Debating with Communists

[Oscarthecat]

I don’t see how as most forms of christianity are socialist

Could you explain what you meant by this?

I would agree that some forms of christianity are thinly disguised efforts to advance socialism, such as Liberation Theology.

I would also agree that the Catholic Church (I can’t speak for non-Catholic groups) encourages principles that some socialists would find familiar in theory if not in practice, such as the rights of workers and the understanding of human flourishing as the higher end of social and economic activity.

Despite any appearance of similarities, however, Catholic Social Teaching, beginning Rerum Novarum, specifically condemns Socialism as a political and economic system because, in practice, it is an affront to numerous Christian Social Principles, such as Subsidiarity, Solidarity, and the right to own personal property, and also because it encourages class warfare by pitting the “owners” against the “workers,” not to mention that history has shown time and time again that Socialism is less effective at increasing human flourishing than Capitalism.

Even more, the critical difference that trumps any values that might be shared between some aspects of Christianity and Socialism is the fact that Christianity teaches basic principles and respects the fundamental right of the individual to freely choose to apply these principles in his or her life, while Socialism mandates specific behaviors and social strictures which are legislated according only to the interpretation of bureaucrats in the government.

Catholic Social Teaching emphasizes the role of the individual to live according to those principles that increase human flourishing, and respects the right of the individual to do this freely, without coercion, because any lasting efforts to increase human flourishing in any society must be done with the full understanding, consent, and commitment of the individual. For Catholics, the individual is always the critical variable in society because the emphasis is on the conversion of the individual, which will naturally contribute toward human flourishing.

Socialists, however, don’t believe that most individuals are capable of coming to understand, much less willingly participate, in these principles. Furthermore, they argue that even if individuals were committed to creating a society based on these principles, voluntary self-organization is an inefficient way of achieving the desired goal. Instead, they advocate a system that eliminates the individual as a critical variable by removing such things as the right of the individual to own property, to freely choose if and how to help others, and to decide for themselves how to participate in society for the good of others. Individual Conversion is disregarded, because the State’s interpretation and implementation of social values is the only one that matters.

 

[Swan]

This is why capitalism must be balanced by Christianity. People in general may not be charitable, but Christians are. The freedom of capitalism encourages success. The love in Christianity encourages helping others to succeed as well. The “evils” in capitalism manifest themselves only when the society turns away from the Faith.

I realize this is OT from the OP, but it seemed to me the thread was OT already.

I don’t think it’s really OT because communism is anti-religion. But I don’t think history bears out your claim - not, having said that let me clarify what I mean. A lot of peoples, as you know, are Christian in name only. Many folks who claim to be Christians have been responsible for a lot of suffering in the U.S. - robber baron types, for example. Many use the “poor will always be with us” line as an excuse to cheat and exploit other human beings. Perhaps we can agree that if they were “true” Christians this would not occur and your claim would have more merit.
Even so, there are many organziations that work for the relief of poverty that are not based on Christianity.

It can also not be ignored that we are not a theocracy, therefore we cannot impose a belief system that supports charity on others (even many Christians balk at this idea as an violation of free will). I believe that a society must have rules in place that take care of the least among them - only then will that society be just, IMO. And the health of a society can only be truly measured by taking into consideration the treatment of the poor. Lifting up the poor lifts up society as a whole. Yes, we are individuals but we profit by the work of others in our society - no man is an island.

 

[Swan]

I wasn’t arguing for a Marxist state. My pet model is a European social democracy such as Denmark and Sweden. It seems to me that they have based their system of government on the ideals of Karl Popper.

And if you believe people do work for personal gain, why do you think charity and volunteerism will be effective at significantly reducing poverty? Because of this, I also believe that it would be more cost effective to sponsor liberal think tanks that care about reducing poverty than private charities as they will provide valuable ideas to help the poor.

I agree with you, but then, I usually do.

 

[mvinca]

I don’t think it’s really OT because communism is anti-religion. But I don’t think history bears out your claim - not, having said that let me clarify what I mean. A lot of peoples, as you know, are Christian in name only. Many folks who claim to be Christians have been responsible for a lot of suffering in the U.S. - robber baron types, for example. Many use the “poor will always be with us” line as an excuse to cheat and exploit other human beings. Perhaps we can agree that if they were “true” Christians this would not occur and your claim would have more merit.
Even so, there are many organziations that work for the relief of poverty that are not based on Christianity.

