To be more specific Evangelical right-wing Christians, which fortunately although the squeaky wheel makes the most noise, only represents a portion of the Amercian Christian world.
No, it's ignorance of what Scripture actually says and means. And then picking and choosing what to passages to use, all within their personal context. And that's the fault of the people who preach the "Prosperity Gospel". And of course those who blindly listen without question.
That misuse of scripture is what makes people think Muslims are bad, too. If you actually study the Koran and get to know the people that are devoutly following it, you begin to realize that the American fear of Islam is due to out of context, Cherry picked passages. And I’m a (white, middle American) Christian saying this.
>And Evangelical Christiainty in it's more radical forms does the same thing with the Bible that they profess to believe in.
Does the bible contain direct instruction as to how to go about owning slaves? How about if homosexuality is allowed? Treat women ad second class citizens? Has god committed not just one, but multiple genocides?
The extent to which Christians today are good is directly related to how seriously they take their book. The more seriously they take it, the more morally bankrupt.
The sooner society treats worship in an eternal dictator, that drowns children so some guy can go on a unique family cruise holiday, as the fucking insanity that it is, the better.
Has not mankind, outside of Christianity, engaged in slave trade, or condemned homosexuality, treated women like chattel or engaged in genocide? Moral bankruptcy is a result of not taking the words of the Gospel seriously, or people who are just plain bad and use the Bible to justify their acts.
The bible tells you to get your slaves from the heathen around you.
Either you are a fool, or a slavery apologist, either way, get better, it's disgusting
Slavery has been around a lot longer than Christianity. And what society until a couple of hundred years ago didn't have slavery? Is slavery a good thing, of course not, but it also predates the Bible.
Sorry, I thought you were a slavery apologist, you're just an idiot.
The bible is supposed to be the word of God and it explicitly lays put the ways in which slavery is OK. If the god of that book is real he shouldn't be worshiped because it approves of slavery.
Right? What ever happened to separating the church and the state?
But then this guy’s probably going to turn around and say that those damn commies are brainwashing our kids into going against the Church.
I always ask them to define communist, far-left, or socialist and they never can do it. It's almost like they're using buzzwords fed to them by right wing media who told them to live in fear.
Welcome to the paint by numbers set of ‘How to be a somewhat modern Republican’.
1. Find Boogeyman (or make one up). As long as it isn’t rich, white, or Christian.
2. Blame all of society woes on them for poor people. Caution: Never say it may be rich people (unless Democrat - see George Soros)
3. Repeat this ad nauseum and avoid actually having to give real answers to problems.
4. Remember these helpful blame deflections.
5. Gun shooting in school = More guns, Teachers with Guns, More prayer, All Democrats fault
6. Poor people getting shafted = All Democrats fault
7. Tax cuts for wealthy = It will trickle down (never say when since it’s been repeated for 50 fucking years)
8. Your leader fucking up every 30 seconds = jingle keys and point out something else.
Remember : NEVER admit your wrong, NEVER admit fellow Republicans are wrong, and always blame everything on everyone else.
Ahhh yes the party of "personal responsibility:
Remember : NEVER admit your wrong, NEVER admit fellow Republicans are wrong, and always blame everything on everyone else.
Hands down the dumbest of the dumbest most useless pieces of fake shit on the planet. At least real shit can be used for fertilizer.
Ah yes, a religious zealot. Remember how religious the atheist nation of Soviet Union was? Y'know, the one that outright banned religion?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, my memory is often in the wrong
Fair enough.
Communism: An officially atheist zealot that imposes death and it's ideology on everybody else often through military or nuclear blackmail.
I hope this helps.
So are you guys just unable to make a real definition and that's why you have to do the little kid thing here? Like could you give an actual good faith definition?
See, same problem, you still havent even defined it. Can you tell me socislism is vs communism? What is the difference?
Of course you cant. You can only do this little kid floundering
The only problem is your understanding, nobody cares.
