What would've happened if religion didn't exist?!

[edyzmedieval]

If religion didn't exist, what would've happened?!

What'd ya think?!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wow thats easy

It would have been invented of course!!!!!!!! :charge:

[Silver Rusher]

I agree with Gawain.

Mankind's curious nature would mean that it would have to come up with an explanation for the way the world worked. Philosophy would have to be very advanced for religion not to be invented sooner or later.

[Grey_Fox]

More suicides for one. There would still be wars of course, and probably just as many. All wars are caused by population pressure or greed (even the crusades, just look at the Fourth Crusade).

[King Ragnar]

Well lets say they werent smart enough and didnt, then there would be alot less wars happened.

[Redleg]

Well lets say they werent smart enough and didnt, then there would be alot less wars happened.

And you would be wrong. Wars happen for many reasons - some have religion tied into the reason for war - but if you take a good look at the warfare between nations you find the real underlying reasons behind most conflicts.

Greed, Hate, revenge, etc... Almost all aspects of human nature can be found for why nations went to war.

To blame it only on regilion is simplifying it to only one cause - at the expense of neglecting the truth.

[King Henry V]

This is the third this topic has been argued over in one week :dizzy2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Again what many dont understand is religion and state work hand in hand when they dont that state generally ceases to exist. Its like a marriage. And the divorce is always very painful.

[Al Khalifah]

Not this topic again.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Its getting hard not to repeat yourself with three similar threads running at the same time. ~:)

[King Ragnar]

And you would be wrong. Wars happen for many reasons - some have religion tied into the reason for war - but if you take a good look at the warfare between nations you find the real underlying reasons behind most conflicts.

Greed, Hate, revenge, etc... Almost all aspects of human nature can be found for why nations went to war.

To blame it only on regilion is simplifying it to only one cause - at the expense of neglecting the truth.

No i wouldnt be wrong i said there would be less wars not that all there would be no war at all. Im stating tho that alot of wars and hatred is beacause of relgion.

[AntiochusIII]

No i wouldnt be wrong i said there would be less wars not that all there would be no war at all. Im stating tho that alot of wars and hatred is beacause of relgion.Because of the Monotheistic and intolerant nature of these religions, to be more specific. These religions allows for little adaptation (despite the fact that Christianity evolves FROM the Jewish faith and that Islam also evolves with very strong Christian influence) and a lot of self-righteousness. You know what self-righteousness leads to, right? ~;)

Nonetheless, one could not deny the all-important role of religions - all of them - in creating and maintaining societies; albeit now we've evolved far enough that there are alternatives other than religions and faith that an Atheistic society is, in fact, possible.

P.S. Why are there so many threads of this type?

[Redleg]

No i wouldnt be wrong i said there would be less wars not that all there would be no war at all. Im stating tho that alot of wars and hatred is beacause of relgion.

And again you would be incorrect -

The wars that happened over religion might not be there if there was no religion - but other reasons for warfare would of been there. Man is a competive animal - when interests of different groups converge - there is often a struggle - sometimes just politicial - verbal, sometimes through armed conflict of one type or another.

There has been some interesting studies done by historical researchers that show even where religion was the major reason for the war - other factors contributed to the war.

[Adrian II]

And again you would be incorrect -

The wars that happened over religion might not be there if there was no religion - but other reasons for warfare would of been there. Man is a competive animal - when interests of different groups converge - there is often a struggle - sometimes just politicial - verbal, sometimes through armed conflict of one type or another.

There has been some interesting studies done by historical researchers that show even where religion was the major reason for the war - other factors contributed to the war.The best example I can come up with is the Crusade against the Cathars. That was about power and wealth more than anything else, including religion, even though religion was the vehicle through which the parties concerned expressed these ambitions.

[sharrukin]

Because of the Monotheistic and intolerant nature of these religions, to be more specific. These religions allows for little adaptation (despite the fact that Christianity evolves FROM the Jewish faith and that Islam also evolves with very strong Christian influence) and a lot of self-righteousness. You know what self-righteousness leads to, right? ~;)

Nonetheless, one could not deny the all-important role of religions - all of them - in creating and maintaining societies; albeit now we've evolved far enough that there are alternatives other than religions and faith that an Atheistic society is, in fact, possible.

P.S. Why are there so many threads of this type?

So the Romans, Celts, Teutons, Greeks, and Mongols were more peace loving because of their lack of Monotheistic religions?

[AntiochusIII]

So the Romans, Celts, Teutons, Greeks, and Mongols were more peace loving because of their lack of Monotheistic religions?No, but their motives were not primarily religious.

[BDC]

No, but their motives were not primarily religious.
Religion is just a cover anyway. You beat up the godless heathens because they aren't you and keep raiding your provinces/have things you want, not because they are godless heathens.

[bmolsson]

There wouldn't have been any difference. People would still believe in weird stuff.....

