Talk:Communism

From RationalWiki

Attention, BouncyBear! There was no reason for you to remove the snark, or the link to CP. Please do not remove things without talking about it in talk, or at least stating a reason. Researcher 22:15, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Why doesn't this article mention Communism's Christian origins? The Wikipedia article on Christian Communism should provide plenty of evidence to prove that Communism is a form of Christianity.^{— Unsigned, by: 206.251.2.41 / talk / contribs}

Communism doesn't really have Christian roots, but some Christian movements, like Liberation Theology, have communist roots.--PalMD<sup>-Dine in hell tonightsup> 17:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] [Q]

Er, didn't Marx profess "Religion is the opiate of the masses?" I am fairly sure that all communists are atheists. At least all but more moderate ones such as Eurocommunists. Lyra (lex lata) 01:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I thought the line was "the opium of the masses". Surely you can at least google it before asking? All communists = atheists? I doubt it, although maybe. And what's your point? human ^ingenuity 01:54, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Same thing. Opium is an opiate. I know it may sound contemporarily inaccurate but true communism as envisioned by Marx would be atheistical. Lyra (lex lata) 01:59, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

And what's your point? Is there an error in the article? Is there a difference between "Marxism" and "Communism"? And a wrong quote is not "the same thing". human ^ingenuity 02:08, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

(sigh) Sorry for the confusion, "opiate" and "opium" are interchangeable in this quote. Marx believed that all religion should be done away with, so hard-core communists are by definition always atheists. That's it. Lyra (ex post facto) 02:16, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Except in liberation theology. Wazza (Yes, that Wazza)^{Bring a little light into my dim and dull existence} 04:26, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Surely one can be a hard-core communist without ascribing to every belief of a 19th century philosopher? I certainly agree that a Marxist should and well ought to be an atheist, though. human ^{there is no cabal} 15:38, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Marxist = Communist, take China, USSR, Cuba, they all did away with religion, it's only the modern Eurocommunists that aren't strictly atheist. Lyra (ipso facto) 15:42, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I disagree with your equation of the two terms. human^culous 16:13, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

A quick cheap referral to pickyweedia yields "The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism and Luxemburgism, are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarchist communism) also exist and are growing in importance since the fall of the Soviet Union."

(UNDENT) Lyra, you know little of what you speak. Marxism ==/== communism as practiced in the countries you named. Marxism is a vast and complex set of historical and economic analyses and approaches to policy. Yes, the communist states you mention have economic development policies that are Marxist, but they are far from representative of what the totality of Marxist thought represents. Also, as mentioned above, liberation Theology shows how elements of Marxism can live very comfortably in a religious context - as does the way that Confucianism and Buddhism and Communism have co-existed in China since the Revolution. Read Capital (all three volumes) and the Grundrisse for starters - and then hit up Althuser, James and Gramsci. Get a more complete idea of what Marxist thought can be.PFoster

Mr. Foster, I actually know volumes "of which I speak," I wrote a very long paper on all types of Communism and its preliminary and modern examples... The truth is, in every instance that either Trotskyism, Maoism, Stalinism is declared the only form of the state, they all have been nonreligious. I suppose a distinction can be drawn between State Communism and modern contemporary communist theory of which you speak, but theist/religious communism has never happened and has been mostly taken over by socialist parties in government. Lyra (ex post facto) 17:10, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Lyra, while I'm sure that your paper was brilliant, your two arguments above ("I am fairly sure that all communists are atheists." and "Marxist = Communist") are flat-out wrong and show that you need to do a lot more in order to critically engage with Marxist and Communist thought.PFoster 17:18, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

So now it's a swordfight? "Critically engage?" ;) I take back those black-and-white statements, for that reason. My previous statement stands, however. ("...in every instance that either Trotskyism...") Lyra (lex lata) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you're missing a lot of historical subtleties by seeing it that way - while the states involved may have been officially secular/nonreligious/atheistic, this doesn't tell us anything about how the actual people in those states, be they Russian Orthodox, Vietnamese Buddhist, Chinese Buddhists and Confucianists, East German Catholics and Lutherans and Cuban Catholics or Santeria followers, many of whom were also dedicated Communists, were able to reconcile faith and politics.PFoster 17:53, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Unlike Snafly, I concede the point. (Godspeed!) Lyra (referendum) 17:58, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Although I only bothered to read half of the conversation, I would like to state that I am both religious and a pretty hard-core communist, so… --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 16:31, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Linus, how would your faith impact your (hypothetical [I hope]) establishment of a communist state? Lyra (ex post facto) 17:10, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Pretty much only by not outlawing religion, as others might. I may be misunderstanding your question, could you elaborate? --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 17:45, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I covered this in 'socialism', I'll drag it over. Also, half of this article deserves to be chucked somewhere in an article named 'Fun:Communism', rather than here. And while Marx was an atheist, that doesn't mean that he thought that religion should be outlawed. Well, in communism, there would be nobody to outlaw it anyways, but... -Judas Reward 14:48, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] if this article is an 100% joke

please excuse me. if we want to aim for 50/50 (we'll keep the good jokes) then this needs to go

and that income should be shared equally amongst all citizens of the state.

I really do not feel that this is a communist idea or ideal or anything. To each according to his (her) needs, from each according to his (her) ability or something, is as close as I can get and it is not the same thing. Close enough for Conservapedia, but . ..... really, we can do better here. Carptrash 15:05, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Yup. Not only is there no state, but there's no money either. -Judas Reward 15:08, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Exactly. When you ain't got nothing you got nothing to loose. (Bob Dylan) Carptrash 15:11, 30 August 2008 (EDT) Now I'm on to:

"First, we must mention Karl Marx and the idea that human society develops in a dialectic fashion in reaction, starting with one system, swinging to its polar opposite, and then to a new form in the middle."

I suppose that this is a sort of explanation of the "theses, antheses and syntheses" idea of Marx, but it is not how he was describing the evolution of society. He had it moving from feudalism to Capitalism to socialism to communism. The progressing steps here do not involve anything like "polar opposites".

I am beginning to suspect that either this article or my understanding of the meaning of life is seriously flawed, perhaps beyond redemption. Carptrash 17:01, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

His theory was basically that society goes from primitive communism to feudalism, then capitalism (which was necessary for development, though feudal nations could still have successful revolutions if other developed nations around them also revolted), and then socialism. Then communism, of course. IMO we should just put that in, rather than the whole 'polar opposites' thing. -Judas Reward 01:43, 31 August 2008 (EDT)