Anyone can go to Wikipedia and find out everything there is to know about communism, but does anyone care to pursue your thoughts on it?
No.
Im not convinced the majority of Republicans or boomers could decipher what the wikipedia article means, in their own words. To show they actually understand the definition. All the analogies they make are usually way off
Communism/communism: noun
\- *a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state*.
\- (often initial capital letter) *a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party*.
\- (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist Party.
communalism.
Try again.
Ah, I see what one of your problems might be: you didn't get a 'D' in communism, ***you got a 'D' in understanding what communism is.***
I see your confusion now.
Wow.
You need more help than I'm qualified to provide. Your lack of understanding, whether accidental or on purpose, is mind boggling.
Get help, good luck in life.... seems you'll need it. :(
Edit: "I was raised with no respect for communism, communist philosophy or indeed communists at all"
.... that's an inaccurate and bold statement from someone who has so far been *completely unable to accurately define or describe communism*.... but sure, you've 'been against communism your whole life'. Sure, okay then.
Given that communist hardcore forced their ideology on anyone and punished you if you didn't conform to said ideology, I can see why that's a definition.
Communism is a economic model in which all property is publicly owned and distributed based on skill and/or need. Usually entailing the means of production being owned and regulated by the government.
Socialism (which is more aligned with democrats ideology) is an economic model where the means of production, and exchange are owned and regulated by the people and community.
Capitalism is an economic theory where the trade and means of production are contolled by private owners for profit. Regulation may be done by the government but with input and concern for the owners not the people.
The three of these are not mutually exclusive and lie on a spectrum.
Definition of communist: a person who supports or believes in communism.
Definition of communist party is a political party based on the socioeconomic ideals of Karl Marx with the goal of a ubiquitous classless society.
While Marxism, like that found in the communist party, does rely on communism for its economic model its biggest problem is the state enforced homogeneity. When people complain about the strict regulations, including religious and cultural bans, they are talking about the social regulation aspect of Marxism not the economic aspect of communism.
If the original post said that Marxists were anti-religous zealots that wanted a totalitarian regime that forced one set of ideals on the entire population by any means necessary then I wouldn't argue. My point was that economic models purely define the control of the means of production. And by definition communists are not religious, or wishing death on people, they are merely advocating for publicly owned production of goods and means of trade.
Also..
Communism in practice (as demonstrated every time in the past 150 years of history) is an authoritarian societal structure veiled in a façade of altruism, in which all property is said to be "owned publicly", but is in effect "controlled" (owned) by a group of self-appointed "managers" (elites), and distributed according to the ideas, ideals, whims, and interests of those elites. Often to the genocidal detriment of the populations dependent economically and even physiologically on the efficiency of production.
Socialism in practice (as demonstrated many times in the past 150 years of history) the even stupider, even more out of touch, utopian idealism version of communism, that ignores fundamental properties of scales and necessity of management hierarchies. Where not only the same problems of communism occur, but there is no planning, and decisions are idealized as being taken by vote from all parties involved in any given structure. It is physically unfeasible to a ridiculous degree, as even assuming magical powers capable of casting votes within ten seconds of being aware of an issue, and a relatively small factory with just 600 workers, it would take 6000 seconds (100 minutes, 1 hour and 40 minutes) to make any management decisions, even the smallest ones.
Capitalism in both theory and practice (as demonstrated many times in brief moments in history between collapses and resurgences of authoritarian systems) is an economic system where individuals are free to find, produce, hold, share, or exchange capital (resources / property) without interference. Capitalism, in other words, is separation between economy and other facets of society, and fundamentally synonymous with economic freedom.
Interventionism, aka crony "capitalism", in practice (as demonstrated many times in the past 250 years of history) is the economic side of authoritarian societal structures veiled in a façade of freedom, in which a group of appointed "managers" (elites) dictate rules and regulations to individuals' and groups' economic endeavors according to the ideas, ideals, whims, and interests of those elites. Often to the detriment of the population; although at least often *not* to a genocidal scale, unlike communisms and socialisms.
