My question for atheists.

Post Reply New Topic

Well, yeah, partially so. Atheists are partly upset because they feel they are alienated from, distrusted by, and the enemies of religious groups.

I can understand that I feel the same way being religious. Put it this way we are like the Jedi and the Sith. Neither group are trusted in the world we live in. Both have done harm it's hard to same who has done more because. When the religious do harm it is in the name of religion. When atheists do harm it was political but not in the name of atheism.

If the religious right had never reared its ugly head, I doubt there would be more than one atheist for every thousand Christians. The religious right is what makes some of us think that religion is simply and incurably evil. I don't know what went wrong with Christianity, but it has seen better days.

The nationalism, the elite, and the dictatorship were the results of the evolution of that society. It is not as if this was the goal of the revolutionaries, it was simply the institutional arrangement that everything fell into. Socialism in one nation was the result of the failure of the international order to rise up into a socialist revolution in any good time frame.(It's also been a vice that Marxists have often not other escaped in other nations either, including WW1 in other nations) The rulership of a bureaucratic elite was driven by the need to have Marxism be the dominant ideology, so the party formed the bureaucratic elite such that the revolution would not be subverted. Lenin took control, as did the successors because the power structure of the party became solidified by the need to have ideological purity. Basically, it's just a combination of a failure of the world to revolt at the sight of the rise of a socialist system and a bizarre interpretation of "dictatorship of the proletariat", and the power system that was built up in the revolutionary party.

Stalinist purges were the result of Lenin's system. The issue is just that Stalin was also a paranoiac. Another issue is that no real sketch of the revolution has ever been built. A revolution is supposed to happen. It's supposed to be worldwide. And the final state is meant to be the stateless society.

Marxists have historically come very close to veneration. Part of this is because of their ongoing concern with not being subverted by counter-revolutionary forces and the need for ideological solidarity. It gets complicated, because most Marxists HAVE had to make modifications, or they have unintentionally done this. However, the doctrinal disputes have been quite bitter throughout history.


Actually, yes, the nations resemble the ideas of Trotsky. Trotsky helped build Lenin's order. Trotsky worked to maintain the ideological purity of Lenin and was himself personally involved in events like the Red Terror.

However, Marx? Less so. The problem is really that Marx didn't create a clear picture of how to get from point A to point B. Is this organic? Well, no.... Marxists don't really all agree so easily, so some try democratic means, etc, etc. It's just an organic result of revolutionary Marxism, and that's just a matter of revolutions. It's just that Marx's ideas naturally proclaim that revolutions are important.


There is a difference between denouncing and denying. You're fine denouncing the USSR, but I'm not accepting you denying it as an effort to Marxism, or even partially a historical result of Marxian ideas. Just as fundamentalism is an effort to be Christian and the result of Christian ideas.

I don't think it absurd at all, it was a philosophical observation not a personal attack btw.

The entire point of aiming for a communist utopia is that the needs of ALL are met, not just the needs of 51% percent of the population.

You can run a fascist state and fulfil the needs of the majority, you can run a democracy and withhold medical treatment from the poor and let them die. (looking at you america...)

Bah, the poor here in amurica get plenty of medical treatment. Like..uh... hmm…oh, emergency services...and...err, cremation.

It is totally absurd to take the word "majority" when used in the context of a Marxist economy to mean 51% of the population and then attribute fascist ideals to it. I did not use "ALL" simply because I expected some pedant to respond with something like 'the concept of the needs of all being met is not practically possible as it would mean hunting out every last person in the economy to make sure their needs are being attended to and the chances are that one or two will be overlooked.' I should have realised that a pedant would also take issue with my use of majority

I also used MAJORITY because I doubt very much that the super rich will really understand that their needs are met by having a single house to live in, no maxi cruiser to visit monaco with, and being told there is the kitchen cook your own food etc.

Might I suggest that in future whilst the literal translation of a word may not fit exactly, rather than go with the literal you try to understand the word in the context of the point being made.

AG I will respond to your suggestion that Trotsky, Stalin and Mao were of the same ilk later. The merest suggestion of the possibility that this was so is making my brain hurt.

Stalin and Mao definitely were of the same ilk, as noted by Mao's efforts with the Cultural Revolution, and even the mass-starvation in the Great Leap Forward. I mean, I am not saying Mao had the same psychological flaws as Stalin or the same beliefs, just that they both are blots on the face of history.

Trotsky played a role in increasing the power of the Russian state, just as other figures did. I mean, what about how he incorporated Unions into the State in the early 20s? I mean the "militarization of the working class" is a very good start towards a totalitarian system. We can argue it was the mistake of the moment, but at the same time, it isn't as if totalitarianism can emerge overnight. Not only that, but atrocities had existed in the Soviet system long before Stalin had ever gained power, as I pointed out, the Red Terror existed, and Trotsky was at the time considered a major leader in the party.

Mao didn't exactly intend to starve his country. He's still a mass murderer, but I wouldn't use starvation as an example.

I don't think intentions are really relevant for the kind of critique though. Not only that, the starvation really IS the fault of the Chinese leadership in this situation. It isn't that they just had a huge drought, but rather bad policies were taken and these policies were exacerbated by an unwillingness to lose face.

DentArthurDent, when will you give up your apologetics for Lenin and Trotsky?

Agreed I should have written "........that Trotsky was of the same ilk as stalin and Mao"

I will respond to the rest of your post later. M-P simple answer when my flesh is rotting in its grave \

Edit: You will have to take Capital, What is to be done and Revolution Betrayed from my cold dead hands

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 29 May 2012, 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Very true. The irony being, of course, that Marx warned against exactly this - naming this practice "Blanquism" after a fellow named Louis Blanqui who proposed it as the ideal method of revolution.

The important lesson here is that one cannot build safeguards into an ideology, they will be erased or rationalized out of existance when the evolution demands it.

The only thing atheists have in come is a disbelief in the existence of a god.

That does not determine one's politics or morality.

ruveyn

Atheism is just another belief people hold depending on their life experiences.

Actually it is the lack of a certain belief.

Atheism, as such, is a negative thing.

ruveyn