it should be known ~ the elite rich are in the MINORITY! Why this country doesn't establish a socialist party and appeal to the poor, the "minorities" and even the lower middle class, I don't know. The Republicans & democrats would be outa there real quick!
Clean up the ghettos, provide for the homeless, cut cost of living, tax the very rich with a "poor tax" which would then go into an annual fund to be distributed equally amongst the poor. Socialize health care so that families can afford it.

 

[Lifesaver]

"Ridiculous" as it may seem, Acts 4:31-35 describes how early Christians organizing themselves in a "communal," not a capitalistic, manner." This was done while they were under the influence of the Holy Spirit and their ministry did "bear fruit." Forms of Christian socialism and communism did exist and should not be tainted by any association with atheism and Marxism.

You don't expect me to cut and paste the same exact response I gave to this same exact passage often used to defend socialism, do you?
Just re-read what you quoted.

Socialism and communism or any other method of social/economic organization aren't inherently good or evil, but a means to an end. Its the belief system and how that organization is used for the glory of God and the benefit of mankind that deserves a value judgment. The early Christians described in Acts 4:31-35 appear to be very successful on both counts.

To promote equality, socialism takes away freedom.
Furthermore, by forcing everyone to be equal, the State smashes individuals, which are incapable of improving themselves and of ascending the social scale.
It provokes an economic production. For example, when food prices are fixed at a low amount (a common favourite among socialists), food production almost ceases.

Small comunities may very well exist in a communal way (though it be noted that the Jerusalem comunity existed in a non-comunal city, and that it was a means for those early Christians, without the help of others, to have their needs satisfied; this organization was left behind when the comunity grew.)

You choice of Solomon as an example was prophetic. At the end of his reign, he was actually viewed by the 10 northern tribes as "an evil capitalist who oppressed the proletariat and stole their work ....." Solomon's extravagent excesses and Rehoboam's later response to their plea set the stage for the splitting the kingdom. The fact that the official, representing the king, and who was in charge of "forced labor," was stoned to death gives some indication of the deep seated hostilities.
In reality, the division of the kingdom was not "going against the egalitarian will of God." (1 King 12:24)

Have you actually read those verses, jgarden?
If you have, are you honestly saying that they support socialism in any way?

 

[Starcrystal]

Lifesaver,
To promote equality, socialism takes away freedom.
Furthermore, by forcing everyone to be equal, the State smashes individuals, which are incapable of improving themselves and of ascending the social scale.
It provokes an economic production. For example, when food prices are fixed at a low amount (a common favourite among socialists), food production almost ceases

The so called "freedom" in the U.S. has led it to having the highest per-capita crime rate and subsequent prison population in the world.
Ironically, the same "freedoms" allow certain "sins" to go unpunished ~ sins which you yourself have condemned on these forums.
I know for fact that people certainly had their own individuality in Soviet Russia. They were not mindless clones of some state system. (And by no means am I saying that system was perfect because it wasn't.)
As far as religion, I believe there should be freedom of religion so long as that freedom is not used as an excuse to harm others. Proselytzing is something that we can do without, and if you'll notice Jesus didn't exactly go around handing out tracts or walking up to sinners telling them, "Hey, do you know I (Jesus) love you? The Scriptures say you'll go to hell if you don't accept me." No, Jesus never did that, the people came to him....

 

[ACougar]

Communism has never existed.

Amazing that so many people think has, instead people on quests for power have exploited the dreams of communism for thier own ends.

 

[Lifesaver]

The distinction between real and ideal communism is useless, boys.
What is called ideal communism does not exist. It is an utopic fairy tale delirium (but also immoral in itself) which exists only in the naive minds of well-intentioned "world-changers".

There is only one kind of communism, and it is the kind the 20th century had the disgrace of experiencing.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

1) It does not allow for elections

Yes it does, it just isn't bittered by the horrible concept of political parites (this means you too Soviet Union)

2) It is hostile towards religion

Tell that to the early Jewish communist in Germany.

