View Full Version : Communism/Theocracy?
Which would you rather live under? Be realistic, I'm not talking about Utopian for either. One that you would probably expect to exist. Oh, and the theocracy is either Christian/Islamic. Either one will do.
Although I loathe both for various reasons, I would probably say a theocracy. I would just pretend to except whatever was being preached. I just hate redistribution of wealth by the government that much.
CountArach
03-17-2007, 07:36
Whilst I would support a utopian communist state, it would have to be utoipian and not Soviet-style Communism. Other than that I would go to a Theocratic Government. The thing is that I would be so brain washed into believing that whatever I was told was correct, that I wouldn't mind being there...
PanzerJaeger
03-17-2007, 07:48
Is there really any question?
Where is fascism? :shame:
ajaxfetish
03-17-2007, 08:48
What's the difference?
Ajax
Randarkmaan
03-17-2007, 09:43
Since you seem to imply that both are totalitarian I don't see why should bother choosing, as it is with totalitarian states they are pretty much alike no matter what their ideology.
cegorach
03-17-2007, 09:47
And where is 'GAH !' ?:inquisitive:
Both choices are the same - in the beginning such countries are murderous, power-hungry, warmongering dictatorships to become decaying, conservative, grey places where black market is the only area showing constant growth.:juggle2:
PanzerJager
Is there really any question?
Where is fascism?
It is almost the same as thocracy/communism, but is more suicidal.
doc_bean
03-17-2007, 10:13
Gah !
It all depends on how it's implemented, I think I'd prefer comunism, seeing as then at least part of the money I'd have to give will go to the people and not into funding essentially pointless things, like more church buildings, a university where all you do all day is reading the Bible or funding a 'class' of people who only 'serve' God and don't do any other job.
Poverty for anyone not in the religious class or party would be your fate in either society. I don't see why you're focusing on redistribution of wealth, since their won't be much wealth to distribute.
Note: I know there are rich people in China, but then they're no longer really communist, more totalitarian-capitalist, if that makes sense.
HoreTore
03-17-2007, 13:30
Well, the theocracy oppresses atheists, the communists oppresses religious idiots...
The answer is simple, communism. I'd even want to live under Stalin than in a religious society.
But, my choice, of course, would be to have the socialist economics, without the state terror of Lenin... Well, not as much anyway.
Marshal Murat
03-17-2007, 14:45
I think Communist society rather than Theocracy.
A Communist society means that you get to serve your 'Motherland' which sounds cool.
Given those choices, communist. Not even a contest.
King Henry V
03-17-2007, 17:25
I'd pick Iran over the USSR any day of the week. Sure, in both freedoms are limited, but in Iran you do have a limited democracy, even though that normally means that you can only choose between conservative and very conservative candidates. Besides, what is a communist regime other than an atheist theocracy?
TevashSzat
03-17-2007, 17:44
Communist definately since the odds are it will either collapse into a republic/democracy or sustain itself and turn out to be a more captialist socliast government liek China
Blodrast
03-17-2007, 18:28
Well, I've already tried one of them, so I'd give theocracy a shot, just to see if it can outdo communism.
Lord Winter
03-17-2007, 18:32
I'll take my chances with theocracy, at theast then you have some personal freedom in what job you do and the amount of money you can earn.
Ironside
03-17-2007, 18:33
Whatever that's least oppressive and that's impossible to say without further information. Both can be quite relaxed and very oppressive.
I'd pick Iran over the USSR any day of the week. Sure, in both freedoms are limited, but in Iran you do have a limited democracy, even though that normally means that you can only choose between conservative and very conservative candidates. Besides, what is a communist regime other than an atheist theocracy?
I'll rise with Talibans and Cuba. See the problem?
Theocracy is awesome. The world would be a much better place if every country was a theocracy.
HoreTore
03-17-2007, 19:12
Theocracy is awesome. The world would be a much better place if every country was a theocracy.
Unfortunately, there are some idiots in the world who actually believes this...
There is a theocratic party here in Norway actually, and their arguments are scary to say the least. And what they're trying to achieve is basically a cross between the taliban and iran...
Ie, stone anyone having sex, kill the infidels, destroy freedom of speech(how can anyone be allowed to blaspheme against god?!?) etc etc...
Fortunately, they only have the support of themselves, so they are just cute little muppets in my opinion :2thumbsup:
"You can have freedom without communism, but you can never have communism without freedom". True words in my opinion...
AntiochusIII
03-17-2007, 19:19
Theocracy is awesome. The world would be a much better place if every country was a theocracy.God-King Navaros? ~;)
This is actually a hard question; but I think Ice's focus on the redistribution of wealth isn't exactly on the right spot.
By examples in reality, the "redistribution" part happens only during the revolutionary phase, which in any case usually implies that the society was so desperately sick that some bastards -- like the damnable Russian nobles -- really deserved to be "redistributed" (in a poetic sense, anyway; hear that, Katerina "the Great?"). After that, all hail the Party, the Leader, and his Rich Men.
If we are to look at the same extreme for Theocracy, though, I think I'd be more worried for this one. They rise so easily and maintain themselves easier because they don't merely propagandize for the brain, they propagandize to control the soul. God says so is certainly more effective in controlling the masses than the Leader who died a few months ago used to say so.
PJ: I think fascism is a very strange ideology that cannot be applied to real life in any "good" fashion. You see, it is an aggressive appeal to the most macho and masochistic of our essence. Violence, expansion, control, an external enemy, national glory, moral superiority, domination...
Just about the worst choice, really. The communist and theocratic regimes tend to have their occasional reigns of terror; fascism is a perpetual one.
