Is there any difference between a Communist and a Leftist?

[Amandil]

If you want to know the definitive answer to the question of if there is any difference between a Leftist and a communist, find someone who is a professed leftist, and ask them if culture, civilization, religion, philosophy, art, morals, and literature are all determined by economic methods of production?

Then ask the leftist if man only has value so long as he is a member of a class?

Yes in either or both makes it pretty clear how they are related.

 

[livingwordunity]

If you want to know the definitive answer to the question of if there is any difference between a Leftist and a communist, find someone who is a professed leftist, and ask them if culture, civilization, religion, philosophy, art, morals, and literature are all determined by economic methods of production?

Then ask the leftist if man only has value so long as he is a member of a class?

Yes in either or both makes it pretty clear how they are related.

Or the fact that a leftist will always defend communism. People almost always defend the religion or ideology they themselves believe in.

 

[Cricket2]

The question is how was Jim Jones able to fool so many on the left into following him and loving him? There wasn’t a single conservative that died in the Jonestown massacre.

No, it is not about fooling the left. Had he selected the “Right” he would have fooled them too. That is what psychopaths do. I am constantly amazed at how easily people do fall for them, and it seems to me there is no group more or less subject to their deception.

As I have said in other posts, I have been in situation were supposedly intelligent, highly educated people fall for the lies, deception and darkness of psychopaths so easily it is startling. In one situation I had identified such a person at work and no one, and I mean all the way up the ranks, believed me. They thought I was over-reacting.

It was no more than a month later and they all found out I was right. Some of the thing they believed, that came out of this person’s mouth were just ridiculous, but they believed him. The whole thing landed up in court, in order to protect is intended victim, and there were people there that thought he was “OK”.

I think detection of these type of people has to do with spiritual discernment and I have found that it is in little practice.

 

[livingwordunity]

No, it is not about fooling the left. Had he selected the “Right” he would have fooled them too.

Jim Jones was a socialist communist. There is no way to deny that about him unless you use the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy. All of his victims were communists like him, and he was honored and adored by many a liberal of the time until the massacre happened and they distanced themselves from him. There is no conservative Christian equivalent of a suicide cult like this anywhere in history. You are trying to create a hypothetical that has no basis in reality.

 

[Tom_Baum]

The ones who witnessed Jim Jones preaching but who didn’t get caught up in it say that he used to claim he was God. A well-catechized orthodox Catholic or a “bible believing” Protestant fundamentalist would immediately see red flags and run the other way if they ever heard a man say this about himself, but a hippie might not notice the problem with it.

Do you think that this is why the “well-catechized orthodox” Jews and the Torah believing Jewish fundamentalists of Jesus’s day did what they did?

 

[Tom_Baum]

It is worth noting as well, that the extravagances of his Cult of Personality plays itself out in virtually every country where communists come to power. We see it in the USSR with Lenin and Stalin, in China with Mao, in North Korea with the Kims. and Castro, Che, and other leaders of the extreme left are all large than life,. They become Manifestations of charateristics that if not precisely divine in their nature, are at least large than life.

Some people mention early Christianity as an example of communism. It is very possible that a similar sort of process was developing here too, and this is what Paul was warning against about those people who say they were followers of Paul, or Cephas, or Apollos, what he is arguing against is the problem of cult of personality that is endemic with that kind of social relationship.

If you look in the Book of Acts, you will see what appears to be theoretical communism in reality, in the very earliest Christian communities.

As a matter of fact, one could say that Marx could have been charged with plagiarism considering some of the things that he supposedly said.

I, personally, have never read the Communist Manifesto but some of the things that could very well be in there, could have been lifted straight out of the Book of Acts.

I don’t know but the Book of Acts could very well have been some of Marx’s inspiration.

 

[Darryl1958]

If you look in the Book of Acts, you will see what appears to be theoretical communism in reality, in the very earliest Christian communities.

As a matter of fact, one could say that Marx could have been charged with plagiarism considering some of the things that he supposedly said.

