That's not confirmation. — Wheatley

like what do you want, a history lesson? :D use google for that. ;)

like what do you want, a history lesson? :D use google for that. ;) — stoicHoneyBadger

I'm not going to do your job. :angry:

I'm not going to do your job. :angry: — Wheatley

LOL :D

"progressive liberals"
— Michael Zwingli
They're all Marxists?? — Wheatley

Actually, they are not marxists, but functionally the same as pertains to the inevitable results of their exertions: the state as intermediary of all function and arbiter of all decision-making. The state as "the great father"...everybody's "daddy". This will happen over my dead body, or in my absence, should I choose to emigrate rather than fight what could only be a losing battle. Unfortunately, it seems to be the natural tendency in a nation which employs democracy, the "tyrrany of the vulgus", as a mode of determining political power.

the state as intermediary of all function and arbiter of all decision-making. — Michael Zwingli

And say goodbye to private business!

And say goodbye to private business! — Wheatley

Oh, we'll still have private business, alright...in order that the state may take all the profits as tax revenues available for "redistribution". Remember AOC's stated hope: tax the wealthy at upwards of 70% of their income?

See here, a member of Congress behaving like some sophomoric high school debutante: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/aoc-dress-designer-owes-taxes-b1922909.html
...from which exhebition I am led to believe that the idea of "gravitas" being appropriate for a civic leader is dead, and gone from American society. In any case, AOC reinforces her stated goal by this display.

What we will lack is the "profit motive", unless business owners, corporate executives, and investors can become increasingly creative in their "offshore" activities.

What we will lack is the "profit motive" — Michael Zwingli

What profit motive? Most people are just trying to make a living.

The state as "the great father"...everybody's "daddy". This will happen over my dead body, or in my absence, should I choose to emigrate rather than fight what could only be a losing battle. — Michael Zwingli

About fighting Marxism being a losing battle. I am from Eastern Europe, I was born in Soviet-occupied territory, so I know that culture very well.
And I can not understand why Americans ( republicans ) don't want to really fight Marxists, instead they just play on the defense, arguing for freedom of speech ( even for Marxists ) and basically let's all be friends attitude.

Probably their Christian value system is holding them back, as it sees suffering for ones believes as a good thing. While in reality you don't win a war by suffering, you win by making the other side suffer. ;)

And I can not understand why Americans ( republicans ) don't want to really fight Marxists, instead they just play on the defense, arguing for freedom of speech ( even for Marxists ) and basically let's all be friends attitude. — stoicHoneyBadger

Believe me, the battle, which is being called here in the States "the culture war", is raging, albeit at a low level of intensity. This country has never been so politically divided. When I was coming up, most Americans could have never imagined a mob invading the Capitol Building with members of Congress inside...terrified in their chamber while Capitol Police officers were killed in the building, but (it stretches my credulity to recognize it) it sure did happen recently. Americans were once quite uniformly patriotic, putting the country before the faction, but apparently no longer. All of this is the result of the progressive faction of the Democratic Party getting enough people "on the dole", receiving government benefits of one kind or another, and registered to vote, that they have become a permanent force in our electoral politics.

I should avoid these political discussions, they get me too ramped up...

Believe me, the Battle, called here in the States "the culture war" is raging. — Michael Zwingli

I know it is, I'm watching the Daily Wire, Dinesh D'souza and such. The problem, as I see it, is that the right fails to use effective means. Instead of canceling leftist speakers and bullying leftist ideologues into silence, they tend to take the "let's all be friends" approach.
Even Trump, who was the president for 4 years, failed to use his powers to crush the enemy. :(

Even Trump, who was the president for 4 years, failed to use his powers to crush the enemy. — stoicHoneyBadger

Trump was ineffective because he is such an asshole, in terms of personality, which alienated many, and because lacks the intelligence to employ political finesse in the attainment of political goals. Under our Constitution, the President must convince the populace of the best way forward for the country. He has no constitutional authority to "strongarm" the population, quite appropriately. The Republican party has become just as bad as the Democratic, now. As the Democrats have been co-opted by progressivism, the Republicans, once "traditional conservatives" in the George Will mode, have been co-opted by populism, and a vaguely heightened form of nationalism (not nearly fascist yet). There has been a steady movement towards the political poles. The situation does not provide a good aspect on either side, for a Libertarian such as myself.

