Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cthulhu]

That said, the teachings of the Bible aren't exclusively Communist. There are plenty of things like "the worker is worthy of his wages" and the buy yourself a robe and sword passages. Really, the Bible's message about money is along the lines of "Don't love money--it's not all that important. Also: tithe and pay taxes."

Oh, goddamnit. I got sucked in.

Yes, the Bible does not forbid or command Communism or Capitalism.  Participation in the commune probably wasn't required.  Ananias and Saphira got the banhammer because they gave part of their money and said they gave it all, not because they only gave part of their money.

[loveschach]

These are some dumb replies, man.

[Euld]

It's important to note that these people (Assuming the book of Acts is historically reliable) were fanatically religious, having lived through the preaching and miracles and all of Jesus.  In order for something like this to work, people would need to be very dedicated.

Not quite, the believers at the time probably consisted of 120 people who were present at the first outpouring of the Holy Spirit plus 3,000 converts immediately after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.  Many of those 3,000 were Jews from other countries who had come to celebrate Pentacost.  They were probably familiar with Jesus, but definently hadn't been with Jesus as much as the apostles.
/nitpick

[loveschach]

Isn't any Christian who's not also communist doing it wrong, anyway? 

Doesn't the whole idea of Communism require the abolishment of religion and things of that nature? So, yeah, any Communist Christian is a paradox of nearly unparalleled levels.

No. Some communists are pretty strong anti-theists. Marx himself pretty much stated that religion is a response people have to repression. It being the "sigh of the oppressed creature" and all that.

[loveschach]

Communism is great.

Look at all the good it has done in the nations that have implemented it.

You mean like China and Russia? Quality of life and literacy sharply, sharply rose after their revolutions. They may not have been on par with the United States at the time, but who could be? These were industrially backwards countries, and socialism definitely improved their lot.

[Jackrabbit]

You know, the two points you've made so far are good ones but if your first post on a forum is in an argument and it's insulting some of the participants and nothing else, don't expect to endear yourself to anyone. First impressions count.

[nenjin]

Quality of life rising from the pre-industrial level, to the industrial level, while the rest of the world enjoys a post-industrial quality of life....better sure. But if you taught a tribe of hunter gatherers to read, and fed them regularly, while putting them into indentured servitude....sort of like saying "Well we had 20% increase."

"Yeah, from 5% to 6%."

[loveschach]

Quality of life rising from the pre-industrial level, to the industrial level, while the rest of the world enjoys a post-industrial quality of life....better sure. But if you taught a tribe of hunter gatherers to read, and fed them regularly, while putting them into indentured servitude....sort of like saying "Well we had 20% increase."

"Yeah, from 5% to 6%."

I'll round up some sources later but in terms of Industrial development, the USSR, which was waaaay behind the rest of the world at the time, advanced a good 100 years between 1917 and 1953 or so.

And the literacy rate in China shot up to nearly 90%, when it was some abysmal number before hand.

Like I said, they don't compare to the United States but to dismiss what Socialism did for these countries (granted, they didn't do much on the "political freedom" front, but they did make advances), is to say that you believe capitalism could have done better for these countries, which, I think, it demonstrably absurd. Life in modern Russia is, in many ways, worse than it was in the days of the USSR. It's not uncommon for people in East Germany to remember the says of the Democratic Republic fondly.

Don't get me wrong, as a communist I'm very, very critical of the mis-steps the USSR and China took, but I think it's a ridiculous claim to make that they would have fared so much better under capitalism.

[loveschach]

You know, the two points you've made so far are good ones but if your first post on a forum is in an argument and it's insulting some of the participants and nothing else, don't expect to endear yourself to anyone. First impressions count.

Fair 'nuff. In my defense, I was referring to a couple of points that were total nonsense from page 7 or so. One quote going on about how Marx and Engels never worked a day in their lives (John Brown and Abraham Lincoln were never slaves, either).

[nenjin]

No, I agree with you actually. Had capitalism come in to rural China, the literacy would have stayed down and they probably would have ended up in an even less equitable economic situation. Communism does have some good social priorities that set it apart from capitalism.

But:

I'll round up some sources later but in terms of Industrial development, the USSR, which was waaaay behind the rest of the world at the time, advanced a good 100 years between 1917 and 1953 or so.

Came at a huge social cost. Inadequate housing, totally inferior goods, a myopic focus on military and heavy industry, corruption, mismanagement...all of which was felt by the people the centralized economy was supposed to be serving. And when you factor in the political parts of it, the purges, the terrors, the witch hunts, the shifting winds of ComIntern politics...there was a very large cost involved in achieving what it did. Granted, most of that was paid for post WWII....but the framework for it started much earlier.

Granted, communist ideology at the time felt like they had to catch up in the militarization race, and that the Cold War atmosphere redirected a lot of communism's efforts in the wrong direction....so we'll never really know how they would have faired without a military giant breathing down their collective necks. But...based on how Eastern Europe faired under communism, I'm not convinced it would have been exceptionally better. 

And if you want a grim lesson in the brutality of communist revolutionary movements....look no farther than China. What makes China particularly scary is that there was no Stalin initially. Most of the savagery occurred in the streets at the hands of zealots. 

[loveschach]

No, I agree with you actually. Had capitalism come in to rural China, the literacy would have stayed down and they probably would have ended up in an even less equitable situation. Communism does have some good social priorities that set it apart from capitalism.

But:

I'll round up some sources later but in terms of Industrial development, the USSR, which was waaaay behind the rest of the world at the time, advanced a good 100 years between 1917 and 1953 or so.

Came at a huge social cost. Inadequate housing, totally inferior goods, a myopic focus on military and heavy industry, corruption, mismanagement...all of which was felt by the people the centralized economy was supposed to be serving. And when you factor in the political parts of it, the purges, the terrors, the witch hunts...there was a very large cost involved in achieving what it did.

Granted, communist ideology at the time felt like they had to catch up in the militarization race, and that the Cold War atmosphere redirected a lot of communism's efforts in the wrong direction....so we'll never really know how they would have faired without a military giant breathing down their collective necks. But...based on how Eastern Europe faired under communism, I'm not convinced it would have been exceptionally better. 

And if you want a grim lesson in the brutality of communist revolutionary movements....look no farther than China. What makes China particularly scary is that there was no Stalin initially. Most of the savagery occurred in the streets at the hands of zealots.

Yeah I think we mostly agree here. I just want to point out that all of these terrible things don't come part and parcel with socialism, and even those big mean "Stalinists" don't want a modern socialist country to look like or work like the USSR. China and Russia were really dealt a tough hand. Had a revolution succeeded in say, Germany, or England, or someplace with some industry and a history of non-autocratic government, Socialism there would have looked very, very different.

[nenjin]

I totally agree on that. And it's not like it didn't try. But that's exactly what Western nations were afraid of, that communism would take hold in a place where it didn't face all the challenges it normally did. Namely, state building from almost the ground up. Capitalism could always beat communism, as long as communism was a decade late and a billion short.

[Criptfeind]

What makes China particularly scary is that there was no Stalin initially. Most of the savagery occurred in the streets at the hands of zealots.

Oh god, what were the numbers on how many they ate?

[atomicwinter]

In Soviet Russia, communism choose you!

[Criptfeind]

Fuck, your avatar trapped me until my computer lagged.