I, personally, have never read the Communist Manifesto but some of the things that could very well be in there, could have been lifted straight out of the Book of Acts.

I don’t know but the Book of Acts could very well have been some of Marx’s inspiration.

The family, and more particularly the Roman family, was the model for a lot of the social organization found in early Christianity. The family included the benefactor, most often the household male head of the family, and also servants of various degrees of freedom. Since virginity played a very, very large role in early Christianity-procreation was not necessary after all for those who would life forever as long as the cleansing of their baptism went unstained by sins of lust, etc, brothers and sisters were related by purity of intent rather than blood.
A family is a communal model, almost by definition. However extending that familial model beyond immediate and personal relationships will be problematic. Uncle Joe, or Father Mao, or Patriarch Jim Jones are cases in point.

 

[Tom_Baum]

The family, and more particularly the Roman family, was the model for a lot of the social organization found in early Christianity. The family included the benefactor, most often the household male head of the family, and also servants of various degrees of freedom. Since virginity played a very, very large role in early Christianity-procreation was not necessary after all for those who would life forever as long as the cleansing of their baptism went unstained by sins of lust, etc, brothers and sisters were related by purity of intent rather than blood.
A family is a communal model, almost by definition. However extending that familial model beyond immediate and personal relationships will be problematic. Uncle Joe, or Father Mao, or Patriarch Jim Jones are cases in point.

Guess one could say that one of the problems that occurred was when the husband and wife dropped dead when they withheld some of their own money and lied about it.

Earliest Christianity, as recorded in the Book of Acts, is communism in action whether anyone wishes to see it or not, it is written down.

 

[Darryl1958]

Guess one could say that one of the problems that occurred was when the husband and wife dropped dead when they withheld some of their own money and lied about it.

Earliest Christianity, as recorded in the Book of Acts, is communism in action whether anyone wishes to see it or not, it is written down.

You didn’t really address my post. I do have the historical footnotes to my commentary, if you are interested.

It is one thing to be struck down by the HS for holding out and pretending.
It is quite another to be struck down by Uncle Joe for the same.

Either way, the model for the early church was the Roman family. The same cannot be said for modern Marxist communist systems.

 

[Tom_Baum]

You didn’t really address my post. I do have the historical footnotes to my commentary, if you are interested.

It is one thing to be struck down by the HS for holding out and pretending.
It is quite another to be struck down by Uncle Joe for the same.

Either way, the model for the early church was the Roman family. The same cannot be said for modern Marxist communist systems.

It doesn’t matter what the model was, the early Church was what I understand theoretical communism to be or close enough to call it that, it wasn’t forced but voluntary.

As far as “modern Marxist communist systems”, I wasn’t talking about this either but theoretical communism.

Even tho I have never really read about communism, I would say that communism in theory and communism in practice are usually two quite different things.

Communism will never work because people, by nature it seems, are too greedy, we do have a fallen nature at least it seems that way to me, that is why capitalism seems to suit many just fine.

Unbridled capitalism, which the Catholic Church has spoken of many times, is very unchristian in its utter disregard, it seems, for everything except the “bottom line”.

I would say that no system that is run by man is ever going to please everyone, there are some good things in every system but even if one were to use the good things of every system to come up with another system, it would still fall extremely short of a “good system”.

We seem to forget that Jesus was quite a radical Person in His time and if He were here right now, in the Flesh so to speak, many, who call themself a follower of HIs, would find many things that they would disagree with.

Sometimes those that have all of their beliefs written down in a book or so that was/is written by someone else should step back and actually think about their “beliefs” that they say they have rather than just repeating them from rote.

It just might be the believers in God as opposed to those that do not believe in God that are going to be more shocked when they finally meet God.

 

[Hobbes42]

It doesn’t matter what the model was, the early Church was what I understand theoretical communism to be or close enough to call it that, it wasn’t forced but voluntary.

As far as “modern Marxist communist systems”, I wasn’t talking about this either but theoretical communism.

Even tho I have never really read about communism, I would say that communism in theory and communism in practice are usually two quite different things.