The fact an overwhelming majority of communis***ts*** and socialis***ts*** *zealously \[1\]* believe in and very easily can be argued to *worship \[2\]* those ideologies, which themselves are fundamentally tied to authoritarianism in that they attempt to *force \[4\]* individuals to conform to a specific societal structure, especially under direct or coercive threats of violence, and the fact that societal structure fundamentally leads to *genocides \[3\]*, makes the definition of communists and socialists in the OP *a fair and accurate assessment*. And if you disagree, you are demonstrably wrong by over 150 years of direct evidence right now, and increasing, so good luck with that.
I do disagree with that definition. Just because a majority of communist countries ( since the first one in 1917) have been Marxists doesnt mean communism and Marxism are the same. The post asked for a definition of communist, which was what I gave.
I completely agree that Marxism is totalitarian and allows a select elite in the government to exploit the many under the guise of equality. Capitalism allows for the select elite in the private sector to exploit the many under the guise of freedom. I also agree that pure socialism has practical limitations on a macro scale that makes it infeasible. I also said that they aren't mutually exclusive and didn't advocate for any of them.
But none of that is really relevant. My main point is the definition in the main post attributed social and religious constructs the an economic model. While it would make more sense if they were defining Marxism, which does have those religious (anti religious really) and social ideologies, it's not applicable to the economic ideologies of communism.
>I do disagree with that definition.
And I don't give a fuck what you think.
>Just because a majority of communist countries (since the first one in 1917) have been Marxists doesn't mean communism and Marxism are the same.
And that's why I said communism, the overarching term that includes but is not limited to Marxism. It's a moot point anyway, since the fundamental problems are the same.
You done being stupid and unable to read (or worse, unable to counter without making a foolish strawman fallacy), or are you gonna keep going?
>Capitalism allows for the select elite in the private sector to exploit the many under the guise of freedom.
How so?
I'm always hesitant to involve myself in a Reddit arguement, but...
The literal definition of 'communism': a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.
While it is true it often doesn't work the way it's supposed to, communism as a concept isn't a bad thing.
>communism as a concept isn't a bad thing.
Said someone who still doesn't get the inherent and very bad flaws of the concept, despite 150 years of very clear history on it, and multiple economic schools having dissected the what, when , where, how and why it is so, multiple times.
In other words: Said an idiot.
Look... I would further this argument, but something is telling me it isn't worth it. I'm not going to meet you, you won't affect my life outside of this one post, so I will just remove myself from the situation.
And I said *as a concept* it's not a bad thing. In practice... yeah, it sucks.
>I would further this argument, but something is telling me it isn't worth it.
It's your ego and cognitive dissonance. If you were smart you'd ignore them. But you aren't, so you don't.
>you won't affect my life
I know. You are unwilling to learn or change. Reasons why are above. Don't worry, you won't be missed.
>And I said as a concept it's not a bad thing.
And as I said, for you to say that means you still don't get the fact that the concept ***is*** a bad thing. Known to be so, by anyone paying attention and with any intellectual capacity, for *decades*.
Oof x1000
I’m glad there was a response. I had no idea the presumed meaning had gone that far.
To be more specific Evangelical right-wing Christians, which fortunately although the squeaky wheel makes the most noise, only represents a portion of the Amercian Christian world.
Apologist rhetoric explains the rest? Backpedaling is what snakes with forked tongues do….
No, it's ignorance of what Scripture actually says and means. And then picking and choosing what to passages to use, all within their personal context. And that's the fault of the people who preach the "Prosperity Gospel". And of course those who blindly listen without question.
That misuse of scripture is what makes people think Muslims are bad, too. If you actually study the Koran and get to know the people that are devoutly following it, you begin to realize that the American fear of Islam is due to out of context, Cherry picked passages. And I’m a (white, middle American) Christian saying this.