[sharrukin]

There wouldn't have been any difference. People would still believe in weird stuff.....

You mean like Bigfoot, crop circles, UFO Folklore, healing crystals, Wicca, Paganism, Divination, Astrology, Spiritualism, past lives, paranormal, etc.

I agree.

Seems to me we are inventing religions faster than we are getting rid of them.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by sharrukin
So the Romans, Celts, Teutons, Greeks, and Mongols were more peace loving because of their lack of Monotheistic religions?

No, but their motives were not primarily religious.

Didnt you just disprove your own post? In fact they were even more war like.

[AntiochusIII]

Didnt you just disprove your own post? In fact they were even more war like.But they were not motivated to war mainly because of their religion demands, right?

And you must take into account the possible violence that had not happened (in large scale) thanks to the Polytheistic nature of their religions. Imagine a Mongolian horde hell-bent on converting every single piece of the world to their religion. Or a Roman empire that intends to wipe out the ancient Greek and Egyptian religions completely.

On the other hand, we see dogged violence in the wars that were fought over religious issues. The Crusades, its Islamic counterpart Jihads, the early Thirty Years War, among others, were started with religious reasons. At least, that's what the politicians used to rouse the masses to war for.

Oh yeah, and our modern "crusade" and terrorism.

Edit: However, I have made additional points about the strength of the Monotheistic religion and the weakness of the Polytheistic ones in another post/in another thread.

[Krusader]

As Voltaire said:

"If there was no God, it would be necessary to invent him"

[sharrukin]

But they were not motivated to war mainly because of their religion demands, right?

So you are not concerned if the massacre is for cash and goodies, but only if it is religious nutters?



And you must take into account the possible violence that had not happened (in large scale) thanks to the Polytheistic nature of their religions. Imagine a Mongolian horde hell-bent on converting every single piece of the world to their religion. Or a Roman empire that intends to wipe out the ancient Greek and Egyptian religions completely.

On the other hand, we see dogged violence in the wars that were fought over religious issues. The Crusades, its Islamic counterpart Jihads, the early Thirty Years War, among others, were started with religious reasons. At least, that's what the politicians used to rouse the masses to war for.

Non-religious ideologies have tallied up a butchers bill that religion cannot hold a candle too. Fascism and Communism alone have done terrible damage.

Why not take into account what actually happened, rather than non-massacres by imaginary christian mongolians. The Islamic religion didn't make the Turkic or Mongolian groups extra mean when it arrived nor did Nestorian Christianity.

The anti-religious Fascist and Communist ideologies have actually committed a few violent acts themselves.

Stalin's regime (1924-53)

* In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll.
* Britannica, "Stalinism": 20M died in camps, of famine, executions, etc., citing Medvedev
* Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and after WW2.
* Daniel Chirot:
o "Lowest credible" estimate: 20M
o "Highest": 40M
o Citing:
+ Conquest: 20M
+ Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M
+ Medvedev: 40M
* Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91.

So around 20 to 30 million as a minimum. This does not include WW2.
Some of the estimates are as high as 60 million dead. We cannot know for certain.

For Hitler;
4.8m to 6.3m Jews
Soviet POW's dead 2.6m to 3.9m (plus .5m to 1.1m killed by their own Soviet government when they were returned, many of the rest sent to gulags)
200,000 to 500,000 gypsies dead
70,000 to 275,000 mentally or physically handicapped
around 1 million political prisoners

WW2
Military deaths; 19 million
Civilian deaths; 32 million

In Yugoslavia
Croatian Fascists; 500,000 to 700,000 Serbs killed in Croatian death camps and field executions
50,000 Jews
20,000 Gypsies

massacred by Germans 4,000 to 7,000 total
Muslims killed by Chetniks c.11,000
Slovenes killed by Italians c.9,000
60,000 to 100,000 by Tito's government

Post-war Communist atrocities against German civilians;
1.8 million to 2.4 million dead

Communist China;
Forcible collectivization: 27 million peasants
Cultural Revolution: 0.4 million to 2 million dead
Great Leap Forward: between 20 and 40 million dead (including famine deaths, some estimates do not include this)
Govt executes landlords (1950-51): 1,000,000

On 7 Apr. 1969 the Soviet government radio reported that 26,300,000 people were killed in China, 1949-65. This is prior to the Cultural Revolution.

Estimate totals vary from 35 million dead to 72 million dead
---------------------
Will Durant, who, in, The Reformation (1957) cites Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801, as estimating that 31,912 people were executed from 1480-1808. He also cites Hernando de Pulgar, a secretary to Queen Isabella, as estimating 2,000 people were burned before 1490. Witch trials were uncommon in Spain, UK, and Italy and Richard Kieckhefer found 702 definite executions in all of Europe from 1300-1500. If we include the witch trials of Reformation times as well we get a much larger number. The areas where the Inquisition operated with its court procedures show a very low death count. The Inquisition almost invariably pardoned any witch who confessed and repented.