Truly so. And, it seems, for Libertarians the prospect might be even worst, as they usually don't have the thumos to fight for what they believe it. Therefor, usually whomever is stronger, just takes over them.

Just know that their goal is to get political power, not "make things better". — stoicHoneyBadger

So what? Everyone's goal is political power, at the end. But some also at the same time make things better indeed.

Not that I see Marx as right to everything but you can't condemn a huge communist ideology so easily and blame it that he didn't fight for justice with the right way . At least it was a fight. An effort as to try changing things. Even that it failed its "fingerprint" in humanity's map was positive. Imo at least.

Marx ideology with its wrongs (and they are many) moved humanity one step forward especially on human rights. The things that some communists did by "translating" Marx wasn't Marx 's fault. That's a story for another thread.

Don't get me wrong i am not communist and I find it as a "great impossible fairytale" but at least Marx PROPOSED something at last.
Humanity was and still is, full of philosophers who only do criticism to everything without proposing anything at all at the end.

Well Marx dared at last! So don't be so aphoristic about him. I find that unfair.

Well Marx dared at last! So don't be so aphoristic about him. I find that unfair. — dimosthenis9

Would you say the same about, for example, Hitler? :)
What Marx proposed had led to gulags and murders of hundreds of million throughout the last century. If that is not the wrong side of history, I don't know what is.

Would you say the same about, for example, Hitler? :) — stoicHoneyBadger

Many people do that and I find it unacceptable and totally unfair to see these 2 ideologies as same. So I can never accept that.

If you are asking though if Hitler also proposed something. Of course he did! Even what it was is totally shit. Still many people buy it! It was a shitty proposal but still a proposal.

But come on I find it absolutely unethical to compare Marx with Hitler. And I repeat to you that communists translated Marx and did shitty things also. And yes as you say they murdered people too.

But if we examine them as just 2 pure ideologies. You can never claim that they are morally the same.

Nazis had send people to concentration camps based on their ethnicity, while communists did so based on class. That is the only difference and an insignificant one in my opinion. So I certainly would see those two ideologies as equal.

And saying that communists missinderstood Max is as naive as saying that Hitler had good ideas, only those damn Nazis took them out of context.

I don't agree but anyway that it's a huge different discussion.And not for that thread.

And saying that communists missinderstood Max is as naive as saying that Hitler had good ideas, only those damn Nazis took them out of context — stoicHoneyBadger

No it isn't the same at all. And apparently you didn't get my meaning . if you want to compare Hitler with Stalin fine. But with Marx? No absolutely way. Anyway i drop it.

How many people did communists kill in Russia? How many countries were occupied? How many were worked to death in Siberia?

Marx ideology with its wrongs (and they are many) moved humanity one step forward especially on human rights. The things that some communists did by "translating" Marx wasn't Marx 's fault. — dimosthenis9

Marxism was good as an indicator of injustice. In some parts of the world, it was needed, just as trade unions were needed in the early industrialized West, England and America, where little children once worked their fingers to the bone for 14, 16 hours a day, six days a week, in mills and factories. But, too much Marxism proved as bad as too much unionism, with it's unreasonable demands, which deeply hurt alot of industry in the U.S. and was the destruction of Detriot, once a great city. When it's fat, middle aged men with a decent wage and a 40 hour work week making the demands, rather than the parents of starving overworked children, you know you have a problem. The fault is that once they gain a bit of power, human beings don't know when to say "okay, enough. If I want any more, I should do what I must to advance within the social system, and not use the politics of power to coerce it."

Sorry I m not interested in communist conversations at all anymore. Made it many times at the past. And now I find them endless and at that field most people (including myself) become most stubborn. I see no use in them anymore so as in my real life same here I strongly avoid them.

But, too much Marxism proved as bad as too much unionism, with it's unreasonable demands, — Michael Zwingli

Wrote it. I don't agree at all with many things that he said and find them impossible to happen. Against human nature in fact.