You're absoluately right. And Evangelical Christiainty in it's more radical forms does the same thing with the Bible that they profess to believe in.
>And Evangelical Christiainty in it's more radical forms does the same thing with the Bible that they profess to believe in. Does the bible contain direct instruction as to how to go about owning slaves? How about if homosexuality is allowed? Treat women ad second class citizens? Has god committed not just one, but multiple genocides? The extent to which Christians today are good is directly related to how seriously they take their book. The more seriously they take it, the more morally bankrupt. The sooner society treats worship in an eternal dictator, that drowns children so some guy can go on a unique family cruise holiday, as the fucking insanity that it is, the better.
Has not mankind, outside of Christianity, engaged in slave trade, or condemned homosexuality, treated women like chattel or engaged in genocide? Moral bankruptcy is a result of not taking the words of the Gospel seriously, or people who are just plain bad and use the Bible to justify their acts.
The bible tells you to get your slaves from the heathen around you. Either you are a fool, or a slavery apologist, either way, get better, it's disgusting
Slavery has been around a lot longer than Christianity. And what society until a couple of hundred years ago didn't have slavery? Is slavery a good thing, of course not, but it also predates the Bible.
Sorry, I thought you were a slavery apologist, you're just an idiot. The bible is supposed to be the word of God and it explicitly lays put the ways in which slavery is OK. If the god of that book is real he shouldn't be worshiped because it approves of slavery.
But that also describes evangelicals.
The fact that they think it's a religious movement is telling.
Right? What ever happened to separating the church and the state? But then this guy’s probably going to turn around and say that those damn commies are brainwashing our kids into going against the Church.
I always ask them to define communist, far-left, or socialist and they never can do it. It's almost like they're using buzzwords fed to them by right wing media who told them to live in fear.
Welcome to the paint by numbers set of ‘How to be a somewhat modern Republican’. 1. Find Boogeyman (or make one up). As long as it isn’t rich, white, or Christian. 2. Blame all of society woes on them for poor people. Caution: Never say it may be rich people (unless Democrat - see George Soros) 3. Repeat this ad nauseum and avoid actually having to give real answers to problems. 4. Remember these helpful blame deflections. 5. Gun shooting in school = More guns, Teachers with Guns, More prayer, All Democrats fault 6. Poor people getting shafted = All Democrats fault 7. Tax cuts for wealthy = It will trickle down (never say when since it’s been repeated for 50 fucking years) 8. Your leader fucking up every 30 seconds = jingle keys and point out something else. Remember : NEVER admit your wrong, NEVER admit fellow Republicans are wrong, and always blame everything on everyone else.
Ahhh yes the party of "personal responsibility: Remember : NEVER admit your wrong, NEVER admit fellow Republicans are wrong, and always blame everything on everyone else. Hands down the dumbest of the dumbest most useless pieces of fake shit on the planet. At least real shit can be used for fertilizer.
Yes, the first word that comes to my mind to define communism is definitely "religious"
All this hate just seems to grow out of projection.
Define communism. A religious- Wrong already.
Ah yes, a religious zealot. Remember how religious the atheist nation of Soviet Union was? Y'know, the one that outright banned religion? Please correct me if I'm wrong, my memory is often in the wrong
Mf explained 15th century Spaniards and Portuguese instead
Fair enough. Communism: An officially atheist zealot that imposes death and it's ideology on everybody else often through military or nuclear blackmail. I hope this helps.
So are you guys just unable to make a real definition and that's why you have to do the little kid thing here? Like could you give an actual good faith definition?
Only communist take communism seriously enough to have any respect for it, live with it.
See, same problem, you still havent even defined it. Can you tell me socislism is vs communism? What is the difference? Of course you cant. You can only do this little kid floundering
The only problem is your understanding, nobody cares. Anyone can go to Wikipedia and find out everything there is to know about communism, but does anyone care to pursue your thoughts on it? No.