A witch hunt broke out in Vizcaya, Spain in 1616. The secular authorities petitioned the king directly for the right to try witches themselves. The king granted the request and 289 people were quickly sentenced. Fortunately the Inquisition managed to re-assert its monopoly on trials and dismissed all the charges. The "witches" of Cataluna were not so lucky. Secular authorities managed to execute 300 people before the Inquisition could stop the trials.

To date, less than 15,000 definite executions have been discovered in all of Europe and America combined.
Brian Levack estimates 60,000 dead
Ronald Hutton estimates 40,000 dead
Anne Llewellyn Barstow estimates 100,000 dead based on Levack's estimate but double calculated for lost records and new trials being found.


Inquisition 32,000 dead
Witch trials 100,000 dead
Crusades 1 million to a high of 2 or 3 million (includes Albigensian Crusade)
Thirty years war c.7m
Robert J. Knecht estimates 2m to 4m dead in the French Wars of Religion (1562–1598) including St. Bartholomew's Massacre
Ireland in the time of the English Civil War 300,000 to 620,000 dead

Given the very short time period for the Fascist and Communist regimes they seem to have done more than their fair share of killing. In fact the religious boys seem like amateurs compared to them.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But they were not motivated to war mainly because of their religion demands, right?

Your first saying that war is fought by nations with monolethic religions. Now your admittinf polyistic ones were even more warlike and that religion had nothing to do with it. That means there would be just as many if not more wars without religion playing any part in it. Its built into us to fight for turff. We are still animals in many ways.

[Soulforged]

The anti-religious Fascist and Communist ideologies have actually committed a few violent acts themselves.



First you call the teory of fachism and communism to be terrible. Wrong. Only what you saw in reality (wich was not communism nor fachism) was terrible? And i see all the days the wonders that capitalism does...(Read both teories again after talking of ideologies :book: )

Second, violent acts are not always wrong. There is violence as irrational destruction, and there's violence to reconstruct a new society (or a new -"put anything here"), that's rational and just (example: The French Revolution, in fact all revolutions have an element of violence).

The teory of communism states that if violence is needed (and it will be for certain) to seize with private property then it will be used (guess who was the other one (or other ones) that stated some of the same). Fachism is in all much of the same, but the fachism defends the same as capitalism does, a social structure with difference between classes.

You seem to do the same as the one you critizied. Always talking about communism and fachism when you appear to know little about them.

Anyway back on topic. Accusing religion as the only origin of all the evils or at least of war, is too narrow minded. If religion never exited i cannot give you a panoramic view of all our society, i don't know all history, and i don't know all the influence that religion has had in history. One thing is certain there're things that are, from a moral point of view, worse or equal to the "religion effect".

[Soulforged]

As Voltaire said:

"If there was no God, it would be necessary to invent him"

Of couse because Voltaire refered to the "life" of the state.

[Redleg]

First you call the teory of fachism and communism to be terrible. Wrong. Only what you saw in reality (wich was not communism nor fachism) was terrible? And i see all the days the wonders that capitalism does...(Read both teories again after talking of ideologies :book: )

Actually I have read both theories - the intent of the Communist Revolution in Russia was to utilize Marxist doctrine with a Lenin interpation to force Russia into communism through an initial forced socialist state.

China used the same theory. The theory application by man is what went wrong. That and those in power decided that they liked to have power.



Second, violent acts are not always wrong. There is violence as irrational destruction, and there's violence to reconstruct a new society (or a new -"put anything here"), that's rational and just (example: The French Revolution, in fact all revolutions have an element of violence).


Of course violence is part of the human experience. We are a competive species.



The teory of communism states that if violence is needed (and it will be for certain) to seize with private property then it will be used (guess who was the other one (or other ones) that stated some of the same). Fachism is in all much of the same, but the fachism defends the same as capitalism does, a social structure with difference between classes.


Ah but Marx in his theories states something a little different. It made it easy for such men as Stalin, Lenin, and others to corrupt his theory for that reason.



You seem to do the same as the one you critizied. Always talking about communism and fachism when you appear to know little about them.

Actually both of you are argueing in circles. Religion and Politicial idealism have caused a lot of violence - politicial idealism has caused more deaths then Religion. Are you trying to deny that Communism and Facism are not political ideas - or shall we say dogma's of an institution. The institution being a governmental body. However again the initial philisophy of Marx was indeed corrupted by such men - but they surrounded themselves with the mantra and dogma of being Communists. In other words Idealism does a lot of harm - probably more so then religion by itself.



Anyway back on topic. Accusing religion as the only origin of all the evils or at least of war, is too narrow minded. If religion never exited i cannot give you a panoramic view of all our society, i don't know all history, and i don't know all the influence that religion has had in history. One thing is certain there're things that are, from a moral point of view, worse or equal to the "religion effect".

