Is there any difference between a Communist and a Leftist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
livingwordunity said:
All of that ignores the question of whether or not what I quoted describes today’s left. I think what’s in the quotes does describe today’s left perfectly.
Click to expand...
I did not address those quotes directly because of 3 reasons:
  1. I am not an expert on these types of quotes; particularly quotes from Popes from the last century. I have no ability to argue in a similar manner.
  2. I thought that my comments would only feed the flame war and not add anything constructive.
  3. I wanted to focus on the idea that political ideologies are much broader than left/right and that the left itself includes many different political philosophies, both good and bad.
  4. I am not a fan of using Papal quotes in the way that you used them. I suspect that they were meant to be more inspirational than authoritative. I am uncomfortable in even using Bible verses in this way because it could very easily be out of context. I have been impressed by the wide array of knowledge that Popes have. (No one gets to be Pope without being intelligent and knowledgeable.) That does not make any Pope, not even the ones I agree with, experts in the subject of what is called what in political philosophy.
I wish I could contribute more resonces to the bulk of your post, but it is simply outside not only my area of expertise, but my area of comfort (or faux expertise if you wish.)
 
My idea of a communist is one who holds to a philosophy that denies a creator and which aspires to and promotes a secular godless society…a leftist can hold to certain communist ideals but still believe in God.
 
Yes, but it’s also possible to “believe in God” but redefine “God” to mean whatever one likes. That’s the current popular trend of today, and it’s how politicians can say they “believe in God” while saying blasphemous things like that God would approve of so-called same-sex “marriage”.
 
Hobbes42 said:
Whoa!
Slow down there boss!

If you take a gander at Fascism (not the term bandied about nowadays by empty heads) in its doctrine, you’ll find that Fascism also means that the state controls the economy as well. It’s definitely not a lower right on an XY axi.
Click to expand...
As soon as I saw Facisn described as a right wing philosophy I knew the list was useless Facisn is left.wing political philosophy. The left desperately want to change the definition to try and distance themselves form the Mid 20th century fascist regimes.
 
estesbob said:
As soon as I saw Facisn described as a right wing philosophy I knew the list was useless Facisn is left.wing political philosophy. The left desperately want to change the definition to try and distance themselves form the Mid 20th century fascist regimes.
Click to expand...
Redefining words is a hallmark of the left. The tactic is used by them in conversation like a smoke grenade. It confuses the issue, making any attempt at a rational coherent discussion futile. This enables them to get what they want. Another example is how they want to redefine marriage or how they redefined “gay”, which used to mean happy, to mean homosexual as if to say that to be happy is to be a homosexual or that only homosexuals can be happy.
 
livingwordunity said:
Redefining words is a hallmark of the left. The tactic is used by them in conversation like a smoke grenade. It confuses the issue, making any attempt at a rational coherent discussion futile. This enables them to get what they want. Another example is how they want to redefine marriage or how they redefined “gay”, which used to mean happy, to mean homosexual as if to say that to be happy is to be a homosexual or that only homosexuals can be happy.
Click to expand...
And when people realized how bankrupt liberalism is they suddenly became “progressives”
 
estesbob said:
And when people realized how bankrupt liberalism is they suddenly became “progressives”
Click to expand...
They were called “modernists” until Pope Pius X came out with an encyclical condemning modernism.
 
livingwordunity said:
Can you give an example of a famous leftist who is against big government? It has to be someone who is famous and alive today.
Click to expand...
I’m not a big political science guy but I think Noam Chomsky would fit the bill. I think he’s an Anarcho-syndicalist.
 
livingwordunity said:
Redefining words is a hallmark of the left. The tactic is used by them in conversation like a smoke grenade. It confuses the issue, making any attempt at a rational coherent discussion futile. This enables them to get what they want. Another example is how they want to redefine marriage or how they redefined “gay”, which used to mean happy, to mean homosexual as if to say that to be happy is to be a homosexual or that only homosexuals can be happy.
Click to expand...
Straights used the word first. It wasn’t until recently the LGBT community embraced it. It was originally a slur.
 
I think it is erroneous to compare “Leftists” to Communists." As one poster suggested try reading up on Karl Marx. Also I suggest, as I would about any subject, look for the good and bad in both theories. Example: Is there something positive that can come out of a Communistic Society, a “Leftist Movement”, Socialism, Democracy, Monarchy or Dictatorship. There has to be good and bad in all forms of Government and that which prevails is due to the people, not the actual “Calling Card” they are ruled under.

I have taken this approach to learning about many things, and my insight has improved, not diminished. What I hold to be the most true is my Faith, not any government.
 
livingwordunity said:
Yes, but it’s also possible to “believe in God” but redefine “God” to mean whatever one likes. That’s the current popular trend of today, and it’s how politicians can say they “believe in God” while saying blasphemous things like that God would approve of so-called same-sex “marriage”.
Click to expand...
So how do we define who truly believes in God…a majority (I hope) of Catholics would define it as one who follows the teaching of the Catholic Church…but not all Catholics would agree…same with Protestants…and those on the left and on the right may have differing views…yet all of them may profess to be Christians…personally all I can do is follow the teaching of the Catholic Church…politically all I can do is vote for the party that is closest to what the church teaches on moral issues such as same sex marriage…homosexuality…abortion…etc…even if I might not agree with all policies that are not based on Christian morality…to vote Democrat would to me be a sin because I would be supporting that which is contradictory to what I believe as a Catholic.
 