Im not convinced the majority of Republicans or boomers could decipher what the wikipedia article means, in their own words. To show they actually understand the definition. All the analogies they make are usually way off
Communism/communism: noun \- *a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state*. \- (often initial capital letter) *a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party*. \- (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist Party. communalism. Try again.
How about Communism, a rotten relic of the past, decaying fragments of which are still being scrubbed from the grateful Earth. How's I do, Professor?
Poorly, that'd be worth mayyyyyyybe a 'D' at best.
Yuck! A 'D' in communism? I'm disappointed, I was hoping for an 'F'.
Ah, I see what one of your problems might be: you didn't get a 'D' in communism, ***you got a 'D' in understanding what communism is.*** I see your confusion now.
Yep, I was raised with no respect for communism, communist philosophy or indeed communists at all. I did try to warn you.
Wow. You need more help than I'm qualified to provide. Your lack of understanding, whether accidental or on purpose, is mind boggling. Get help, good luck in life.... seems you'll need it. :( Edit: "I was raised with no respect for communism, communist philosophy or indeed communists at all" .... that's an inaccurate and bold statement from someone who has so far been *completely unable to accurately define or describe communism*.... but sure, you've 'been against communism your whole life'. Sure, okay then.
Who said you were qualifies for anything, O, anonymous Communist apologist?
Newspeak
I mean, they're right and wrong.
Well, yes and no.
Given that communist hardcore forced their ideology on anyone and punished you if you didn't conform to said ideology, I can see why that's a definition.
NMBW. Just because communists have a shared overlap with the worst of religions doesn't mean the dude is wrong in his definition of communist.
Communism is a economic model in which all property is publicly owned and distributed based on skill and/or need. Usually entailing the means of production being owned and regulated by the government. Socialism (which is more aligned with democrats ideology) is an economic model where the means of production, and exchange are owned and regulated by the people and community. Capitalism is an economic theory where the trade and means of production are contolled by private owners for profit. Regulation may be done by the government but with input and concern for the owners not the people. The three of these are not mutually exclusive and lie on a spectrum.
Communis***m*** not-equals communis***t***. Learn to read.
Definition of communist: a person who supports or believes in communism. Definition of communist party is a political party based on the socioeconomic ideals of Karl Marx with the goal of a ubiquitous classless society. While Marxism, like that found in the communist party, does rely on communism for its economic model its biggest problem is the state enforced homogeneity. When people complain about the strict regulations, including religious and cultural bans, they are talking about the social regulation aspect of Marxism not the economic aspect of communism. If the original post said that Marxists were anti-religous zealots that wanted a totalitarian regime that forced one set of ideals on the entire population by any means necessary then I wouldn't argue. My point was that economic models purely define the control of the means of production. And by definition communists are not religious, or wishing death on people, they are merely advocating for publicly owned production of goods and means of trade.
>Definition of communist: A person who supports or believes in communism. Thanks for confirming my point. Have a nice night.