Communism will never work because people, by nature it seems, are too greedy, we do have a fallen nature at least it seems that way to me, that is why capitalism seems to suit many just fine.

Unbridled capitalism, which the Catholic Church has spoken of many times, is very unchristian in its utter disregard, it seems, for everything except the “bottom line”.

I would say that no system that is run by man is ever going to please everyone, there are some good things in every system but even if one were to use the good things of every system to come up with another system, it would still fall extremely short of a “good system”.

We seem to forget that Jesus was quite a radical Person in His time and if He were here right now, in the Flesh so to speak, many, who call themself a follower of HIs, would find many things that they would disagree with.

Sometimes those that have all of their beliefs written down in a book or so that was/is written by someone else should step back and actually think about their “beliefs” that they say they have rather than just repeating them from rote.

It just might be the believers in God as opposed to those that do not believe in God that are going to be more shocked when they finally meet God.

Sorry, but ‘theoretical communism’ cannot exist in a pre-industrial state. Marx hadn’t even created communism! that’s like saying that archers were using ‘theoretical firearms’ in the first century. By the way-Communism has been condemned by many Popes! as has socialism! Why-because it advocates a materialistic outlook, and by doing so reduces each person in value.

 

[ishii]

“Left” and “Right” in politics have no clear definition, but it refers to equality between people in society. To simplify “Left” means that you want people to be more equal. “right” means that you want people to be less equal.

Communism strives towards the full equal dignity of all mankind. Communists are against all forms of domination and subjection. Communists are against classes (the division of humanity into different functions of production and exploitation) and against states. It is a common misconception that communists advocate state ownership, there is nothing more essentially socialist about a state-run coalmine than there is about a state-run army. Instead of capitalist control or state control communists advocate that production should be controled by those do the producing, and that production should not serve goals of growth and profit but the satisfaction of needs and solving of problems - human flourishing.

That is the communist idea, “from each according to ability, to each according to need” - a philosophy of love. All large scale historical attempts towards it has failed. Authoritarian states such as the USSR had very little in common with communist ideals.

You’re talking about communism in theory. Whenever people professing to be communists have controlled a country, it has resulted in domination and misery. And slaughtering of innocents. Countries run by communists always fail. What you refer to others’ being confused about communism and socialism is nothing more than a semantic mumbo jumbo. Communism is an attempt to create a secular heaven on earth. And when you believe, as all communists do, that there is not God, no real heaven, then you will do anything to “speed up” the socialist stage in an attempt to bring about the communist utopia that is supposed to come about. The utopia is the “omelette” of communism. And if you have to crack a few eggs (e.g. Ukranian famine, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot, etc.) to make the omelette, so be it. Or as Stalin put it, “one death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic.” The dream society that is the object of theoretical communism will never happen- even if some western intellectuals hold out hope that it just hasn’t been tried by the right people yet.

Ishii

 

[livingwordunity]

You’re talking about communism in theory. Whenever people professing to be communists have controlled a country, it has resulted in domination and misery. And slaughtering of innocents. Countries run by communists always fail. What you refer to others’ being confused about communism and socialism is nothing more than a semantic mumbo jumbo. Communism is an attempt to create a secular heaven on earth. And when you believe, as all communists do, that there is not God, no real heaven, then you will do anything to “speed up” the socialist stage in an attempt to bring about the communist utopia that is supposed to come about. The utopia is the “omelette” of communism. And if you have to crack a few eggs (e.g. Ukranian famine, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot, etc.) to make the omelette, so be it. Or as Stalin put it, “one death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic.” The dream society that is the object of theoretical communism will never happen- even if some western intellectuals hold out hope that it just hasn’t been tried by the right people yet.

Ishii

Well said! Why keep trying the same evil idea over and over again when it always ends up with the evil result of a cult of personality narcissist dictator?

 

[Amandil]

Guess one could say that one of the problems that occurred was when the husband and wife dropped dead when they withheld some of their own money and lied about it.

