I'll stay where I am thanks…
Why don't you guys make a choice between Cyanide and Strychnine?
Printable View
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
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.
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 .
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.
Doesn't bone idle wasters cover the general description of weegies ?:hide:Quote:
I already pay far too much towards the upkeep of bone-idle wasters.
Ouch, harshQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
:laugh4:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Definitely from Norway...:laugh4:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
Wrote the above to see what would pop out of the woodwork...
Well if we are merely talking survival, yes. Communist scientific pursuits are/were as limited by the political ideology as theologically endoctrine scientists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
We aren't talking about "which would you rather live in if you could overthrow it," however since you mentioned it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Most self-described "true" communists would argue that the USSR was a travesty of their principles as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHontus
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.
I think I heard other people say that as well and they weren't commies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
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.).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
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:
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:
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.Quote:
We aren't talking about "which would you rather live in if you could overthrow it," however since you mentioned it...
Well so am I, but at least our disagreement came honestly and I'm content with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Well, in that case, you're left only with pacifist. And there are, unfortunately, very few of those...Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.
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)...Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
Neither, thanks.
Democracy all the way!
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I said Blanqui tough ~;) . The blanquist didn't have the exact same ideas of Auguste Blanqui.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.Quote:
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.
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).Quote:
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...
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.Quote:
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
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...