They usually maintain a haphazard quasi-monopoly economy where the Very Very Rich Men supports the government in exchange for economic monopoly.
HoreTore: I don't believe the communist regimes Ice is talking about scores very well on the Freedom Meter, personally. And I'm a blasphemous damn liberal intent on destroying America for many on the right, too. You see, he requires an example of what happened in real life, in which the philosophies of Marx, Engel, or Bakunin are never really implemented in any effective fashion. If it's the ideal utopia then even I will go for theocracy. Why? -- ideally, there's a God! All hail immortality! *plots to overthrow God*
Kanamori
03-17-2007, 19:21
I'd like to think I'd do well moving up the bureaucratic ladder. Get some special privileges, keep the peasants down... all in a day's work.:2thumbsup:
Meneldil
03-17-2007, 19:58
I'd like to think I'd do well moving up the bureaucratic ladder. Get some special privileges, keep the peasants down... all in a day's work.:2thumbsup:
Seconded. Until the Father of the Nation decide that I'm moving up way to fast for him, and sends me to some 'Re-education camp', where I'll learn the true meaning of comradship and work.
Kanamori
03-17-2007, 20:05
Then you're not doing well.:tongue:
It depends a lot on the leaders in both cases.
Being christian, I wouldn't mind our pastor running the country, but certain christian extremists would make me want to leave because I don't really see oppression as something christian. Nowhere did Jesus say you should force someone to do this or that.
So if we compare an extremist christian theocracy or an islamic sharia theocracy to communism led by really nice people(that means no killing of opposition, decent healthcare etc) then it's communism. And the other way around, a lot depends on how you implement a system. It's the same as with kings, there are glorious nice guys and tyrants, both are called monarchs.
HoreTore
03-17-2007, 23:16
HoreTore: I don't believe the communist regimes Ice is talking about scores very well on the Freedom Meter, personally. And I'm a blasphemous damn liberal intent on destroying America for many on the right, too. You see, he requires an example of what happened in real life, in which the philosophies of Marx, Engel, or Bakunin are never really implemented in any effective fashion. If it's the ideal utopia then even I will go for theocracy. Why? -- ideally, there's a God! All hail immortality! *plots to overthrow God*
Yes, I agree completely with that. None of the communist countries so far has even come close to something remotely called freedom... I hope it won't turn out the same way in Venezuela though. If Chavez can pull it off and create a truly free country...
Anyway, I blame Stalin.
As for the "utopian theocracy", well, it will depend on the god in question... I will fight the gods of islam, christianity and judaism to the death, there is no way I will obey such an evil creature...
Strike For The South
03-17-2007, 23:40
I'd spend my time trying to topple both
And where is 'GAH !' ?:inquisitive:
My thoughts exactly. The poll needs a GAH!/Anarchy option. :smash:
Hosakawa Tito
03-18-2007, 00:11
Bleh, back to me hermits' cave.
I would be given a re-education in either circumstance in this poll.
Kommodus
03-18-2007, 03:57
Well, I would be part of the underground resistance in either regime. However, I voted "theocracy" because I think there may be more potential for change. The desire for freedom of conscience is so powerful that there would never be a shortage of people willing to rise up against the state-sponsored clerics.
A massive all-powerful communist state, controlling all the resources and making sure no one really stands out among the crowd, would be hard to rebel against. After a time, that kind of abuse causes people to act like battered children - living in fear, self-doubt, and despair.
Then again, I look at the Islamic states of the Middle East and wonder. Under such religious oppression, why aren't there more voices of dissent? Is the brainwashing caused by both the ruling powers and peer pressure even stronger than the conformity opposed by a communist state? Very possibly.
Nice poll; I've never seen such horrific choices! "Would you rather be burned alive or boiled in oil..." :dizzy2:
If were talking extremes, it would of course be Fascism.
Since the option is not available, Id choose religious theocracy, where the option for personal advancement is still a possibilty.
DemonArchangel
03-18-2007, 06:13
I would hang myself from the nearest tree.
PanzerJaeger
03-18-2007, 08:09
PJ: I think fascism is a very strange ideology that cannot be applied to real life in any "good" fashion. You see, it is an aggressive appeal to the most macho and masochistic of our essence. Violence, expansion, control, an external enemy, national glory, moral superiority, domination...
Just about the worst choice, really. The communist and theocratic regimes tend to have their occasional reigns of terror; fascism is a perpetual one.
They usually maintain a haphazard quasi-monopoly economy where the Very Very Rich Men supports the government in exchange for economic monopoly.
Fascism - done well - takes the best elements of all the major ideologies.
It is just important that there is a clear methodology in selecting the leadership. That's where things went wrong in the '30s. :)
AntiochusIII
03-18-2007, 08:12
Fascism - done well - takes the best elements of all the major ideologies. If you please -- can you expand on that?
Sjakihata
03-18-2007, 09:56
How is done well defined? Killing more than 1000 jews pr. day or even 10,000?
Randarkmaan
03-18-2007, 10:03
Does fascism even have a definable ideology? Take Mussolini for an example, first he was a socialist then he went on to appease the middle-class and oppose the socialists, when asked what the political goals of the fascists were the answer was: "We want to rule Italy!"
Banquo's Ghost
03-18-2007, 10:06
How is done well defined? Killing more than 1000 jews pr. day or even 10,000?
Before we all pile into PanzerJager for his views, let's allow him to have a chance to explain. As far as I recall, he does not support the Nazi's extermination camps and we should be careful not to imply that he does unless he makes that assertion.