Yes, i was just born in a than communist occupied country and all the atrocities they committed are still pretty fresh in our collective memory, so when a westerner start "oh, not everything was that bad..." really gets me fired up. :D

Yes, i was just born in a than communist occupied country and all the atrocities they committed are still pretty fresh in our collective memory, — stoicHoneyBadger

Communism is horrible! :hearts:

one must be mindful of Gibbon's anti-religion bias, which has bled into the D&F. — Michael Zwingli

Gibbon was the first to ignore the myths Christianity built around itself, and so to address the history. That doing so is seen as being "anti-religious" is zealotry. It can bee seen here again in multiple posts.

The temples were not just left to collapse; they were brought to ruin; the statues did not fall because of mere age; they were pulled down. The academies did not just wither, they were prohibited. The books were not just left to rot; they were stolen and publicly burned. This was done by empirical edict and with the active support of Bishops.

This is what occurred; but even now it is denied.

Gibbon was a Roman Catholic convert. If anything he is at pains to be even-handed . Any anti-religious bias is in the eye of the religious, in their need for comfortable lies.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

That's a more focused claim than made before, which was correlating monotheism to intolerance.,suggesting it was the monotheistic aspect of Christianity that resulted in its destructive nature. — Hanover

It is pretty clear that Rome was at a loss as to how to deal with a group so set in their superstition. See Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan. Pliny is at pains to accomodate Christianity within the Roman framework, but at a loss as to how to go about dealing with what amounted to treason by a secret brotherhood.

Their monotheism was what led them to refuse obeisance to Trajan's statue. It was monotheism that refused to accept other gods, destroying their temples. Belief in the one true god implies intolerance towards those with other beliefs.

Consider Popper's account of how a liberal society can tolerate everything except intolerance, a justification used for example for the silencing of Holocaust denial and right-wing extremism. The logical structure here is that liberal tolerance cannot be extended to those who would insist on intolerance. That logical structure is found in the Roman capacity to accept and adopt religions from all over the Empire; the provision was that they accept the religious views held by others. Christianity could not play along. It refused to tolerate alternate views, indeed seeing this intolerance a a virtue. This is why Pliny and the Roman governance saw it as criminal.

A polytheistic religion can accomodate other religions by adding and equating the gods of one religion with those of another. This was a policy actively followed during the expansion of Rome. It is an option not available to monotheism, which instead proselytises.

Rome had no need for missionaries.

So I maintain with good reason that there is a distinct difference in kind between how polytheistic and monotheistic religions treat their rival beliefs.

So I maintain with good reason that there is a distinct difference in kind between how polytheistic and monotheistic religions treat their rival beliefs. — Banno

Indeed.

"I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam -- good people, yes, but any religion based on a single, well, frenzied and virulent god, is not as useful to the human race as, say, Confucianism, which is not a religion but an ethical and educational system."

Gore Vidal

:up:

Notice here the pile-on of apologists? Notice how they do not make reference to historical documents? Notice the ad hom nature of their arguments - that I hate Christianity, that Gibbon was anit-christian; the accusation suffices for them; no need for evidence.. Notice the non sequiturs - that there are tolerant Christians, hence Christianity as a religion must be tolerant.

What if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct? It isn't; no need for the "what if..."

Their monotheism was what led them to refuse obeisance to Trajan's statue. It was monotheism that refused to accept other gods, destroying their temples. Belief in the one true god implies intolerance towards those with other beliefs. — Banno

I'd argue Christianity is polytheistic. I can arrive at no other conclusion unless I accept the mystery of the triunity is coherent, which it's not.

Polytheism doesn't suggest tolerance as it's just as logical for a polytheistic religion to be a form of monolatry or henotheistic, meaning the existence of lesser gods is accepted, but there is still a dominant God that is worshipped. Such existed among the Greeks and Romans with Zeus. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism

As also noted, it is not logically necessary that monotheistic religion attempt to convert others or express hostility to others. Judaism, for example, posits a chosen status and a belief in a special covenant with God to obey his commandments, thereby eliminating a need to impose those rules on others. You therfore see intolerance and oppression toward Jews for lack of assimilation, not the other way around.

The irony is that as a survival mechanism, retreat inward appears more successful than outward attack, at least as evident by the Jewish experience and their continued survival.