There is worse then a religious aspect of wars - racial differences being the main one.

[VAE VICTUS]

We Wouldnt Exist!!!!!!!!!!hahahahah

[Soulforged]

Actually I have read both theories - the intent of the Communist Revolution in Russia was to utilize Marxist doctrine with a Lenin interpation to force Russia into communism through an initial forced socialist state.

China used the same theory. The theory application by man is what went wrong. That and those in power decided that they liked to have power.

Yes you readed it, but Sharukin appears not.
They stated to use the teory, they didn't applied it. We already discussed it RedLeg. China always kept an emperor. Russia was the classic example of tirany, but this time constitutional tirany. And you said it very well: with Lenin interpretation, as i already said Lenin leaded irrational people and he make the worst mistake of dying.


Of course violence is part of the human experience. We are a competive species.

I'm not saying it just for humans and the competition. I'm talking about material and ideal evolution, both almost always needed violence to work. Socialism only can be forced, and people will die, that's inevitable, mostly capitalist of course. But what Stalin did was not an example of communism, it was tirany.


Ah but Marx in his theories states something a little different. It made it easy for such men as Stalin, Lenin, and others to corrupt his theory for that reason.

I've to disagree with you. First post that comment from Marx, because Marx leaved a lot of things to interpretation. And Lenin didn't corrupt anything he improved a lot of things and clearified the teory, he only missed in some critical points.


Actually both of you are argueing in circles. Religion and Politicial idealism have caused a lot of violence - politicial idealism has caused more deaths then Religion. Are you trying to deny that Communism and Facism are not political ideas - or shall we say dogma's of an institution. The institution being a governmental body. However again the initial philisophy of Marx was indeed corrupted by such men - but they surrounded themselves with the mantra and dogma of being Communists. In other words Idealism does a lot of harm - probably more so then religion by itself.

I agree with you. But i don't argue in circles, i really don't care what of boths are to blame for this deaths or the others, the deaths are caused by man.
Communism and facism are indeed political ideas, i'm not denyng anything. I'm just saying that teories are abstract, the same goes for ideologies, so communist claim to not have an ideology, in general this doesn't mean that they actually don't have an "ideology" but that the ideology is just to set up the general idea, and then when it comes to the actions what is best as the end is the only correct thing to do. So you can't blame an abstract (non existent) of things that exist, the abstrat is an "skin" that can be applied to reality in certain cases. Actually most people of today surround themselves with "democracy" when in reality there's no democracy.


There is worse then a religious aspect of wars - racial differences being the main one.

In general i would say that racial and social differences.

[Redleg]

Yes you readed it, but Sharukin appears not.
They stated to use the teory, they didn't applied it. We already discussed it RedLeg. China always kept an emperor. Russia was the classic example of tirany, but this time constitutional tirany. And you said it very well: with Lenin interpretation, as i already said Lenin leaded irrational people and he make the worst mistake of dying.

And I do believe that the Chinese Communists did away with the Emperor, and kept the Forbidden Palace for themselves. Just might have to go back and review a little history. A quick search seems to confirm that China no longer has an emperor, but that the COmmunist Party rules China.

I don't think the USSR was a constitutional Tyranny. But then again on that one I could be wrong since they did right a document to determine how their country would be ran - ie thats a constitution.




I'm not saying it just for humans and the competition. I'm talking about material and ideal evolution, both almost always needed violence to work. Socialism only can be forced, and people will die, that's inevitable, mostly capitalist of course. But what Stalin did was not an example of communism, it was tirany.

Someone stated that if Religion did not exist that there would of been less warfare - Religon was used as an idealism to bring the masses into the conflict - if it wasn't Religion othe Idealism's would of entered into the picture and caused conflict. (Which is my point exactly)




I've to disagree with you. First post that comment from Marx, because Marx leaved a lot of things to interpretation. And Lenin didn't corrupt anything he improved a lot of things and clearified the teory, he only missed in some critical points.


And those critical points caused massive destruction of many people - so his critical errors did indeed corrupt the system. (Remember Lenin's programs killed alot of people also - just nowhere close to Stalin's)



In general i would say that racial and social differences.
Yes indeed social differences should also be included.

[Soulforged]

You got me on China, that's because i'm to lazy to do reasearch, i just putted it in expecting that you didn't find anything. :embarassed:

But i think i understand you. Except for Lenin corrupted Communism, a teory can't be corrupted, only people can be corrupted.

[Geoffrey S]

Given the very short time period for the Fascist and Communist regimes they seem to have done more than their fair share of killing. In fact the religious boys seem like amateurs compared to them.
But isn't this also largely due to the development of better technological and logistical means to perform such attrocities?

[Petrus]

I think this question is a nonsense but imagination can give some sort of answer to it.