Brendan said:
Sort of. He did set up the nation of Israel as a theocracy. He only granted them a King when they complained, prior to that, it was rule by the Prophets\Judges and the Levitcal priesthood.

So it would be hard to claim that Christ would be 100% opposed to a theocracy when he set one up in the first place.
Click to expand...
Yes, God did set up a theocracy when He not only chose but formed the Chosen People.

God chose and formed the Chosen People as a vehicle for God’s Incarnation, this is what God chose and formed the Chosen People for.

By the way, the Chosen People are still the Chosen People in spite of what some think/say/believe.

When God became Incarnate, in the Person of Jesus, He forced Himself on no one and never gave the impression when He asked us to “Proclaim the Good News” that we were to force it on others.

As I already said, Christianity is about God reconciling humanity, all of humanity, and God and it is from the inside out as opposed to from the outside in (which is what any government is about).
 
Missing, I think, is a definition if who is on the left.

Is this US specific? Is a social conservative/economic liberal on the left? A social liberal/economic conservative? Or is it simply Obama voters?
 
J_Peterson said:
Straights used the word first. It wasn’t until recently the LGBT community embraced it. It was originally a slur.
Click to expand...
I doubt that. How could the word “gay” have started out as a slur when it used to mean “happy”? I watch Leave it to Beaver which was made before “gay” meant homosexual. It’s a cultural window to the early 1960’s, and when they use the word “gay” it is in a positive way. It meant “happy”. The old Christmas song which goes, “Don we now our gay apparel” meant happy. It didn’t mean put on some homoerotic clothing. The “gay” lobby tries to blame heterosexuals for everything to make it seem like they are more persecuted than they actually are. That’s why we sometimes see anti-gay persecution hoaxes like the recent one involving a lesbian ex-Marine. There is a lot of propaganda that has been generated by the left to try to get people to accept homosexual behavior.
 
livingwordunity said:
You didn’t answer the question with any specifics. What do Communists believe that Leftists don’t?
Click to expand...
Many leftists, for example, reject Marx’s characterization of religion as the opium of the people. They also tend to reject the condemned proposition that all industry should be condemned by the government; some perhaps, usually the largest industries; but a defining feature of social democracy (many of which are not condemned by Holy Mother Church) is that there are significant parts of the economy left in the hands of private individuals. We are, hpwever, to reject those parts of left-wing movements which reduce everything to a materialistic outlook (though it must be said this is also a problem on the Right).
 
livingwordunity said:
I doubt that. How could the word “gay” have started out as a slur when it used to mean “happy”? I watch Leave it to Beaver which was made before “gay” meant homosexual. It’s a cultural window to the early 1960’s, and when they use the word “gay” it is in a positive way. It meant “happy”. The old Christmas song which goes, “Don we now our gay apparel” meant happy. It didn’t mean put on some homoerotic clothing. The “gay” lobby tries to blame heterosexuals for everything to make it seem like they are more persecuted than they actually are. That’s why we sometimes see anti-gay persecution hoaxes like the recent one involving a lesbian ex-Marine. There is a lot of propaganda that has been generated by the left to try to get people to accept homosexual behavior.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia tells me that “gay” had picked up a meaning of “uninhibited/carefree” particularly in sexual matters. One can see how the jump could be made to homosexuals.
 
Tony_the_mad said:
Why should I slow down? I have never let my ignorance stop a good argument before. 😉

On a more serious note, that post was meant to be semi-whimsical. It was thrown together as what physicists call a Gedanken (or thought experiment). If my definition of fascism being wrong was the only problem with it I would be ecstatic. I suspect that every thing in it is at least slightly off.

My understanding was that while Nazi Germany much like the US has some things nationalized it also permitted some Capitalism where it was convenient. It seems, to me to be very similar to ‘communist’ China. (I don’t claim to be an expert, I am only telling you where I came from.) Nazism is not the only form of fascism, I know.

If I wanted to be serious about this I would have to study history and political science a lot more, but my experience as a scientists leads me to strongly believe that each of these political philosophies are not just points in this 3d space but a Venn diagram in many more dimensions with much more overlap than any one expects.

What I really wanted to accomplish with that post was to show:
  1. Politics is not just a right/left thing, but is in multiple dimensions
  2. Communism really is different from socialism and the left is much more broad than both of them.
  3. That it is possible with some thought to try and make some sense of all the bewildering array of political philosophies by including multiple dimensions.
  4. There are overlap of the various political philosophies including uncomfortable overlaps. Every good philosophy can with a minor tweak be converted into a similar evil one and vice versa. There are good and bad things about every political philosophy.
I just MAY, (MAY I tell you) have went a little overboard with being a little too specific about things I am only making reasonable guesses about and about pulling too much detail from lets say a warm and dark place.

I will never admit to any of that of course, because after all I am mad (the crazy kind of mad).
Click to expand...
Ahh
Well, your summary, was a good “Gedanken” given the Zeitgeist of the times and this forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top