There have been fascist regimes that did not have a racial extermination policy, just as there have been communist regimes that did not send everyone and his dog to a gulag.
We allow monarchists, anarchists, imperialists, communists and many other "ists" to promulgate their views here - as long as they do so respectfully and within the rules. We must allow the same courtesy to PJ, even if he is a minority of one.
HoreTore
03-18-2007, 12:30
Well, fascism isn't the same as nazi's, they're national socialists. Fascism is *somewhat* similar, but it did NOT promote a racial barrier. To me, fascism is defined by a class barrier. You have your ruling class, your noble class, your middle class and the "nobody cares about you" class. The people is held in their class, and the lower in the classes you get, the less consideration is given to you.
The opposite of socialism really.
Oh, and like Banquo's Ghost said, don't flame him for promoting fascism, there are people here who would be very interested to hear what he has to say ;)
Duke Malcolm
03-18-2007, 13:53
It is a tricky question...
I can't say I enjoy living as in the People's Republic of Scotland much, though I feel I still would not enjoy living here if it was ruled by the Church of Scotland or other Fire-and-Brimstone churches. At least the place would be democratic. And they would have no problem with drinking. If I was over 18. And they would get rid of the Glorious Executive and its ruthless oppression of the Middle- and Upper-Classes...
I'm very much interested in PJ's words on fascism. I think I know what he means, but I might be wrong and I don't want to put any words into his mouth.
Hah hah, Sjakihata, you're almost making a straw man there :P
King Henry V
03-18-2007, 16:29
Anyway, I blame Stalin.
Do not blame him; rather blame Man's inherent greed and thirst for power.
Lorenzo_H
03-18-2007, 16:36
I am surprised by the amount of people who voted for Communism. Both can be bad but at least "Christian" Theocracy would, or should, if the Preaching is accurate to the Bible, allow freedom to a great degree.
I am surprised by the amount of people who voted for Communism. Both can be bad but at least "Christian" Theocracy would, or should, if the Preaching is accurate to the Bible, allow freedom to a great degree.
My point exactly.:2thumbsup:
How is done well defined? Killing more than 1000 jews pr. day or even 10,000?
Theres a clear difference between Nazism and Fascism. Try to recognize that.
Rex_Pelasgorum
03-18-2007, 16:58
Communism is the worst piece of crap in this world !
Why ? Because it appears so utopic, so wonderfull - when in fact is so monstruos. Communism killed many more people than fascism.
When speaking about theocracy, we should distinguish islamic fundamentalism from christian fundamentalism. Islam at its fundamental is an extremely bloody religion (we cannot deny the muslim conquest of the VI-VII century AD, and all the murderous things made by muslims against the christians and persian zoroastrians alike), it evolved, under the influence of christian ideas, into something more moderate with the course of time.
If anyone would choose to live in a Xth century , or XIIth century islamic state, would enjoy a freedom not found anywhere in the world at that time. Just look at that awesome Islamic civilization, at the Sufi school, at the wonderfull poetry... muslim people have achieved an extraordinary advance both in culture and in religious depht once they managed to put down the sword.
Christianity, on the other hand, started as a pacifistic and idealist religions, evolving into a bloody religion later, when christians assumed controls of the politics. Some traditions where made in christianity simply to justify theyr killings. What christians did during the Crusades or the Reconquista was terrible.... and very, very farr from the good old christian spirit.
I guess a presumed fundamentalist christian country, inspired by the spirit of the arhaic church (second and third century AD) where the laws are inspired by the church tradition, and by a good interepretation of the Scriptures would be one of the best possible places to live.
While i do agree that theocracy is obsolete in our times (due to the large variety of people`s opinion), at least i, personally, would agree with a true christian rulling of my country.
Perhaps one might similarly argue that communism, as it has existed, was equally non-communistic, and that you're allowing for an idealized version of theocracy but a 'real' version of communism.
TevashSzat
03-18-2007, 17:27
Rex you are ignoring the time period in which Christianity and Islam evolved. Christianity developed during the Roman Empire when there was generally peace throughout the lands and no need for violence. Islam was developed after the peak of Roman Power and in an area with a power vaccum. If Muslims did not conquer their surrounding territories, they would've been taken over and Islam would probably not have been a major religion right now. If Christianity evolved under similar circumstances, there can be no doubt that it will be just as violent as Islam if not even more.
You are saying that real life communism is worse than ideal theocracy which is certainley the truth, but that is like comparing apples to oranges. I personally would much rather live in a realistic communistic gov instead of a realistic theocratic one
gaelic cowboy
03-18-2007, 17:32
Theocracy I suppose because its more likely that you would be left alone in it. However both are pretty dismal TBH.
ShadeHonestus
03-18-2007, 17:50
I'd do my best to increase global warming...mostly by breathing heavily over my harem of 40 of the most beautiful servants err wives I mean women...so it would all end rather quickly.... oh wait
How is done well defined? Killing more than 1000 jews pr. day or even 10,000?
what has facism got to do with killing jews?
I guess a presumed fundamentalist christian country, inspired by the spirit of the arhaic church (second and third century AD) where the laws are inspired by the church tradition, and by a good interepretation of the Scriptures would be one of the best possible places to live.
the problem is that "good" intepretations vary a lot, in reality a theocracy (similarly to communism) sounds very nice, but isn't all that happy...