Without religion, there would probably have been less wars, not because religion is a factor of war by itself but because it permits to individuals to identify themselves as members of a group and to identify other individuals as members of other groups, the basics of war.

This is far from being the only factor of war, just as it is far from being the only criteria of identification of oneself to a group : as humanity evolved, other factors appeared that are much more efficient, such as the concept of national group or ideologies that are less primitive than religions.

Studying european civil wars shows that those wars could have happened without religious feelings, but that those religious feelings gave them a radicalism and a width that could not have existed without religion.

[sharrukin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Given the very short time period for the Fascist and Communist regimes they seem to have done more than their fair share of killing. In fact the religious boys seem like amateurs compared to them.


But isn't this also largely due to the development of better technological and logistical means to perform such attrocities?

That does not explain the lack of such atrocities by modern Christians and other monotheistic societies.

[sharrukin]

You seem to be assuming an awful lot from from very little. I am somewhat in the dark as to what those assumptions might be, but I will respond to what I believe you are driving at.


First you call the teory of fachism and communism to be terrible. Wrong. Only what you saw in reality (wich was not communism nor fachism) was terrible?

And Christianity talks about love and kindness and turning the other cheek. The Crusades therefore have nothing to do with Christianity, right? Christianity doesn't get off that easy IMO, and neither does Fascist or Communist ideology. The pen IS mightier than the sword, and ideas do have a tremendous impact on society. An ideology can be blamed for what it 'in reality' delivers. Ronald Reagan was right in calling the Soviet regime an "evil empire", as that is in fact what it was.



And i see all the days the wonders that capitalism does...(Read both teories again after talking of ideologies :book: )

I have read extensively on many of the theories, and have my own reservations about Capitalism. Capitalism at the very least doesn't destroy the incentive to work. Yes, to some degree contemporary capitalist society has exchanged an Aristocratic upper class for a Plutocracy (the wealthy).



You seem to do the same as the one you critizied. Always talking about communism and fachism when you appear to know little about them.
I think I know more about them than you. I know this because anyone who is moral and believes in Communism is deluded about its true nature.



Communism and facism are indeed political ideas, i'm not denyng anything. I'm just saying that teories are abstract, the same goes for ideologies, so communist claim to not have an ideology, in general this doesn't mean that they actually don't have an "ideology" but that the ideology is just to set up the general idea, and then when it comes to the actions what is best as the end is the only correct thing to do. So you can't blame an abstract (non existent) of things that exist, the abstrat is an "skin" that can be applied to reality in certain cases.

Marxism is not a singular doctrine anymore than western Liberalism is. There are numerous variants of socialist thought and some are not of the same savage nature as the one which took root in Russia or that of China. Or the Albanian one, or Cambodia, or Cuba, or North Korea, etc.

Communism is essentially a Christian heresy without God.

Mankinds Fall From Grace;

Marxism has a messianic vision in which the proletariat acts as redeemer in bringing universal liberation of mankind through revolution. The final salvation of mankind shall come from the dictatorship of the proletariat, as this is Marxisms concept of the coming kingdom of heaven.

Marxism speaks of the alienation effected by the division of labour, which divides humanity into mutually hostile classes. This division of labour is the what gives rise to the social classes in capitalism societies. The worker class is alienated through competition with other workers and this is exploited by the ruling class to their own benefit. This commercialization of the workers output is seen as immoral by Marxism, and it attempts to see production as a social undertaking that should be aimed at the betterment of all. For this reason the ownership of property itself is seen as immoral. The unsolved problem of course is who then establishes what value products should have?

Capitalism is seen as functioning at the expense of the workers, whose labour is expropriated by the ruling class to produce Capital (surplus product/money), which in turns fuels progress. Marxism see's a time of class conflict when the workers who have become impoverished through exploitation "throw off their chains". The proletariat will emerge, without the false illusions of Nationalism, religion, bourgeoisie deceptions, etc. The revolution of the proletariat is seen as the highest good of mankind, and who but the most wicked would stand in the way of what is good for all of mankind? Beyond a temporary truce with their oppressors, there is no compromise possible with political opponents in this scheme of things. The very concept of the proletariat institutionalizes violence against all who are different. If you are not one of the proletariat, you are an enemy of the people.

The so-called betrayal of the revolution

After the appearance of the first issue of the Kommunist newspaper in 1918 a hastily convened Leningrad Party Conference produced a majority for Lenin and he "demanded that the adherents of Kommunist cease their separate organizational existence"

Trotsky's betrayal of the Ukrainian Makhnovists was a cynical powerplay by the Soviets, who arrested and executed their delegates. Lenin and Trotsky were playing Stalins game from the beginning.

"It is undeniable that, of all the armies, including the Red Army, the Makhnovists behaved best with regard to the civilian population in general and the Jewish population in particular."
Jewish historian M. Tchernikover

The 1921 party congress banned all factions in the communist party itself. Trotsky made a speech denouncing one such faction, the Workers Opposition as having "placed the workers right to elect representatives above the party. As if the party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers democracy."