It can also not be ignored that we are not a theocracy, therefore we cannot impose a belief system that supports charity on others (even many Christians balk at this idea as an violation of free will). I believe that a society must have rules in place that take care of the least among them - only then will that society be just, IMO. And the health of a society can only be truly measured by taking into consideration the treatment of the poor. Lifting up the poor lifts up society as a whole. Yes, we are individuals but we profit by the work of others in our society - no man is an island.

Yes, when I say Christians, I mean practicing Christians. And I am not promoting a theocracy. I never said anything about forcing Christianity. That is the whole point. A society needs to be setup so people can choose Christianity. That means granting the freedom of religion.

In saying that Capitalism needs Christianity along side it, I’m not talking about forcing it. I’m just saying when enough people make the wrong choice, things start to fall apart. But I would never recommend fixing it by forcing the choice. I would only recommend increased evangelization, so that more people come to realize the Truth in choosing Christianity.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, when I say Christians, I mean practicing Christians. And I am not promoting a theocracy. I never said anything about forcing Christianity. That is the whole point. A society needs to be setup so people can choose Christianity. That means granting the freedom of religion.

In saying that Capitalism needs Christianity along side it, I’m not talking about forcing it. I’m just saying when enough people make the wrong choice, things start to fall apart. But I would never recommend fixing it by forcing the choice. I would only recommend increased evangelization, so that more people come to realize the Truth in choosing Christianity.

Well said.

I think that Swan’s point is that some non-Christians act in a charitable fashion and some Christians act uncharitably. That would be called our fallen nature. That said, the US is a more Christian society than most and we are one of the most charitable countries. Coincidence? I think not.

Of course if we all acted in Christian charity, the world would be a better place. As I said before, Communism (without the whole “religion is the opiate of the masses” bit ) would also work if we all acted in Christian charity. The brilliance of Capitalism is that it does not require everyone to act charitably in order for society to work. Communism does. Since atheism doesn’t support any intrinsic reason to be charitable (it can be artificially constructed, of course, but it is not intrinsic), Communism was doomed to failure from the beginning.

 

[Nino]

Should I even bother?

I
where to begin…first ,there is no such thing as a 'right’wing fascist…fascism is of the left…total government control! all dictatorships are on the left…in the center of the political spectrum is a centrist party…roughly the fed controls some 50% of the peoples activities…as one moves to the right,its more individual freedom…extreme right is anarchy…I am about 90% to the right…I believe in the Ten commandments,the bill of rights etc…its communist propaganda to lump dictatorships on both the left and right extremes of people control…pure nonsense…that way one just is neutralized…as to Marx,he never worked a day in his life,was rotten to his wife and children and later wrote an essay in college titled.'On the Jewish question" which was so anti-semitic that adolf schiklegruber ie Hitler ,later quoted it verse for verse…all isms like Nazism (National socialist workers party of Germany,Fascism,Communism and american ‘Liberalism’ is on the extreme left…actually in America a ‘conservative’ one who is for the status quo…is of the left for we are moving more and more into becoming a coimmunist state…so I am a Liberal in the classic deft.of the word…for individual freedom as against a 1984 lock step society…ask your communist friends that they got away with murder…some 100 million killed last century by them and no Nurenberg type crimes against humanity trials…have a nice day…

 

[Al_Masetti]

Ralph Peters has a relevant column today …here:

nypost.com/seven/08052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/thought_police_123038.htm

Printi t out and add it to the file labeled: “Things I Need To Know When Debating With Communists”

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I don’t know what you would expect to gain from debating with communists. Anybody that proclaims themselves to be communist after the 20th Century is seriously deluded and living in a fantasy world. People have already pointed out the human devastation wrought by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, etc.

The only people who would be drawn to communism are probably academics who are totally isolated from the real world and deal with it only on a theoretical level. But even there it falls apart. As has been pointed out, it ignores the fallen nature of man and assumes that everyone is going to act for the greater good. Of course, it never happens that way.

 

[cynic]

Arguing with communists is one thing - but if it weren’t for unions in the 19th and early 20th century you wouldn’t have a half hour lunchbreak, overtime rates or one day of annual leave.

 

[cynic]

Government help should be a safety net covering only what must be covered and is otherwise not covered – saving lives, as a supplement to private charity, not trying to prevent all unhappiness by itself.

A lot of people here wouldn’t agree with even that limited role of government.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Arguing with communists is one thing - but if it weren’t for unions in the 19th and early 20th century you wouldn’t have a half hour lunchbreak, overtime rates or one day of annual leave.