--> I would probably prefer communism, but only because i know everyone gets equally mistreated
:2thumbsup:
Randarkmaan
03-18-2007, 19:43
There's one thing I'd like to say and that is that a perfect christian society is as much unattainable as a perfect communist society. Both are impossible to maintain perfection in because of man's inherent cruely and greed. Jesus said that if someone commits a sin you should forgive them and not punish them, if someone hits you, you turn the other cheek, genereally Jesus was a very nice guy but not one whose teachings could be used as a model for laws in state rather his teachings are an ideal to try to achieve, but how do you think a TRULY christian state would fare? It's the same with communism really, very nice ideals, equality and all that, but not applicable in real life.
Also the difference between christianity and Islam can be understood by comparing their founders; Mohammed was a man who could be characterized as a politician and made compromises with his own values as politicians do. Jesus was just a really nice guy who had no real interest in politics and state-running or war as most of it involved violence or being mean to someone or lying.
Also I don't think fascism or nazism is the opposite of communism. the opposite of communism would be a religious, free market society with no taxes and no welfare services, with prices on everything. Fascism is basically militant populism, while nazism is a sort of socialism with extreme nationalism and racism thrown in.
Kanamori
03-18-2007, 19:57
Do not blame him; rather blame Man's inherent greed and thirst for power.
We should be thankful for it, it's why we're all alive after all.
. Jesus was just a really nice guy who had no real interest in politics and state-running or war as most of it involved violence or being mean to someone or lying.
that's what they tell you...
Also I don't think fascism or nazism is the opposite of communism. the opposite of communism would be a religious, free market society with no taxes and no welfare services, with prices on everything. Fascism is basically militant populism, while nazism is a sort of socialism with extreme nationalism and racism thrown in.
agreed, its just easier (and more convenient) to see facism as the opposite because of the difference between individual and state
:2thumbsup:
King Henry V
03-18-2007, 20:54
We should be thankful for it, it's why we're all alive after all.
Perhaps, but I was referring to the corruption of the theoretical communist state into the real world communist regimes.
Soulforged
03-18-2007, 21:09
Does fascism even have a definable ideology? Take Mussolini for an example, first he was a socialist then he went on to appease the middle-class and oppose the socialists, when asked what the political goals of the fascists were the answer was: "We want to rule Italy!"
No it doesn't have. Facism is a mixture of poetry, maxims and action. There's no system nor methodology of facism, there's no doctrine. There's nothing to be "correctly applied" beyond what has already been done.
Christian.Sorry I thought this was about a theocracy, not just a Christian theocracy. The interesting thing is that the posters are trying to polarize communism and theocracy when communism was born in the cradle of religion. The first people to found the First International (between them Blanqui) were deeply religious, and believed in what one may call "Christian totalitarism", to achieve the same ends that communism has as a purpose: economic equality. It's true that the theory of historical materialism was born on Germany (Marx), but the ideologies of movement and production can all be found on France on the times of the First International.
About communism (this is of course a tired topic, and it goes to show how much controversy this theory can cause, it's always communism against X), if anybody reads the original works of Marx and Engels (particularly Marx) and then passes through their commentators and reinterpeters one will find that the theory itself suffers a change on every reinterpretation. The most critical of them is that of Lenin, wich in turn gets pushed to the extreme by Stalin in one form, and by Mao in another. The interesting thing is that this can be attributed to Marx, not because he has exactly stated in one way or the other, but especially because he didn't. He refused to explain the details of the Revolution because that was left to the praxis, all had to surge from the mechanism of production (though in some points he accepts the political struggle as a legitim field). Eventually it did... one could argue.
EDIT: Blanqui wasn't on the First International.
Mikeus Caesar
03-18-2007, 22:21
Communism is the worst piece of crap in this world !
Why ? Because it appears so utopic, so wonderfull - when in fact is so monstruos. Communism killed many more people than fascism.
Communism hasn't killed more people than fascism - just one particular nutjob called Stalin. If i recall, Khruschev denounced Stalin as soon as he took power - that is how much he was hated.
Anyway, go communism. Can't stand religion.
Kralizec
03-18-2007, 22:43
Both suck, in varying degrees. It makes a lot of difference if it's Vatican city vs. Stalin's USSR, or if it's the Paris commune vs. Iran.
Does fascism even have a definable ideology? Take Mussolini for an example, first he was a socialist then he went on to appease the middle-class and oppose the socialists, when asked what the political goals of the fascists were the answer was: "We want to rule Italy!"
Fascism is best described by summing up what it isn't. It's, at its core, anti-capitalist, anti-communist, anti-liberalist and most of all, anti-individualist. Fascism is certainly on the bottom of my list (or National Socialism, if you want to differentiate between the two), theocracy and marxist-leninism sharing a place just above it.
TevashSzat
03-19-2007, 00:30
Facism only means that there is an authoritarian gov. that forces the people to be extremely patriotic and place their loyalty to country above all. It is not necessarily anti-capitalist, but only against Laissez-faire capitalism where there is no government involvment or government restrictions. Industrialistic capitalism is fine for most facists.
Also, how can it be anti-capitalist and anti-individualist when it is anti-communist? Capitalism and individualism is almost the exact oppositie of communistic ideals. Facism is not necessarily inately evil and worse than all other forms of government, but it is just that facism is associated with Hitler and the Nazis making people just instantly start hating it
Also, how can it be anti-capitalist and anti-individualist when it is anti-communist? Capitalism and individualism is almost the exact oppositie of communistic ideals.
communism and facism both take away the power of the individual in a capitalist system, both get "told" what to do, in the same way it restricts individual freedom in exactly the same way... just because it is anti-communist doesnt make it the opposite, infact there are many similarities...
:2thumbsup:
HoreTore
03-19-2007, 03:09
@ Soulforged: Well, first of, the Blanquists was at the First International.