"Unquestioning submission to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of the labour process...the revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process" Lenin

"Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps" Trotsky

If you are not with us, you are against us. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Stalin. They are doing exactly what the Communist ideology calls for.

Lenin created a totalitarian dictatorship from the very beginning just as Marx described. There was nothing to be betrayed, and Stalinism was just a fulfillment of what Marx envisioned.

"revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is ; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all ; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror its arms inspire in the reactionaries." Works of Frederick Engels 1872

"We want to expropriate the property-owning class, and with violence, since it is with violence that they hold on to social wealth and use it to exploit the working class. Not because freedom is a good thing for the future, but because it is a good thing, today as well as tomorrow, and the property owners, be denying us the means of exercising our freedom, in effect, take it away from us.

"We want to overthrow the government, all governments — and overthrow them with violence since it is by the use of violence that they force us into obeying — and once again, not because we sneer at freedom when it does not serve our interests but because governments are the negation of freedom and it is not possible to be free without getting rid of them . . .

"The critique of religion matures in the doctrine that man is the highest being for man, or, the categorical imperative, that it is necessary to condemn all social orders in which man is a humiliated, enslaved, abandoned and contemptible being." Karl Marx "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right"

Man and the state are elevated, through the dictatorship of the proletariat to the status of a god. This is why Marxism cannot tolerate religions as they are a direct threat to the very foundations of the state. Man must be the source of inspiration, not God. There is no moral criticism possible of the proletariat by outsiders, because the proletariat IS morality incarnate. The proletariat would be industrious and devoid of selfishness, capitalist greed, aggression, envy, malice, hate, and fear. The seven deadly sins would be banished from society. Voluntary cooperation would replace capitalist coercion, and the withering away of the state would mean there would be no need for governments, armies, police, courts, prisons or taxes. Sounds like the Garden Of Eden, which theologically, is exactly what it is.

Marx believed that historical and social forces were destiny and moral sensibilities were simply held in distain by Marx. The communist state transcends justice and morality by bringing material abundance and the proletariat into being. "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." Lenin.

Man is left without a book of rules. Marxism rejects religion and has nothing but the proletariat to replace it with. Marxism has no standards of right and wrong, nor good and evil. Marx denies the existence of universal moral standards.

"We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and forever immutable ethical law on the pretext that the moral world, too, has its permanent principles which stand above history and the differences between nations." Fredrick Engels 1877 "Anti-Duhring"

Many Marxists do believe in human rights, and in doing so misunderstand the essential nature of Marxism. Marxism cannot be translated into a practical system of rule, and any attempt to do so will result in a savage regime just as we have seen historically.

"Above all, we note the fact that the so-called rights of man, the droits de l’homme as distinct from the droits du citoyen, are nothing but the rights of a member of civil society – i.e., the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community." Karl Marx "On The Jewish Question"

"Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and the cultural development conditioned by it." Karl Marx

"The dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule-unrestricted by law and based on force-of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, a rule enjoying the sympathy and support of the laboring and exploited masses." Lenin "The State and the Revolution"

There are no restraints on the human conscience and nothing that would inhibit the proletariat from acting as they choose. There is no such thing as a moral failure within Marxism as it recognizes no morality but its own. Any moral discourse other than its own is either the worthless prattle of Liberal society, or the justifying of capitalist exploiters. They have no moral compass by which to judge themselves.

Many have argued just as you do, that we have yet to see a truly communistic society, that all attempts at communism have been betrayed or subject to political and economic pressures that have corrupted Marxism. This is false of course because human nature is inherently incompatible with Marxist ideals.

Marx thought that human nature was forged by the society in which he lived. For Marxists human beings are what Communist society can make them. Marxism believes in the control of ideas and attitudes within society and the reforging of human nature itself.

"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production." Karl Marx "The Communist Manifesto"

Thus the dictatorship of the Communist Party over all aspects of social life.

Marx was contemptuous of people who judged things in moral terms. When people say that Marxism has actually never been put into practice, they don't understand that Marxism was not a rule for moral conduct nor a program for political action. From the beginning it was a theory of social and historical forces that would produce the Communist future. According to Communist theory it is supposed to be inevitable.

"They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes." Frederick Engels 1847
"The Principles of Communism"

Human rights were not held in any great esteem by Marx.

"You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible." Karl Marx "Manifesto of the Communist Party"

Many Marxists delude themselves that Marx did not mean what he said.



That Sir, is my understanding of Communism, as flawed as it may be.

