• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Marxist-Leninist Atheism

Ikari said:
Religion is a threat to totalitarian ideals, such as communism, because it offers another source of authority which is not the State.
Click to expand...

In the cases of the USSR with metastases and the Nazi Germany - yes (although the Nazis tinkered, now and again, with alternative religious ideas). But religion can be co-opted into the state ideology or even become its centerpiece. Look at Iran.
 
Cyrylek said:
You haven't made any arguments at all, except for indulging in the True Scotsman fallacy.

Of course, there are moderate socialists and anti-totalitarian socialists. It doesn't make the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics non-socialist.

My grandma used to say: "Mensheviks and SRs believe that most people are masochists, and will submit to abuse voluntarily; Bolsheviks and Nazis believe that most people are sadists, like themselves".
Click to expand...

It isn't a true scottsman fallacy, I'm not saying "no true socialist would do bad stuff," I'm saying socialism is defined as requiring democracy, since it is workers control over the means of production or social control over the economy ... it is BY DEFINITION not that if a non democratic state runs everything.

Whether or not Lenin and his crew were socialists or believed in the ideals of socialism I have no idea, but the system they set up was NOT socialism.

Had the system Pre-"War Communism" been kept, i.e. the soviet autonomous system, you could plausable call that "socialist," but it wasn't.
 
RGacky3 said:
defined as requiring democracy, since it is workers control over the means of production or social control over the economy ... it is BY DEFINITION not that if a non democratic state runs everything.
Click to expand...

"Workers controlling the means of production" is a slogan. Socialism is not anarchism, it is the very opposite of anarchism: the whole ideology is pivoted on the central role of coercive government. It claims to express the "will of proletariat", and it controls everything if it is a radical version, or some aspects of economic life if it is a moderate one.
 
Cyrylek said:
"Workers controlling the means of production" is a slogan. Socialism is not anarchism, it is the very opposite of anarchism: the whole ideology is pivoted on the central role of coercive government. It claims to express the "will of proletariat", and it controls everything if it is a radical version, or some aspects of economic life if it is a moderate one.
Click to expand...

Socialism is not anarchism, but anarchism is socialism, it's a type. Also Workers controlling the means of production doesn't say how it's done, it doesn't imply government at all.

Also the ideology doesn't at all center around a coercive government, that is just you're interpretation of how certain socialists acted "claiming" to express the will of the proletariat, which they ONLY did to justify themselves calling themselves "socialist," except we know that they were not actually representative of the proletariat and that there wasn't any democratic system to ensure that at all.

Socialism HAS ALWAYS meant the people control the economy democratically, or the workers control the means of production, if it isn't that, or something that can justifiably be called that it isn't socialism.

I would know, I'm a socialist and I know LOTS of socialists.

What your saying is akin to an Atheist saying "Christianity is when a bunch of people get together and slaughter Jews and Muslims and claim divine support," it's total nonsense.
 
Cyrylek said:
In the cases of the USSR with metastases and the Nazi Germany - yes (although the Nazis tinkered, now and again, with alternative religious ideas). But religion can be co-opted into the state ideology or even become its centerpiece. Look at Iran.
Click to expand...

It certainly can and I said nothing counter to this point. In fact I was speaking to something completely different. So while Theocracy is a terrible system so is Anti-Theocracy. I mean that not as being against theocracy, but a system established to hunt down and destroy religion.
 
RGacky3 said:
Socialism is not anarchism, but anarchism is socialism, it's a type.
Click to expand...

In other words, words have whatever meaning you assign to them, like Humpty Dumpty in Wonderland.

RGacky3 said:
Also Workers controlling the means of production doesn't say how it's done, it doesn't imply government at all..
Click to expand...

Then it is simply nonsense. What would stop a more successful worker from acquiring more "means of production", hiring other workers, and putting them in the "non-controlling" position, if there's no coercive government?


RGacky3 said:
I would know, I'm a socialist.
Click to expand...