It’s a big jump from communists to unions.

 

[Kaninchen]

I don’t know what you would expect to gain from debating with communists. Anybody that proclaims themselves to be communist after the 20th Century is seriously deluded and living in a fantasy world. People have already pointed out the human devastation wrought by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, etc.

The only people who would be drawn to communism are probably academics who are totally isolated from the real world and deal with it only on a theoretical level. But even there it falls apart. As has been pointed out, it ignores the fallen nature of man and assumes that everyone is going to act for the greater good. Of course, it never happens that way.

Marxism isn’t about what is good or nice, it’s about inevitability. It’s about a ‘scientific’ analysis of the economics of capitalism and an understanding of the inevitability of its collapse and replacement by a different system of production and consumption.

The problem, a Marxist would argue, with the ‘communist’ regimes was that, when the ‘communists’ seized power, the countries they seized power in were ‘proto-capitalist’. Obviously, since the collapse of capitalism could only take place in advanced capitalist societies (by definition), seizing power in primitive capitalist societies or non-capitalist societies meant, to the ‘communists’ involved, a dictatorial drive towards building up the economy to a productive stage where the next stage of development could take place - this is what Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism were crucially about - a brutal drive to creation of capital.

None of this, a Marxist would argue, dents Marxism. If you want to dent Marxist theory, you need different tools from talking about how awful Stalin was or whether Marxists ignore human nature (as you see it). To a Marxist, it’s like saying that the fact that falling down hurts you is a refutation of the theory of gravity.

 

[JimG]

Ralph Peters has a relevant column today …here:

nypost.com/seven/08052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/thought_police_123038.htm

Printi t out and add it to the file labeled: “Things I Need To Know When Debating With Communists”

I liked this line: "The extreme left loves to pretend it stands for freedom. It never has and never will. From the Reign of Terror in Paris onward, its core agenda has been the tyranny of egomaniacal intellectuals."The thing I’ve always found ironic about communist regimes is that returning power to the proletariat always requires the iron rule of one man who turns out to be dictator for life.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Marxism isn’t about what is good or nice, it’s about inevitability. It’s about a ‘scientific’ analysis of the economics of capitalism and an understanding of the inevitability of its collapse and replacement by a different system of production and consumption.

The problem, a Marxist would argue, with the ‘communist’ regimes was that, when the ‘communists’ seized power, the countries they seized power in were ‘proto-capitalist’. Obviously, since the collapse of capitalism could only take place in advanced capitalist societies (by definition), seizing power in primitive capitalist societies or non-capitalist societies meant, to the ‘communists’ involved, a dictatorial drive towards building up the economy to a productive stage where the next stage of development could take place - this is what Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism were crucially about - a brutal drive to creation of capital.

None of this, a Marxist would argue, dents Marxism. If you want to dent Marxist theory, you need different tools from talking about how awful Stalin was or whether Marxists ignore human nature (as you see it). To a Marxist, it’s like saying that the fact that falling down hurts you is a refutation of the theory of gravity.

See, I was right, the only people who could claim to be communists or “Marxists” today are academics totally cut off from reality who deal with it solely as a theory. The fact that this “theory” has claimed the lives of millions of people is dismissed as irrelevant. It’s a bunch of BS - there’s nothing “scientific” about it at all. The scientific method is that you propose a hypothesis, test it, and then reach a conclusion. That has been done in Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam - and the hypothesis has been shown to be false in all these cases.

The basic premise of “Marxism” is that society is divided into classes - the working class and the ruling class. The working class is exploited by the ruling class, and that is the source of all the ills of society, and of mankind in general. What is needed is a revolution whereby the working class takes over and there is no more ruling class. This will solve everything, including “alienation” or the spiritual emptiness people feel.

Of course, the problem with this scenario is that after the “working class” takes over, somebody still has to be in charge. Somebody has to make decisions like where to build things, who gets what job, etc. Human nature being what it is (fallen), the people in charge of making these decisions become a thousand times worse than any “ruling class” they took over from - and they have power for life. There are no elections, no freedoms - if anybody questions what they are doing, they are killed (Stalin, Mao). Even potential problems are eliminated (Pol Pot, Castro).

This has nothing to do with being “nice” or “not nice” - it is inevitable. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. “Marxists” are extremely naive, especially anybody who would claim to be one after what happened in the 20th Century. The only thing they can say is, “Well, those weren’t real communists, so they don’t count. We just have to deal with Marxism as a philosophical theory.”