But there was a wide range of people there. Republicans, mutulaists, marx etc. There were religious people there, but none of them shaped marxism. "Religion; Opium to the people" accurately describes a marxist view of religion.
The only religious socialist I can remember who had an influence on anything, was a priest who talked with Lenin after a strike in around 1905(I think it was after he wrote "What is to be done?"). In fact, Lenin, and most others, saw them as mentally challenged...
Regarding Fascism, remember that Hitler was a National Socialist, not a fascist. Fascism refers to the rule of Mussolini. Franco was sympathetic, but not fascist himself.
Oh, and yes, fascism is about the worst form of government ever conceived, along with monarchy and theocracy. And every government with a touch of nationalism.
Samurai Waki
03-19-2007, 07:25
..well that all depends. I think I'd rather live in Iran rather than North Korea, but I'd rather live in Cuba rather than Iran.
Well... I suppose Vietnam wouldn't be so bad either. Anyways, just as long as you keep your mouth shut, look to the ground, and hide a few AK 47s, A revolution is never too far away with Dictatorships.
Fisherking
03-19-2007, 08:01
I'll stay where I am thanks…
Why don't you guys make a choice between Cyanide and Strychnine?
AntiochusIII
03-19-2007, 08:45
I'll stay where I am thanks…
Why don't you guys make a choice between Cyanide and Strychnine?Well, obviously because this is a hypothetical where the only choices are two?
I mean, sure, nobody here with a modicum of sanity would choose either over the less oppressive societies we are living in (the starting poster particularly asserts the point of plausibility and real examples over utopian dreams). But to answer like that isn't exactly adding much to the discussion as a whole.
Tribesman
03-19-2007, 09:27
It would have to be communism for me .
I dislike people claiming to be politically right when they are not , but I absolutely detest people claiming to be religeously right when they are not .
So the commy bull gets the vote over the theocracy bull .
Ja'chyra
03-19-2007, 13:55
Neither, church should have nothing to do with state be it Islam, Christianity or FSM and I already pay far too much towards the upkeep of bone-idle wasters.
Tribesman
03-19-2007, 14:05
I already pay far too much towards the upkeep of bone-idle wasters.
Doesn't bone idle wasters cover the general description of weegies ?:hide:
Ja'chyra
03-19-2007, 14:41
Doesn't bone idle wasters cover the general description of weegies ?:hide:
Ouch, harsh
:laugh4:
gunslinger
03-19-2007, 18:30
If we are talking about the worst examples of both choices, then I guess I would have to choose communism. After all, if you're an atheist, it's easy to say that you would just go along with whatever the zealots in the theocracy are preaching, because it's all false to you anyway. However, if you have a true faith, then you may believe that your soul is at stake if you "go with the program" in an adverse theocracy. If the theocracy requires an oath to serve Rolega, god of the environment and keeper of the global thermostat, you may be forced down the path of martyrdom.
Of course, I'm happily assuming that the worst possible example of a theocracy could not be a true Christian one, since Christianity is an individual religion with clear, scriptural instructions against trying to force anyone else to become a Christian.
HoreTore
03-19-2007, 21:20
Of course, I'm happily assuming that the worst possible example of a theocracy could not be a true Christian one, since Christianity is an individual religion with clear, scriptural instructions against trying to force anyone else to become a Christian.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Most of the conversions through history has been at the point of the sword... Or wallet sometimes. A conservative christian theocracy could easily kill any infidels. It's already happening in Nigeria.
The type of theocract wasn't specified neither was the type of communism. Assuming the worst case scenario, then the worst kind of communism would be preferable to a Taliban style regime. Hence my vote for communism.
ShadeHonestus
03-19-2007, 21:32
The type of theocract wasn't specified neither was the type of communism. Assuming the worst case scenario, then the worst kind of communism would be preferable to a Taliban style regime. Hence my vote for communism.
Interesting that given only the two choices of the worst example of communism and a taliban style regime. So you'd choose the regime where the reason for your being re-educated, purged, or disappeared is arbitrary and at the corrupt power structure's whim and paranoia, rather than one which at least gives you a handbook of warped ethics.
Devastatin Dave
03-19-2007, 21:52
I want to live in a Muslim Theocracy, if only to watch all those do-gooder liberals get their heads sliced off by those they did everything to defend back in the day. :2thumbsup:
Interesting that given only the two choices of the worst example of communism and a taliban style regime. So you'd choose the regime where the reason for your being re-educated, purged, or disappeared is arbitrary and at the corrupt power structure's whim and paranoia, rather than one which at least gives you a handbook of warped ethics.
So I suppose a regime where women are treated little better than dogs and spending most of your time in a religious building learning about nothing but that religion, the history of that religion and religion in society and government is a lot better? After a few generations your descendants would become slaves to this ideology and freeing one from what is inside of ones head is a much bigger task than changing from one political system to another. An oppressive communist state can be overthrown from within, an oppressive religious fundamentalist regime roots itself into the culture in time and change becomes almost impossible to remove. There is no grip like the hold of religion, history has shown that time and time again. A lot of wars have been fought over it, a lot of terrorist activity is directly or indirectly related to it. It binds people together and it drives people apart. Underestimating it's power and overestimating that of the "communist demon" is a common fallacy.
Devastatin Dave
03-19-2007, 21:55
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Most of the conversions through history has been at the point of the sword... Or wallet sometimes. A conservative christian theocracy could easily kill any infidels. It's already happening in Nigeria.
:laugh4:
Definitely from Norway...:laugh4:
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Most of the conversions through history has been at the point of the sword... Or wallet sometimes. A conservative christian theocracy could easily kill any infidels. It's already happening in Nigeria.