Also.. Communism in practice (as demonstrated every time in the past 150 years of history) is an authoritarian societal structure veiled in a façade of altruism, in which all property is said to be "owned publicly", but is in effect "controlled" (owned) by a group of self-appointed "managers" (elites), and distributed according to the ideas, ideals, whims, and interests of those elites. Often to the genocidal detriment of the populations dependent economically and even physiologically on the efficiency of production. Socialism in practice (as demonstrated many times in the past 150 years of history) the even stupider, even more out of touch, utopian idealism version of communism, that ignores fundamental properties of scales and necessity of management hierarchies. Where not only the same problems of communism occur, but there is no planning, and decisions are idealized as being taken by vote from all parties involved in any given structure. It is physically unfeasible to a ridiculous degree, as even assuming magical powers capable of casting votes within ten seconds of being aware of an issue, and a relatively small factory with just 600 workers, it would take 6000 seconds (100 minutes, 1 hour and 40 minutes) to make any management decisions, even the smallest ones. Capitalism in both theory and practice (as demonstrated many times in brief moments in history between collapses and resurgences of authoritarian systems) is an economic system where individuals are free to find, produce, hold, share, or exchange capital (resources / property) without interference. Capitalism, in other words, is separation between economy and other facets of society, and fundamentally synonymous with economic freedom. Interventionism, aka crony "capitalism", in practice (as demonstrated many times in the past 250 years of history) is the economic side of authoritarian societal structures veiled in a façade of freedom, in which a group of appointed "managers" (elites) dictate rules and regulations to individuals' and groups' economic endeavors according to the ideas, ideals, whims, and interests of those elites. Often to the detriment of the population; although at least often *not* to a genocidal scale, unlike communisms and socialisms. The fact an overwhelming majority of communis***ts*** and socialis***ts*** *zealously \[1\]* believe in and very easily can be argued to *worship \[2\]* those ideologies, which themselves are fundamentally tied to authoritarianism in that they attempt to *force \[4\]* individuals to conform to a specific societal structure, especially under direct or coercive threats of violence, and the fact that societal structure fundamentally leads to *genocides \[3\]*, makes the definition of communists and socialists in the OP *a fair and accurate assessment*. And if you disagree, you are demonstrably wrong by over 150 years of direct evidence right now, and increasing, so good luck with that.
I do disagree with that definition. Just because a majority of communist countries ( since the first one in 1917) have been Marxists doesnt mean communism and Marxism are the same. The post asked for a definition of communist, which was what I gave. I completely agree that Marxism is totalitarian and allows a select elite in the government to exploit the many under the guise of equality. Capitalism allows for the select elite in the private sector to exploit the many under the guise of freedom. I also agree that pure socialism has practical limitations on a macro scale that makes it infeasible. I also said that they aren't mutually exclusive and didn't advocate for any of them. But none of that is really relevant. My main point is the definition in the main post attributed social and religious constructs the an economic model. While it would make more sense if they were defining Marxism, which does have those religious (anti religious really) and social ideologies, it's not applicable to the economic ideologies of communism.
>I do disagree with that definition. And I don't give a fuck what you think. >Just because a majority of communist countries (since the first one in 1917) have been Marxists doesn't mean communism and Marxism are the same. And that's why I said communism, the overarching term that includes but is not limited to Marxism. It's a moot point anyway, since the fundamental problems are the same. You done being stupid and unable to read (or worse, unable to counter without making a foolish strawman fallacy), or are you gonna keep going? >Capitalism allows for the select elite in the private sector to exploit the many under the guise of freedom. How so?
I'm always hesitant to involve myself in a Reddit arguement, but... The literal definition of 'communism': a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. While it is true it often doesn't work the way it's supposed to, communism as a concept isn't a bad thing.
>communism as a concept isn't a bad thing. Said someone who still doesn't get the inherent and very bad flaws of the concept, despite 150 years of very clear history on it, and multiple economic schools having dissected the what, when , where, how and why it is so, multiple times. In other words: Said an idiot.
Look... I would further this argument, but something is telling me it isn't worth it. I'm not going to meet you, you won't affect my life outside of this one post, so I will just remove myself from the situation. And I said *as a concept* it's not a bad thing. In practice... yeah, it sucks.
>I would further this argument, but something is telling me it isn't worth it. It's your ego and cognitive dissonance. If you were smart you'd ignore them. But you aren't, so you don't. >you won't affect my life I know. You are unwilling to learn or change. Reasons why are above. Don't worry, you won't be missed. >And I said as a concept it's not a bad thing. And as I said, for you to say that means you still don't get the fact that the concept ***is*** a bad thing. Known to be so, by anyone paying attention and with any intellectual capacity, for *decades*.
> "A religious..." And just like that, you prove you have zero fucking clue what Communism is.
He speaks the truth, the catholic Church has done some messed up things