Man without God is a beast, and never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness.
— Whittaker Chambers

[Soulforged]

Well i will not quote you because it's to large. But you missed my point here, though i'm not moralist, i always dispised how communism was applied. But you don't see that i'm talking about teories. You can blame ideas as you want, as you blame God, as you blame an innocent, but that will not make ideas the cause of what you see in reality. When in fact communism claimed to have no ideology. The communism per se, was never reached, it implies a wide selection, freedom in order and equality. Socialism is brutal, it requires despotism, that doesn't make it any different from war wich has been used over an over to achieve other means. But it's very different that the proletariat as a whole takes power to just one man. That you think it never worked in reality doesn't mean it can't work.
You're right, Communism WAS an evil empire, it doesn't mean that a new aplication may give new results. No teory is deluded by it's true nature.

Anyway i'll say to you why i don't prefer communism above all. The main problem with communism (even with the original teory) is that Marx believes that the individual owes itself to society, and from there he and other communist (but also others like Durkheim) stated that the subjective right didn't exist, wich means that the individual cannot use the objective right to it's own interests, so it reduces the human being to an instrument. What i do like about it, is the logical and realistic plan (some other communist offered a less realistic plan, like "just wait that communism will come") and also the social equality that it proposes.
Is funny that you mentioned the offering of the other cheek, when this actually meaned that if you must hit me then do it like equals.

Is incorrect to think that the pen is stronger than the sword, when there's nothing material to blame. What's stronger is the movements that produces the interpretation of what it's wrote and the actual human realtions behind. An idea cannot do anything, that's just an old misconception of idealists.

If you think that Stalism is a fullfilment of what Marx envisioned then you're wrong. The very etimology of communism (from commun) prooves you wrong. It was a tyrani and the teory of communism was just used to keep the fachade. Again despotism is needed, though i don't agree with killing anyone different, there's no other realistic plan to terminate with the dominion of man over man. If you think that what Marx envisioned is the dominion again of man over man then you don't understand it's teory. Besides most of the vision of communism is grouped on the critic to German Ideology by Marx, in this vision states as we know don't even exists. So it's not what Marx envisioned.

I too deny the universal standards of morality. And i apolagize you seem to know much of it (though you didn't understand me), but again Marx elaborated the instructions to finish with the domination system. For that the domination of man over man has to reach unverable limits, this includes despotism. Machiavelli did something like this. But harsh times requires harsh manners. I do believe that you're being to romantic about it.

Talking about the proletariat replacing God, i really don't care, they will never be omnicient, and God doesn't exist (i already stated what i do care). But on that critic that you seem to have included in yout post (the one to Hegel), there's a frase that sais something like this "every man will be his own God". Why? Because Hegel (though it believed in the same debt of individuals to society) in his teories stated that God is that idea where everyman sees it's own superior being and realtes all his misteries all his question all morality to it. So if you want everyman to be socially equal you must destroy God. But will the proletariat be able to get inside your mind, of course not, it's absurd, so if you want to believe anyway you will do it. Demonizing is always wrong, it applies to religion and it applies to Communism. Don't believe that i've changed my mind about communism, i just putted some ideas that i've against it. I still think that it's superior to capitalism. Inform me if i didn't answer some of your post. You're wrong at your assumption that marxism will never work because it's against to human rights, when in fact something of the same happens to the other extreme an it worked. Some extreme liberalists (as Marx was an extreme communist) state that society is second to the individual, producing all subjective rights and erasing the scense of it. Capitalism works that way, the individual interests are always before the interests of the society.

"Man without God is a beast, and never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness."

I believe exactly the opositte.

[Papewaio]

Why is despotism (the one above the many) required to create a communism (where all are socially equal)?

And what does socialy equal actually mean?

[sharrukin]

Why is despotism (the one above the many) required to create a communism (where all are socially equal)?

And what does socialy equal actually mean?

Marx defines equality as equality of result, not equality of opportunity. The equality of result cannot be the outcome of anything but state intervention.

Men are by nature selfish to a certain degree, and this is rejected by Marxism as not Proletarian. How does one impose on men what they do not want to do, if not by coercion?

Marx also rejects morality and there exists no moral barrier in Marxism to the kind of coercion as seen in despotic leaders.

This does not apply to Socialism which is a different bird.

[Soulforged]

Marx defines equality as equality of result, not equality of opportunity. The equality of result cannot be the outcome of anything but state intervention.

Men are by nature selfish to a certain degree, and this is rejected by Marxism as not Proletarian. How does one impose on men what they do not want to do, if not by coercion?

Marx also rejects morality and there exists no moral barrier in Marxism to the kind of coercion as seen in despotic leaders.

This does not apply to Socialism which is a different bird.

I agree in general with you, but as i said i'm not a moralist. As i always say when someone criticize communism: "Well Marx stated what we've to do, why don't you try the same?". Putting Marx as the demon, a nuts or a guy who took the theory from the nothing (a totally abstract), is first of moralists and second of ignorants. Marx was an enminent lawyer and economist. (And this is not directed towards you sharrukin, though you seem a moralist)

[sharrukin]

Is incorrect to think that the pen is stronger than the sword, when there's nothing material to blame. What's stronger is the movements that produces the interpretation of what it's wrote and the actual human realtions behind. An idea cannot do anything, that's just an old misconception of idealists.