It may not be the case in reality, mainly because true christians do not strive for power and do not want to rule over others. And in this world, such people don't often end up in charge of a nation or militia.
Again, Jesus said: "Love your enemies", not "form a militia and kill them all". Everybody who does not even understand such basic instructions can hardly be considered a christian IMO.
ShadeHonestus
03-19-2007, 22:21
Wrote the above to see what would pop out of the woodwork...
So I suppose a regime where women are treated little better than dogs and spending most of your time in a religious building learning about nothing but that religion, the history of that religion and religion in society and government is a lot better? .
Well if we are merely talking survival, yes. Communist scientific pursuits are/were as limited by the political ideology as theologically endoctrine scientists.
After a few generations your descendants would become slaves to this ideology and freeing one from what is inside of ones head is a much bigger task than changing from one political system to another.
We aren't talking about "which would you rather live in if you could overthrow it," however since you mentioned it...
An oppressive communist state can be overthrown from within, an oppressive religious fundamentalist regime roots itself into the culture in time and change becomes almost impossible to remove.
A state rots from within, but of and by itself the corrupt center can never be exposed or contrasted so there is no measure. Show me a man who succesfully ran the wall in Berlin and I'll show you 10 families who escaped theologically oppressive regimes. Most theologies have at some point in their teachings a basis in basic human dignity. This has been echoed in many escapes to freedom of all disciplines everywhere. Communism in its most oppresive form, rids you of personal dignity as an enemy of the state.
There is no grip like the hold of religion, history has shown that time and time again. A lot of wars have been fought over it, a lot of terrorist activity is directly or indirectly related to it. It binds people together and it drives people apart. Underestimating it's power and overestimating that of the "communist demon" is a common fallacy.
Nationalism is the biggest culprit in global conflict, terrorism, and violent death. This is a fact and no serious academic makes the claim of "religion" being the title holder in motivation for these. It is that famous freshmen mindset, often the source being some first year assistant professor or that guy at the coffee house full of angst over everything, "Religion has been responsible for more violent deaths than anything else." A complete fallacy perpetuated by the devolution of cranial function.
Kralizec
03-19-2007, 22:40
It may not be the case in reality, mainly because true christians do not strive for power and do not want to rule over others. And in this world, such people don't often end up in charge of a nation or militia.
Again, Jesus said: "Love your enemies", not "form a militia and kill them all". Everybody who does not even understand such basic instructions can hardly be considered a christian IMO.
Most self-described "true" communists would argue that the USSR was a travesty of their principles as well.
Communist scientific pursuits are/were as limited by the political ideology as theologically endoctrine scientists.
Of course states like the USSR imposed doctrinal, supposed "value neutral" constraints on true science. However even the USSR made great scientific advancements (space race, most notably) and they provided relatively good access to education since equal empowerment was the entire point behind communism and they at least needed to provide certain elementary things to uphold the utopia facade.
Theocracy, however, is a system that imposes unlimited obedience on the people in exchange for no obligations on the state's part, as that is the nature of divine mandate.
If I were a women, the choice between an Islamist theocracy and a communist country would invariably be in favour of the latter. Communist regimes have a fairly good record on equal opportunity (compared to the contemporary West, anyway) whereas Sharia law would reduce me to the status of furniture. The same, I imagine, would probably apply to a hypothetical Christian theocracy as well.
Most self-described "true" communists would argue that the USSR was a travesty of their principles as well.
I think I heard other people say that as well and they weren't commies.
IMO true communist cannot have leaders because leaders are against equality. Maybe some kind of advisors or so, but all the communistic states I have seenhave some kind of leadership to which the underlying principle of equality does not apply and thus they do not qualify as real communistic states IMO. Even the Chinese call themselves a communist state, yet try to include as much capitalism as possible.
And greek democracy is different from many modern democracies as well. Greeks had slaves who were not allowed to vote, to name the easiest example. There is a lot of variation in many state forms and that's why I think it's hard to answer this question. A "christian" theocracy that goes on crusades and kills all non-christians would not suit me either just because it's called christian and I may not even be in danger there. I'd prefer the chinese comunism I think, at least it always makes me laugh at what a nanny-state it is at times.:sweatdrop:
Blodrast
03-19-2007, 23:43
So I suppose a regime where women are treated little better than dogs and spending most of your time in a religious building learning about nothing but that religion, the history of that religion and religion in society and government is a lot better? After a few generations your descendants would become slaves to this ideology and freeing one from what is inside of ones head is a much bigger task than changing from one political system to another.
Just wanted to point out one thing: in a commie state, you spend most of your time learning about the greatness of the Party, the history of Communism and the deeds of the Great Leaders, and "proofs" that communism in society and government is a lot better.
(Trust me. Been there, done that, I'm speaking from personal experience.).
After a few generations your descendants would become slaves to this ideology and freeing one from what is inside of ones head is a much bigger task than changing from one political system to another.
And this is EXACTLY the same for communism. After a few generations in it, they became slaves to the ideology, and all the bad things that communism managed to insert into their heads are gonna stay there with them until they go to the grave.
The only way to build something different is gonna be with the new generations, the ones who haven't been indoctrinated to the core. The old ones are beyond help.
My point was that this fragment of your quote applies to communism at least to the same extent that it applies to a theocracy. I'm not disputing your claim, I'm merely pointing out that the same can be said about communism. So in that sense, they're, at the very least, equally bad.
:bow:
Goofball
03-19-2007, 23:51
Communism or theocracy.