3) It does not allow free speech, and will even use for to prevent it

Yes it does, for there is no law in communism becaue there is no need for government which generates law.

4) It does all for many of the rights which we cherish from our constitution.

See Above.

5) It opposes private ownership

As would all civilized philosophies would.

 

[Lifesaver]

Tell that to the early Jewish communist in Germany.

Oh yes, just like the Jewish people who expect an earthly messiah who'll give them an earthly kingdom, communists also want to build heaven on earth.
Communism and present day Judaism are not really opposed to each other.

However, with regards to the true religion, Christianity, and the Catholic Church, which preserves it, communism is completely contradictory to it, in such a way that one cannot allow the other (and indeed, the Church has always condemned communism, and communists world-wide brutally killed thousands of Catholics).

 

[Starcrystal]

Lifesaver,
However, with regards to the true religion, Christianity, and the Catholic Church, which preserves it, communism is completely contradictory to it, in such a way that one cannot allow the other (and indeed, the Church has always condemned communism, and communists world-wide brutally killed thousands of Catholics).

Shall I quote history where Vatican sanctioned crusades killed professing Christians who had left the church? How about the Spanish who came to the "new world" and viewed the Natives as "savages", subsequently enslaving or killing them because they were not of the church. Their first response was that his majesty in Spain send missionaries to convert them, but we all know that that led to a trail of blood that spanned 2 continents. Funny, we just watched an Anthropology video a few hours ago on this very subject.

I don't think you can condemn communism unless you include your own church in that condemnation. Fact is, it is the evil leaders who use their positions of power to oppress. And yes, I am well aware that British protestants did the same thing to natives in North America just as the Spanish catholics did in South & Central America.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

How is communism opposed to religion?

 

[Paladin Dave]

I think the reason we oppose communism is becuase of the fact that it is or was a threat to our way of living, and the people who reaped the benefits of capitalism were afraid. It is very likely that communism wasn't even a threat, more so something that couldn't earn the big rich guys as much money as they could get in capitalism. Think about it, the people who started the whole anti communism craze were US politicians, most of which are a bunch of rich guys who don't want to see their wallets stop growing. I am not saying that is the only reason, but it is my hypothesis as to why it is so readily opposed by people of our nation. Their is still the personal poverty problem that is generated by communism, and th reason that people who understand it oppose it is because we know that although it is a good idea, it simply can't work out yet, and would cause more pain and suffering than capitalism.

 

[Lifesaver]

Shall I quote history where Vatican sanctioned crusades killed professing Christians who had left the church?

Do you mean the crusade against the Cathars, who were fighting as well (and had created every kind of revolt and violence)?

How about the Spanish who came to the "new world" and viewed the Natives as "savages", subsequently enslaving or killing them because they were not of the church. Their first response was that his majesty in Spain send missionaries to convert them, but we all know that that led to a trail of blood that spanned 2 continents. Funny, we just watched an Anthropology video a few hours ago on this very subject.

And what a bad video it probably was...
The first intent of the Spaniards was to convert the savage (and they were savages, who practiced human sacrifice, cannibalism and did not know writing, among many other things) natives, from many tribes.
Were it not for the Spaniards, the relentless Aztecs would have dominated and enslaved every single tribe and nation in the region.

Yes, many Spaniards (and the Spanish government too) went against the Church orders of converting the savages, and instead enslaved or brutalized many of them.

I don't think you can condemn communism unless you include your own church in that condemnation.

The Catholic Church Holy. She is sinless.
Catholics, on the other hand, can sin and have sinned a lot.

Fact is, it is the evil leaders who use their positions of power to oppress. And yes, I am well aware that British protestants did the same thing to natives in North America just as the Spanish catholics did in South & Central America.

The Americans devastated the native population. There's barely any left.
In former Spanish colonies, especially in Mexico, most of the population is indian.