No, I am a socialist. Because that's how I define "socialism" from now on: classical liberalism a.k.a. libertarianism is the true "socialism", and right-wing libertarians like myself are the only real socialists.
(And the only way to win a semantic skirmish is to sound more outré than your opponent :2razz:
 
Ikari said:
It certainly can and I said nothing counter to this point. In fact I was speaking to something completely different. So while Theocracy is a terrible system so is Anti-Theocracy. I mean that not as being against theocracy, but a system established to hunt down and destroy religion.
Click to expand...

Agreed, 100%.
 
Cyrylek said:
In other words, words have whatever meaning you assign to them, like Humpty Dumpty in Wonderland.
Click to expand...

In other words what any anarchist or socialist will tell you (other than anarcho-capitalists, who are clearly not an offshoot of anarchism), and what a historical study of the movements will tell you.

Then it is simply nonsense. What would stop a more successful worker from acquiring more "means of production", hiring other workers, and putting them in the "non-controlling" position, if there's no coercive government?
Click to expand...

Checks and Balances ....


No, I am a socialist. Because that's how I define "socialism" from now on: classical liberalism a.k.a. libertarianism is the true "socialism", and right-wing libertarians like myself are the only real socialists.
(And the only way to win a semantic skirmish is to sound more outré than your opponent :2razz:
Click to expand...

II'm defining socialism as it has been historically defined ... BY SOCIALISTS.
 
RGacky3 said:
II'm defining socialism as it has been historically defined ... BY SOCIALISTS.
Click to expand...

Nope. A microscopic minority of them - perhaps. Take all the self-avowed "socialists" of the USSR and Mao's China - bam! - you are already outvoted 1:10,000 at least, in your definitions.
 
Paschendale said:
Nationalizing for the benefit of a small ruling class. That has much more in common with the aristocracies that socialism is a counter reaction to, than with socialism itself. Lots of nationalism doesn't mean socialism. Collective ownership for the common good does. Collective ownership in name only for the good of a tiny elite is about as far from socialism as you can get.
Click to expand...
Both are wrong. It's about individual freedom Paschendale, and a tiny ruling class that ****s on individual freedom is just as bad as a majority collective that ****s on individual freedom.

What we do advocate for is not enforcing any religious rules on those who don't adhere to those religions.
Click to expand...
In other words, you advocate in this case for individual freedom. See, you do make good decisions for good reasons some times!
 
RGacky3 said:
Also Workers controlling the means of production doesn't say how it's done, it doesn't imply government at all.
Click to expand...
Hes wrong to use government narrowly defined but in action they are the same. Government that takes my economic or social freedom from me is no different in that regard than a workers collective that takes away those same rights. In both cases, its some powerbase, always with some hierarchy and rules of conduct, etc., that believes its legitimate and can take some of my choices/freedom from me. Who makes the rules at those workplaces? Who enforces them? It's analagous to government. It does not magically make any of its actions more ethical or more legitimate just because its "workers" and not the elites (the top workers would end up elites we all know anyway). Nor is it entirely leigitimate just because it is a majority and not simply a tiny ruling elite. This is why all large scale attempts at such a system, resulted in the same or worse. Because indeed, they don't recognize what was actually important and thus make the same mistakes of organization. (individual freedom is what's important in case you missed it).
 
Atheism is not the essential requirement in dictatorships, lack of religion is.

Dictatorships cannot tolerate competition and religious faith is in direct competition to governmental philosophies in which all goodness and benefit comes from the state. That is part of the reason why Christianity, the bulwark of the United States for over 200 years, is under direct attack by the Liberal elitists today. That attack is primarily seen in the always present fourth branch of Liberal governments, academia, where Christianity is ridiculed and barred as a threat to more favored Liberal philosophies and client groups.
 
Last edited:
Ray410 said:
Atheism is not the essential requirement in dictatorships, lack of religion is.
Click to expand...