Hmmm.
Let's see.
Either I can have the government tell me what to do with my money, or have the government tell me what I can do with my penis.
I think I'll retain control of my penis, thanks...
I'm sorry to disagree, but religion does become more ingrained and rooted in a culture than does any political doctrine (I can think of a few that have lasted over 1000 years, whereas communism is a political doctrine that has pretty much burnt itself out already. After the break up of the USSR for example I don't see a masses of "communist terrorists" blowing themselves up for their beliefs. Also in response to this:
We aren't talking about "which would you rather live in if you could overthrow it," however since you mentioned it...
It is fair to select the system which you believe would be the least damaging and last for the shortest period of time. The poll said nothing about living under any system for ever. Neither did it state the nature of the theocracy. My thoughts are that communism burns itself out much more quickly, with the effects of indoctrination fading after a generation or two, whereas with a theocracy and the entire population forcibly converted to a particular religion, the effects could last for many generations to come (as they have across the islamic world, The difference is that many former communits countries are revelling in their new found freedom, whereas those you attempt to liberate from a theocracy may not, for the most part, be quite so grateful). Under communism women are likely to be treated better (at least equally - i.e. not hanged from the nearest tree or stoned to death for being raped), religion won't be forced down the throat of the athiest, non believers won't be hounded down and executed, only those that oppose the state, though the same could be said for a theocracy. I understand and agree with the parallels Blodrast is drawing between the two, I am merely stating which of the two would be worst to live under, hardest to get rid of, and most damaging. The cultural steralisation would probably be about the same for both, though the loss of civil liberties would undoubtedly be much worse under a theocracy. Of course it all depends on the type of religion also. Communism is communism after all. Whereas one could have a Buddhist theocracy or a Hindu one, as opposed to bog standard monotheistic one.
ShadeHonestus
03-20-2007, 01:10
I'm sorry to disagree....
Well so am I, but at least our disagreement came honestly and I'm content with that.
HoreTore
03-20-2007, 01:42
It may not be the case in reality, mainly because true christians do not strive for power and do not want to rule over others. And in this world, such people don't often end up in charge of a nation or militia.
Again, Jesus said: "Love your enemies", not "form a militia and kill them all". Everybody who does not even understand such basic instructions can hardly be considered a christian IMO.
Well, in that case, you're left only with pacifist. And there are, unfortunately, very few of those...
I'm talking about the christianity we have in the real world, and the large majority are not very pacifist, are they? You have armies and wars everywhere... And the liberal world we now live in, was created when christianity and religion in general lost its stranglehold on society.
In my mind, a pacifist christian theocracy is about as likely as the world getting rid of poverty. It's far more likely to take the shape of a very intolerant and highly conservative society where most fun(like sex, blasphemy and alcohol) is severely punished with the laws of the old testament.
HoreTore
03-20-2007, 01:48
Of course it all depends on the type of religion also. Communism is communism after all. Whereas one could have a Buddhist theocracy or a Hindu one, as opposed to bog standard monotheistic one.
Uhm, no. There are about as many varieties of communism/socialism as there are socialists in the world. And the differences are like the differences between religions. Compare Mao and Lenin, for example. Mao loved the farmers and China, Lenin despised farmers and most things russian(actually using it as a derogatory term)...
Devastatin Dave
03-20-2007, 03:44
Uhm, no. There are about as many varieties of communism/socialism as there are socialists in the world. And the differences are like the differences between religions. Compare Mao and Lenin, for example. Mao loved the farmers and China, Lenin despised farmers and most things russian(actually using it as a derogatory term)...
Mao and Lenin were true lovers of peace as well. God knows they killed less folks than Billy Graham. You're not really saying that socialism and communism hasn't killed, oh, let's see MILLIONS of people and enslaved over a billion? But thank God (or Che I guess) they don't hear about that evil bastard Jesus. :laugh4:
Blodrast
03-20-2007, 06:48
Caravel: I agree that yes, theocratic/religion-based states have had significantly longer life spans than communism states. I could perhaps try to argue that given the proper conditions, the differences in the historical context, blah, blah, but I'm not interested in following that path.
However, I hope you do note that, while communist states have only lived for at most, what, 70-80 years, their "efficiency" (i.e., their death toll) much surpasses that of any theocracy I can think of. Let me put it this way, if a "performance" criterion would be the number of people killed per unit of time, communism would win hands down.
Suraknar
03-20-2007, 08:35
Neither, thanks.
Democracy all the way!
HoreTore
03-20-2007, 10:51
Of course not, Dave, I'm not blind. You won't hear a good word about any of them from me, except that they knew how to get power, and how to use it...
I'm a socialist and pacifist, and don't like people getting killed, for any reason... If you got the impression that I'm thinking the USSR was any better, I apologize. On one level, I think it would be better, but when it comes to killings, then no.
Devastatin Dave
03-20-2007, 21:48
Of course not, Dave, I'm not blind. You won't hear a good word about any of them from me, except that they knew how to get power, and how to use it...
I'm a socialist and pacifist, and don't like people getting killed, for any reason... If you got the impression that I'm thinking the USSR was any better, I apologize. On one level, I think it would be better, but when it comes to killings, then no.
That's good, I just feel that human nature is incapable of peaceful socialism because it just flies in the face of what being human is (I guess unfortunately) but it is a failed experiment that has failed over and over again and with MANY lives lost in the name of perfecting it. Hey, the same can be said about any Theocracy, because human nature is unable to remain in peace without greed. Basically the whole arguement is flawed becausewe as humans... suck!!!:wall:
Soulforged
03-20-2007, 23:26
@ Soulforged: Well, first of, the Blanquists was at the First International.I said Blanqui tough ~;) . The blanquist didn't have the exact same ideas of Auguste Blanqui.