If you think that Stalism is a fullfilment of what Marx envisioned then you're wrong. The very etimology of communism (from commun) prooves you wrong. It was a tyrani and the teory of communism was just used to keep the fachade. Again despotism is needed, though i don't agree with killing anyone different, there's no other realistic plan to terminate with the dominion of man over man.

Ideas do have a tendency to go in certain directions. The Fascist ideology of Nazi Germany is not going to result in democratic elections and equal rights for all. I believe that philosophy helps to make the world a better place to live...or a worse place.

Stalinism was the fulfillment of Marxism in the same way that a devastating impact is the fulfillment of rolling a boulder down a hill. You can argue that the impact was not your declared intention, but IMO you cannot argue that it is not the fulfillment of your actions. Marxism does not allow external criticism and has no internal mechanism as it rejects morality. It cannot be anything but the strong preying on the weak.


I do believe that you're being to romantic about it.

That's an accusation I cannot deny.


So if you want everyman to be socially equal you must destroy God.

I don't want everyone to be socially equal. There are men who are better than me, more capable, and more deserving. Why should I get an equal share of the pie? What have I done that entitles me to such bounty? I breath, and my body temperature is around 98 degrees? That hardly seems adequate, moral, or logical. The George Orwell book "Animal Farm" is a simple book, but it does illustrate some of the problems with this kind of thinking.



I agree in general with you, but as i said i'm not a moralist. As i always say when someone criticize communism: "Well Marx stated what we've to do, why don't you try the same?". Putting Marx as the demon, a nuts or a guy who took the theory from the nothing (a totally abstract), is first of moralists and second of ignorants. Marx was an enminent lawyer and economist. (And this is not directed towards you sharrukin, though you seem a moralist)

I am indeed a moralist and a romantic and unashamed of being so.

I do not believe that Marx created the theory from nothing. I believe it to have an ancient tradition dating back to the Gnostic heresy, the Bogomils, and Cathars. Marx was not a lawyer, his father was. He enrolled as a law student but didn't complete the course at the University of Bonn or of Berlin.

[bmolsson]

Marxism does not allow external criticism and has no internal mechanism as it rejects morality. It cannot be anything but the strong preying on the weak.


It's true that it does not allow external criticism, but it does have internal mechanism. It's really a elitistic system a la military.
Further more, it's actually the weak majority preying on the strong individuals.

I would argue that Marx identified the utopian result of democracy in a fully industrialized society. The few needs to work and support the majority.
The communistic trend a la North Korea is rather a way back to a feodalistic society where the line of blood is more important than the climbing on the "corporate" ladder.

[Soulforged]

Ideas do have a tendency to go in certain directions. The Fascist ideology of Nazi Germany is not going to result in democratic elections and equal rights for all. I believe that philosophy helps to make the world a better place to live...or a worse place.

That's your opinion i'm a materialist. But this is to large to discuss here, so let's just stop in this matter.


Stalinism was the fulfillment of Marxism in the same way that a devastating impact is the fulfillment of rolling a boulder down a hill. You can argue that the impact was not your declared intention, but IMO you cannot argue that it is not the fulfillment of your actions. Marxism does not allow external criticism and has no internal mechanism as it rejects morality. It cannot be anything but the strong preying on the weak.

This is one of the best statements i've ever read. Believe me your analogy penetrates to the deepest theories of causalism :bow: . The final vission of Marx was something different to despotism, it was the ideal concurrence of both freedom (obviously in the negative way, not as the disscused "free will")and equality. But you're right, failures of the original theory.



I don't want everyone to be socially equal. There are men who are better than me, more capable, and more deserving. Why should I get an equal share of the pie? What have I done that entitles me to such bounty? I breath, and my body temperature is around 98 degrees? That hardly seems adequate, moral, or logical. The George Orwell book "Animal Farm" is a simple book, but it does illustrate some of the problems with this kind of thinking.

I readed that book too. But i think that material equality is the true principle that leads to democracy. And not just formal equality emptied of content as we live today.



I do not believe that Marx created the theory from nothing. I believe it to have an ancient tradition dating back to the Gnostic heresy, the Bogomils, and Cathars. Marx was not a lawyer, his father was. He enrolled as a law student but didn't complete the course at the University of Bonn or of Berlin.

Well i think that his references go back to Rouseau and Tomas Moro. But i was talking that he created the theory through the experience that he had of capitalism, i mean that the theory is not a total abstract, it's also inductive. You're right about his law career i forgot that (you seem to have an amazing memory), but anyway his knowledge of law was proper, though with some critical flaws.