Monarchy, even totalitarian monarchy, has in fact subsisted in theocracy. Dictatorships, there's not many real ones of those, even communism wasn't a dictatorship....it was oligarchy.
 
LowDown said:
Here we go with this pathetic attempt on the part of atheists to put distance between themselves and one of the few big experiments with official state atheism. The USSR even followed the recommended course of the New Atheists and attempted to abolish religion. The results speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

Marx replaced religion with a new religion, allegiance to the State. Religions are always failures at governing.
 
Ray410 said:
Atheism is not the essential requirement in dictatorships, lack of religion is.
Click to expand...

Traditionalist Iberian fascisms of Franco and Salazar that embraced religion were not dictatorships? Iran or Afghanistan under Taliban - not dictatorial?
 
Ikari said:
totalitarian monarchy.
Click to expand...

Since the thread had deteriorated into a semantic squabble already....just out of curiosity: Could you give us an example of "totalitarian monarchy"? I understand that the North Korea dynasty comes close in some aspects, but - a real monarchy, which would identify itself as such?
 
Ray410 said:
Atheism is not the essential requirement in dictatorships, lack of religion is.

Dictatorships cannot tolerate competition and religious faith is in direct competition to governmental philosophies in which all goodness and benefit comes from the state. That is part of the reason why Christianity, the bulwark of the United States for over 200 years, is under direct attack by the Liberal elitists today. That attack is primarily seen in the always present fourth branch of Liberal governments, academia, where Christianity is ridiculed and barred as a threat to more favored Liberal philosophies and client groups.
Click to expand...

Don't let the many many dictators who used religion to justify their regimes stop you from making this point. Not like most of human history was rife with absolute monarchs claiming that the gods chose them to rule over everyone else, allowing them to rape, torture, and kill as they like. The pharaohs of Egypt didn't claim descent from Amon-Ra. The kings of Europe didn't proclaim that they had a divine right. And the Chinese emperors didn't claim to be chosen by the gods. Nope, none of that happened.
 
Cyrylek said:
Provided by what structure or system, if there's no coercive government?
Click to expand...

The same structure that would, under libertarianism, guarantee property laws.
 
Cyrylek said:
Nope. A microscopic minority of them - perhaps. Take all the self-avowed "socialists" of the USSR and Mao's China - bam! - you are already outvoted 1:10,000 at least, in your definitions.
Click to expand...

No ... they would also use the same definition, and then go ahead and pathetically try to defend their system AS such, the same way every US politician would defend concepts while being total hypocrits in their governance.
 
Mach said:
Hes wrong to use government narrowly defined but in action they are the same. Government that takes my economic or social freedom from me is no different in that regard than a workers collective that takes away those same rights. In both cases, its some powerbase, always with some hierarchy and rules of conduct, etc., that believes its legitimate and can take some of my choices/freedom from me. Who makes the rules at those workplaces? Who enforces them? It's analagous to government. It does not magically make any of its actions more ethical or more legitimate just because its "workers" and not the elites (the top workers would end up elites we all know anyway). Nor is it entirely leigitimate just because it is a majority and not simply a tiny ruling elite. This is why all large scale attempts at such a system, resulted in the same or worse. Because indeed, they don't recognize what was actually important and thus make the same mistakes of organization. (individual freedom is what's important in case you missed it).
Click to expand...

You can say the same thing for ANY system, Capitalism presupposes a coercive system that enforces property laws.
 
RGacky3 said:
The same structure that would, under libertarianism, guarantee property laws.
Click to expand...

Which is government - limited and well-defined in its functions, but present and potent. (And democratically elected).
 
RGacky3 said:
You can say the same thing for ANY system, Capitalism presupposes a coercive system that enforces property laws.
Click to expand...

You are making no distinction between defensive, protective use of force and coercion initiated against those who do not coerce anyone themselves. But of course you don't. You are a socialist. After all, there no difference between a mugger and his victim, if property rights are null and void ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom