French Presidential Election

[Gilrandir]

*
Ethnicity itself is an artificial social construct, family is a biological/natural one.

All society groups are artificial constructs, including the family (if we speak of two (or more) people that share houshold, bed, finances, etc. If we speak of family as of parents and children, then they are biological group).

"If communists promoted "expropriation of expropriators", e.i. taking away private property to make everyone equal, is it the way to promote equality?" Expropriate is a right that any State got in their laws. I think the one who invented the notion in France was Napoleon III in 1852, hardly a communist.

What's the difference who invented the term? Communists incorporated it into the doctrines and, which is more important, put it into practice.

"Is not the tenet of the export of revolution a kind of expansion?" It was not a tenet of Communism, but a debate within the Communist Party. I sort of remember that Stalin was against, Trotsky for. Stalin won.

Perhaps there was a debate, but the tenet itself was forwarded by Lenin:

The victorious proletariat… having expropriated the capitalists and organised its own socialist production, would confront the rest of the capitalist world, attract to itself the oppressed classes of other countries, raise revolts among them against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity, come out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. – V.I. Lenin, The United States of Europe Slogan (1915), Selected Works, English edition, Volume 5 (1936), p. 14.

Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. – J.V. Stalin, Foundations of Leninism (April 1924), Works, English edition, Volume 6 (1953), p. 111.

"So if nazis come up with some modern version of their ideology (and perhaps they already have), will you stand for their right to be represented on the political arena?" Depending of the modern version of their ideology. However, the basis of Nazi ideology being the same than ISIL, racism, inequality, cult of death and violence and porn, if they change all these items, they won't be anymore Nazi... So the question is not really one...

I don't know such minute details of nazi ideology, so would you be so kind as to prove the existence of such tenets as cult of death and porn in them.

"Religions have been always subject to modification which resulted in appearance of new religions, for instance judaism and christianity, or new confessions of the same religions (shia and sunni islam)." They still refer to the same books accepting slavery, inequality, slaughters and aggression. So until they come with an explanation how their Gods were wrong the 1st time he/she/it came up with the holy texts... Jesus recognise the Old Testament, so does Islam. The difference between Shia and Sunni is mainly due to a different opinion about who was the heir of Mohammed, not the core of the text.

Yet religions ARE subject to modification, which is what I was trying to show.

"So whatever communists at power did, you can't ban the ideology they steered by?" Yes, because there are different streams in communism as you know.

Don't you think that banning only SOME stream of communism and ALL religions indiscriminately (despite both can be blamed in many unsavory things) is somehow unfair?

Putting in the same bags the Communist executed by Stalin with Stalin is ridiculous.

I don't think so. Stalin executed his colleagues not because of some ideological issues, it was a usual internal strife to get the domination in the party and in the country. Or to you mind we can't put in the same nazi bag Hitler and those he assassinated in the Night of the long knives?

"But whatever reasons for banning religion(s) you may forward, what about the people who will persist in worshipping them? What will you do with them? Proclaim them outlaws? Persecute them?" Didn't say it was possible. I just said in order to avoid a good reason for war would be the vanishing of religions. They will hopefully disappeared, but it will under the flamethrower of knowledge and reason, Inch'allah...

What you say now is somehow different from banning, the word you used at first. So I don't know what in fact do you stand for - official banning or natural disappearence.

PVP, what you failed to understand is I don't care of what Gospel or Holy Books are saying. What I care is what people are doing with it.

This is what I've been saying all the time. Some people might do nasty things having nothing to do with religions (like Breivik, for instance), others do very good things because they have read the Holy books. The latter are something like a huge shop containing EVERYTHING. What you buy in it - bread for the needy or a gun to shoot your neighbor - depends on YOU, not on the SHOP.