Sure, as long as you’re willing to lump Nazis into the Christian campStalinists, 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:
Of course with the Nazis, there is much more reason to relate them to Marxism than to Christianity, so we would count them on both sides and cancel those numbers out.Sure, as long as you’re willing to lump Nazis into the Christian camp
Now, what were the number again?
If by relate, you mean rose on a platform of promising the squelsh it, sure.
Stalinism cannot even be separated from Marxism. Naziism was no more opposed to Marxism than Shia Islam is to Sunni Islam; the two were rival types of the same basic ideology. Stalinism was a point between on that small spectrum of belief.If by relate, you mean rose on a platform of promising the squelsh it, sure.
PS. Forgot to add. If we are going to say Stalinist is a “form of Marxism”, we should also say Islam is a “form of Christianity”.
I am not a Communist but I am left leaning. KingAlfred said the average guy can work and take care of himself. What about those who are below average like those who cannot succeed in a competitive system?. Wont they end up in poverty, feel bad and might possibly go militant.
Yes it can. Marxism is about achieving class consciousness. Stalinism is about developing a personality cult.
LOL.
There are well over 3 million of us and almost everyone falls below the line sometime or other. The problems tend to be self-correcting with very rare exceptions. For all the publicity the supposed permanent underclass gets, in fact half of the poor here have been poor less than a year at any given time. I believe it was the Census Bureau who said only a tiny percentage, maybe two percent, are actually going hungry at any one time, and even then it’s almost always a short period before they find a way back into the middle class. I’m one of the longest-struggling Americans in my time. I don’t revolt because I know a revolution would probably make things worse both long-term and short-term. I can look around and see that the odds are dramatically in my favor despite appearances. People on the street get off the street, people below the line but with homes rise above the line, people just above the line reacht he middle class and people there become affluent, and each stage takes a year or two average. I know exactly what is most likely my hangup, and it’s nervous procrastination. Not a plot to deprive me.
Stalin and Marx both advocated violence to be done on religious people and property owners. Marx himself was a racist. Marxism has a larger body count than Nazism yet people still see it as a credible political system.
That they did.
Even if true, what does this have to do historical materialism?
Again,
Christianity didn’t kill 100 Million and counting people in a century. Islam might come close though. No if I were to include Marxist inspired ideologies I would have to include Feminism and the millions of dead babies.That they did.
Even if true, what does this have to do historical materialism?
**I just stated it **
Again,
a. if we play the correctness of an ideology by body count, you’d have to discredit christianity as well.
b. is your body count accounting for the seperation of marxist-inspired ideologies that came later, or are you erroneously lumping them together?
Really? Do you have the figures for those that died under the European colonial project? Considering commiting genocide of tha natives was more-or-less a tame hobby in those days, I imagine the body count would be quite high
.Umm there were not 100 million deaths from colonism if you really think that I do not know what else to say.Really? Do you have the figures for those that died under the European colonial project? Considering commiting genocide of tha natives was more-or-less a tame hobby in those days, I imagine the body count would be quite high
You also failed to address my two points.
a. What does body count have to do with the validity of a theory
b. Are you lumping together all socialist theories?
You sure? I mean you had entire native populations gone within a few generations just from Columbus.
Ah ok, you are conflating the very different ideologies. Marxist communism has been sparasely seen in history, with the only really big example being the Paris Commune.
Yes if a Million natives were killed off anywhere in the world they would not be any relatives of natives left. Its like the inquisition argument when people say it killed millions if it did there would not be any Europeans left.You sure? I mean you had entire native populations gone within a few generations just from Columbus.
Ah ok, you are conflating the very different ideologies. Marxist communism has been sparasely seen in history, with the only really big example being the Paris Commune.
Nice try though. A Strawman atop of a ad hominem, very stylish:thumbsup:
But the ideas don’t take into account that the practice is bound to go bad, because of the fallen nature of mankind. So the ideas are stupid, and the practice has been a horrendous and horrifying failure, by any measure.
By putting a smiley face after the sentence about body count, you show that you think about this as an abstract intellectual game. If European colonialism killed a lot of people, how does that justify the horrors of 20th Century communism? Are you trying to say that, well, colonialism killed people too, so it’s OK that communism killed millions of people? Does that really make sense to you?Really? Do you have the figures for those that died under the European colonial project? Considering commiting genocide of tha natives was more-or-less a tame hobby in those days, I imagine the body count would be quite high
If a theory, when put into practice, causes the deaths of millions of people, wouldn’t you say that theory is wrong? What kind of atrocities have to be committed for you to admit that a theory is wrong? Naziism was just a theory until Hitler came to power. Can’t we measure the validity of the theory of Naziism by its results in the real world once it was implemented? Millions killed in concentration camps, millions more killed in expansionist nationalistic wars - is the theory that led to this a good theory?
The OP was talking about communists, not social democrats or other left-leaning parties. Communists believe in class warfare, violent revolution to overthrow the existing government and seize the means of production, the installation of a ruling elite (the Party) that will use any means necessary to suppress any opposition. Their whole philosophy is founded on an atheistic world view that not only denies the existence of God, but sees religion as evil (hence the brutal repression of Christianity in communist countries.) Religion is the “opiate of the masses” that keeps the workers from seeing how oppressed they really are, and so makes it harder to stir them up to revolution. This is what Marx and Engels wrote about in the Communist Manifesto.
Under socialism, the rich are the people running the government, the “Party,” the “Politburo” or whatever name they adopt. Most people live in poverty (China, Soviet Union, Cuba, etc.) - the party elite live like kings. So it’s really a case of the poor giving to the rich. It’s more akin to feudalism than anything else.
People who die under Communism are deliberately singled out by the Party leadership for execution … it’s a point of pride to identify people who are “counter revolutionaries” and eliminate them … the word “eliminate” along with the word “liquidate” are euphemisms for execution.