But there was a wide range of people there. Republicans, mutulaists, marx etc. There were religious people there, but none of them shaped marxism. "Religion; Opium to the people" accurately describes a marxist view of religion.Again communism can't be reduced historically to marxism only. And that famous frase is just one part of marxist ideology. Marxist ideology, is anti-ideologies (an evident contradiction), and he includes religion on the group of ideologies (so is law -and its various theories and doctrines, except marxist-, so is politics -and its various theories and doctrines, except marxist-, etc). He says, following Feurbach (who wasn't a communist), that ideologies alienate man.
The only religious socialist I can remember who had an influence on anything, was a priest who talked with Lenin after a strike in around 1905(I think it was after he wrote "What is to be done?"). In fact, Lenin, and most others, saw them as mentally challenged...You've to look at the whole history of socialism. There was and there is something called Christian Socialism, and many communist ideals (if not the very first principle of communism -social and economic equality) was born from religion or religious sociology and politics (if we consider that to be that group of sociological and political doctrines in wich the religious element predominates).
Regarding Fascism, remember that Hitler was a National Socialist, not a fascist. Fascism refers to the rule of Mussolini. Franco was sympathetic, but not fascist himself.Well the three were pretty similar in how they proceeded, they basically varied because one happened on Germany, one on Italy and one on Spain, very different countries. National Socialism was even less defined as a doctrine than facism was.
HoreTore
03-20-2007, 23:32
That's good, I just feel that human nature is incapable of peaceful socialism because it just flies in the face of what being human is (I guess unfortunately) but it is a failed experiment that has failed over and over again and with MANY lives lost in the name of perfecting it. Hey, the same can be said about any Theocracy, because human nature is unable to remain in peace without greed. Basically the whole arguement is flawed becausewe as humans... suck!!!:wall:
Peaceful socialism is working well in western europe. Revolutionary socialism has failed because it created an authoritarian state. The social democrats of western europe took a different path than the revolutionaries. A vastly more succesful one...
I'll take Norway as my example, as, well, I'm Norwegian...
The Norwegian Labour party was founded in 1887, as a revolutionary party. It split into two parties because of the communist international where Lenin sought to spread his revolution. The majority refused to accept the bolsheviks, while the minority remained loyal and founded the Norwegian Communist party. Labour abandoned the revolution in the early 30's to become reformists instead. It has followed the doctrine quite closely until about 20 years or so ago, when it began privatizing state property... However, that will(hopefully) change, as the left opposition is getting a lot stronger and dragging the right with them...
Although we have our years of conservative misery once in a while, the socialist left(arguably) is the strongest political force here.
It kind of annoys me when people claim that socialism hasn't worked any place in the world, as it is working well here...
Oh, and you're free to call me a dreamer, but I believe that the greediness of human nature can be eradicated... And I'm quite optimistic by nature...
HoreTore
03-20-2007, 23:58
I said Blanqui tough ~;) . The blanquist didn't have the exact same ideas of Auguste Blanqui.
Again communism can't be reduced historically to marxism only. And that famous frase is just one part of marxist ideology. Marxist ideology, is anti-ideologies (an evident contradiction), and he includes religion on the group of ideologies (so is law -and its various theories and doctrines, except marxist-, so is politics -and its various theories and doctrines, except marxist-, etc). He says, following Feurbach (who wasn't a communist), that ideologies alienate man.
You've to look at the whole history of socialism. There was and there is something called Christian Socialism, and many communist ideals (if not the very first principle of communism -social and economic equality) was born from religion or religious sociology and politics (if we consider that to be that group of sociological and political doctrines in wich the religious element predominates).
Well the three were pretty similar in how they proceeded, they basically varied because one happened on Germany, one on Italy and one on Spain, very different countries. National Socialism was even less defined as a doctrine than facism was.
Sorry, didn't notice the absence of the "'s"..
Well, there are also Jewish and Muslim socialism, and I believe there was a Buddhist one as well... However, none of them had an influence on the shape of the communist states we have seen, which was my point, not that they didn't have an impact on socialist thought...
As for fascism, well, I don't feel I know enough to debate it... I'm hoping the fascism thread will turn out to be a nice thread so people can learn from it, instead of degenerating into people throwing mud at each other...
Soulforged
03-21-2007, 00:07
Sorry, didn't notice the absence of the "'s"..No problem it has happened a thousand times to me.:2thumbsup:
Well, there are also Jewish and Muslim socialism, and I believe there was a Buddhist one as well... However, none of them had an influence on the shape of the communist states we have seen, which was my point, not that they didn't have an impact on socialist thought...I know. But my point is that marxist communism is an ideology, an ideology is a system of ideas, and many of the ideas wich form it have been there long before Marx came to this planet. Of course if we were discussing the actual forms of any of this political systems, then two undetailed options wouldn't be enough, since there's communisms and theocracies, not just Communism and Theocracy.
As for fascism, well, I don't feel I know enough to debate it... I'm hoping the fascism thread will turn out to be a nice thread so people can learn from it, instead of degenerating into people throwing mud at each other...Not much to learn tough. The great majority of the books treating the history of ideas give it two or three pages maximum (comparing it with liberalism wich usually has at least 50), nazism gets about the same and franquism gets two tops. If you want to learn about its "ideology", wich barely exists, then you can grab one of those books and have a light read, or simply read a simple history book since there's nothing much to learn from facism than what happened on reality.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.