It really is a lesson in how dangerous it is to abandon God. Ideologies like communism, which is based on atheism, lead to massive suffering in the real world when people try to put them in to practice.

The life of John Paul II and all he did to bring down the communist regimes of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe shows us how powerful faith and a life lived in faith in God can be, even against seemingly unconquerable foes.

 

[Isambard]

See, I was right, the only people who could claim to be communists or “Marxists” today are academics totally cut off from reality who deal with it solely as a theory. ** The fact that this “theory” has claimed the lives of millions of people is dismissed as irrelevant**.

The theory that the Earth revovles around the Sun also cost lives. Ive also highlighted this part to demonstrate the wonderful hypocracy you show down below.

It’s a bunch of BS - there’s nothing “scientific” about it at all. The scientific method is that you propose a hypothesis, test it, and then reach a conclusion. That has been done in Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam - and the hypothesis has been shown to be false in all these cases.

Yes, and in all cases commodification imposed from top to bottom led to the citizens to being exploited. Learn your history.

The basic premise of “Marxism” is that society is divided into classes - the working class and the ruling class. The working class is exploited by the ruling class, and that is the source of all the ills of society, and of mankind in general. What is needed is a revolution whereby the working class takes over and there is no more ruling class. This will solve everything, including “alienation” or the spiritual emptiness people feel.

Of course, the problem with this scenario is that after the “working class” takes over, somebody still has to be in charge.

Not according to Marx, nor reality. Guessing you don’t know what a worker run Co-op is do you?

Somebody has to make decisions like where to build things, who gets what job, etc. Human nature being what it is (fallen), the people in charge of making these decisions become a thousand times worse than any “ruling class” they took over from - and they have power for life. There are no elections, no freedoms - if anybody questions what they are doing, they are killed (Stalin, Mao). Even potential problems are eliminated (Pol Pot, Castro).

Mondragon has done excellent.

This has nothing to do with being “nice” or “not nice” - it is inevitable. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. “Marxists” are extremely naive, especially anybody who would claim to be one after what happened in the 20th Century.

Yep, Marx never did come up with a non- post hoc theory of value.

The only thing they can say is, “Well, those weren’t real communists, so they don’t count. We just have to deal with Marxism as a philosophical theory.”

They weren’t by Marxist definition as Marx had a strict definition.

I

t really is a lesson in how dangerous it is to abandon God. Ideologies like communism, which is based on atheism, lead to massive suffering in the real world when people try to put them in to practice.

The life of John Paul II and all he did to bring down the communist regimes of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe shows us how powerful faith and a life lived in faith in God can be, even against seemingly unconquerable foes.

Here is the hilarious hypocracy. Argueably, more people have been killed for God and Jesus than they ever were for Marxism. By just what you said in the beginning, you’ve managed to sink your entire arguement.

 

[strngrnrth]

Here is the hilarious hypocracy. Argueably, more people have been killed for God and Jesus than they ever were for Marxism.

False by any measure if you count only Christians killing because they were Christians v. Marxists killing because they were Marxists. If you include all religious wars it’s still false year-for-year.

 

[rlg94086]

False by any measure if you count only Christians killing because they were Christians v. Marxists killing because they were Marxists. If you include all religious wars it’s still false year-for-year.

Yep, it’s an overused canard…pretty much sinks his entire argument, doesn’t it?

 

[Isambard]

Yep, it’s an overused canard…pretty much sinks his entire argument, doesn’t it?

Not quite as his point was any theory which has had millions die is evil. Christianity has had just that, so by his logic, its evil as well

 

[Isambard]

False by any measure if you count only Christians killing because they were Christians v. Marxists killing because they were Marxists. If you include all religious wars it’s still false year-for-year.

Really? Care to demonstrate the numbers?

Keep in mind there is a difference between Marxists, Stalinists, Maoists, Leninists.

 

[strngrnrth]

Really? Care to demonstrate the numbers?

Keep in mind there is a difference between Marxists, Stalinists, Maoists, Leninists.

Stalinists, Maoists, Leninists, and all the other Communists are derivative and dependent subtypes of Marxists. It would make sense to argue Stalinists v. Presbyterians, Leninists v. Baptists, Maoists v. Pentecostals, Trotskyites v. Catholics, etc. and average the spread.:coffeeread: