Comparing communists to liberals

Post Reply New Topic

You're thinking of Landover Baptist. Westboro Baptist really is extreme.

Also, I appreciate you setting the record straight on communism and liberalism.

I don’t believe in government-implemented morality....but there must be SOME moral basis in anything we do or believe in.

Unbridled immorality is dangerous, indeed.

[opinion=mine]

Communism is Feudalism that uses propaganda to convince the serfs their Hell-On-Earth is Paradise.

Liberalism is Feudalism that legislates entitlements and deregulates morality to keep the serfs happy.

[/opinion]

Yes, there should be, but not government imposed.

I am a Christian and Bible has a pretty solid answer on this. On the one hand, the Bible clearly teaches morality. But, on the other hand, the bible opposes the concept of government imposing it: after all, the government that is prophecized to do it would be the one of the antichrist.

But its funny, if I were to pick what antichrist I prefer, I would say some are much better than others. For instance, I would much rather have catholic antichrist than satanic antichrist. And, by the same token, I would prefer communist antichrist to several others, as well. But I guess its a moot point, since most likely communists are "not" going to be the antichrist -- since at least today's trajectory seems to suggest antichrist would come from either US or NATO or something like that. And thats another good thing about communists: even though they are atheist, they would probably oppose antichrist.

One thing I found interesting was to look up government spending of GDP. Full list can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

Select countries:

North America:

Canada 42.0%
United States 41.6%
Mexico 27%

Europe:

France 56.0%
Greece 52.0%
Sweden 51.0%
Italy 50%
United Kingdom 49.0%
Spain 45%
Germany 45.0%
Russia 36.0%

Asia:
Japan 42.0%
South Korea 30%
India 27%
China 24.0%

"Communist" countries:
Cuba 67.0%
Venezuela 40.0%

Thanks! And I appreciate you see that this is the point I was making

Good point. Although you might add:

Capitalism is a feudalism where lords outcompete their serfs

Theocracy is a feudalism where serfs are kept in line by religion

I think the common denominator behind "all" policies is that they are ways of keeping serfs in line. If the people up at the top didn't benefit from it, they wouldn't do it.

This, however, doesn't change the fact that some of them happened to have good points. For example, the fact that religion is used to control people doesn't contradict the fact that there is God. And the fact that Bible is used to control people doesn't contradict the fact that it is the Word of God.

Also, just the fact that different policy styles are all just means of keeping people in line doesn't contradict the fact that some are more healthy for people than others. I want to be a theoretical physicist and, as such, I don't have political inspirations. So I am happy being a serf. But I want that serfdom to allow for a healthy lifestyle -- and thats where the "type" of serfdom would make a difference.

Last edited by QFT on 07 Aug 2019, 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Your experience would be typical for most Western children. I do not disagree that Russia is generally more homophobic than America. However, Russia is not the entirety of communism (indeed, as you are aware, it isn't even communist any more), and America is not the entirety of liberalism. Homosexuality was illegal in parts of America as late as 2003!


As I am not a Christian, I don't care too much, but this seems like quite a weak reading of the Bible. For example, consider Romans 13:1-7:

I have a pretty healthy moral code without religion or government and it goes like this.

Humans are self-centered, this can’t be escaped and it’s futile to try.
The point of life is happiness.
Humans learn from one another and mimic the behaviors we see and experience.
A self-centered existence with a goal of happiness guides me to be kind to others and respect their own life journey.

Works for me and if everyone could get on board we could greatly reduce our taxes.

I guess its possible, since the times are changing. Although I should point out that "Heather has two mommies" and "Daddies roommate" was written, in America, in 1989 and 1990, respectively. And both were meant for small children, which was unthinkable in Russia.



Well, Russia is an ideological parent to communism since, I believe, China and North Korea both took communism "from" Russia. Also they are much smaller countries than Russia so if we are talking about communist ideology influencing America, then the Russian brand of it would be far more likely the relevant one.

I never looked into Chinese or North Korean version of communism, although my gut feeling is that they are probably anti-gay as well, since they are dictatorships. Well, at the very least, North Korea should be anti-gay although I never checked.

But in any case, the kind of communism I miss is the Russian kind. North Korea is quite frightening. On the other hand, Soviet Union was a lot more civilized.



I know they are not communist; but when it comes to "other" topics, such as homosexuality, they probably retain their old beliefs.

I guess one "could" point at the way they did the 180 when it comes to religion: namely they used to be militant atheists and now they are more religious than Americans. But I don't think they did anything similar when it comes to moral questions. In fact, I saw the communist film from 1970-s which was criticizing the west for their moral degeneracy. So, as paradoxically as it might seem, they cared about morality "more" than the west "despite" being atheists. That probably explains their 180 with religion, since religion fell on fertile soil so to speak.



That's quite surprising, given the anti-gay propaganda I heard at school in 1998 onward. Granted, I was at Berkeley, and Berkeley is super-liberal. But still, the students might travel to some other states where its not legal. So wouldn't they be putting them in danger of going to jail?



That's a really good question. But I guess there has to be a line somewhere -- since Bible also tells us to resist the government of the antichrist. The Romans 13 is especially interesting because the government at the time was Roman empire, which was basically sending Christians to lions. So if Christians were obeying the naive interpretation of Romans 13, they would have just worshiped the emperor like they were asked and spare their lives. So I guess Romans 13 isn't to be interpreted in the way it might first seem.

To answer the question:
Liberals pretend that there's a free market while regulating everything away and forcing private industries to deliver service to anyone and everyone regardless of the free will of the individuals in the society.

Communists are the same without the pretend part.

Maybe lack of pretending is what makes communists better. Take the religion for example. Liberals "pretend to be Christian while denying Christian principles" while communists "don't pretend and instead are openly atheist". Now, despite being a Christian, I can give communists credit for staying true to their principles -- and maybe that is what ultimately allowed them to put a very high moral standards on people "despite" atheism and all that (they could actually make a party meeting in order to tell someone off for divorcing their wife, for example!)

I guess I went a bit off tangent since what you talked about was pretend capitalist versus honest communist while I brought up pretend Christian versus honest atheist. But maybe that same principle holds. If one is honest in whatever, they can be true to whatever principles they do have; but if someone is too used to pretending, then that person is lukewarm. And even Jesus Himself says he prefers hot or cold to lukewarm (Rev 3:15,16)

P.S. If by "forcing to deliver services to everyone" you were referring to cakes for gay marriage, I don't think communists would "force" people produce them -- probably the opposite, they would force them not to. And, as far as "affirmative action" goes, they did the "opposite" to what liberals do as well. Liberals say "admit NO LESS blacks than their percentage of population" while communists say "admit NO MORE Jews than their percentage of population".

I don't see a better or worse situation. It's all flawed in my eyes. Communism seems to be the eventual end of modern day liberalism where every group wants their plight to be converted into a right and the politicians cater to them to earn votes. Eventually all the groups will have all their rights and the only way that services will get from one person to another us through the government bureaucracy.

I'd offer the same scathing review of the modern conservative who is all for small government and freedom except for the military, for drug laws, for prostitution laws, etc... It's all a farce the way I see it. Oddly I see communism as the eventual end of modern conservatives as well... It just seems there's a society that can only offer up a government answer to every challenge that citizens face which is really annoying because that translates to higher taxes which equals a feeling of being a certain percentage of a slave to the voters.

Once again, you are equating "all groups get all their wants" with "communism" -- and those two things are "not" to be equated -- which was the point of my original thread. In Soviet Union they weren't trying to give all groups what they want. They did the opposite: they were trying to re-educate the groups so that they would no longer want those things. But in todays society they "are" giving all groups what they want -- which is why I am saying don't call it communism, call it something else.



They want freedom from man-made laws but not from moral laws. And thats Biblical. God is opposed to prostitution too, but He wouldn't want some arbitrary laws to restrict people's freedom if those laws have nothing to do with His laws.

I guess I'm saying there are different ways to arrive at communism and didn't mean to imply that it was citizens voting for entitlements that brought on communist Russia (obviously that's far from the truth). In communist Russia it was a desire to abandon Imperialist Russia and a resulting civil war that brought about the new type of government but at the core there were humans who felt they were treated unfairly and who felt they would have more surplus with a different set of rules.

In modern days we do it more systematically and give people the illusion of choice and use voting to get to the same end but it preys on the same basic human instinct.

At some point, as the US builds endless entitlements, the government will have no choice but to take a communist approach unless the US dollar and the military that supports it goes on in healthy fashion until the end of time... I definitely see a situation where government takes control of farming surpluses and instituting something like "War Communism" like in Russia around 1917 and both liberals and conservatives will have played a major role in getting to that point.