Earliest Christianity, as recorded in the Book of Acts, is communism in action whether anyone wishes to see it or not, it is written down.

No it is not. Christianity and the early Church was not governed by economic determinism.

Nor did they advocate for a violent revolution between the proletariat and the bourgeois.

In Acts 5 Ananias didn’t die for not giving all of his land to the Church. He owned land and sold “a piece” of it.

He didn’t even die for not giving the proceeds of the sale to the Church, he died because he lied about what he gave.

Peter affirms that Ananias had the right to own his land and dispose of it as he saw fit(Acts 5:4).

The fact is that Jesus never advocated for the state to take over all means of production to distribute evenly. Nor did He ever call for the violent overthrow of the bourgeois.

Everywhere Jesus addressed individuals, and left it to their decision of whether to give and how much to give.

You’re reading your ideology into Scripture, not taking your ideology from Scripture.

Even Marx with his buddy Engels called religion, “the opiate of the masses.” To try and claim that Marx favored orthodox Christianity because it was communistic is a stretch to say the least.

 

[Amandil]

Tom Baum:

Even tho I have never really read about communism, I would say that communism in theory and communism in practice are usually two quite different things.

That right there is where you should have stopped and said no more. If you haven’t really read anything about communism, why are you even advocating for it?

Secondly, practice necessarily follows from theory. If an ideology is materialistic and deadly in practice, its a safe bet that it exists as such in theory.

If you care to see communism in practice, here is an article of the millions killed in the Ukraine due to Joseph Stalin’s force famine:
historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

Here are some quotes from the founders of communism, Marx and Engels:

“The proletarians, driven to despair, will seize the torch which Stephens has preached to them; the vengeance of the people will come down with a wrath of which the rage of 1795(the French Revolution) gives no true idea. The war of the poor against the rich will be the bloodiest ever waged.” -Engels

“…the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism.” -Marx

“…But in history nothing is achieved without violence and implacable ruthlessness… In short, it turns out these ‘crimes’ of the Germans and Magyars against the said Slavs are among the best and most praiseworthy deeds which our and the Magyar people can boast in their history.” -Engels

“… A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.”-Engels

“…To denigrate violence as something to be rejected, when we all know that in the end nothing can be achieved without violence!”-Engels

 

[GeorgetownGirl]

Your profile says “Catholic conservative loyal to Pope Francis.” Are you implying that non “conservative” Catholics can’t be loyal to the pope?

 

[Amandil]

The bottom line is that to communists there is no ethical or moral reality, because history, and reality as a whole, is not determined by morality or ethics but by economics, or more specifically, who controls the means of economic production.

Yet they constantly make ethical and moral judgments against people who reject communism. If economics is the base of reality, how can it be said that one system is “right” and another “wrong”?

Thus communists have no right to use the words “right” or “wrong,” but only “private” or “social”. If everything is economically determined, right and wrong, truth and error have no existence, for they do not fit into any economic category.

“Persons of and by themselves have no value. An individual has a value only inasmuch as he is a representative of an economic category, ‘the revolutionary class’; outside of that, man has no value.” -Marx

Does that sound “Christian” to you?

 

[Amandil]

Your profile says “Catholic conservative loyal to Pope Francis.” Are you implying that non “conservative” Catholics can’t be loyal to the pope?

I doubt it.

I’m a Distributist, and I’m loyal to Pope Francis.

 

[Hobbes42]

Your profile says “Catholic conservative loyal to Pope Francis.” Are you implying that non “conservative” Catholics can’t be loyal to the pope?

If you’d care to note-I believe what is meant that though being conservative, he still professes loyalty to Pope Francis despite the numerous lies and misquotes being spread about His Holiness.

A little less Ad Hominem please

 

[livingwordunity]

If you’d care to note-I believe what is meant that though being conservative, he still professes loyalty to Pope Francis despite the numerous lies and misquotes being spread about His Holiness.

That, and I’m also trying to clear up the confusion caused by some who unfairly conflate Catholic conservatives with the ‘traditionalist’ SSPX.