Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why do Communists tend to to be Atheist?

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    smacl wrote: »
    Did this leftist even say they were a leftist?

    Given that leftist regularly tends to be used as a pejorative term by those on the far right for those that are in any way to the left of them, it seems unlikely. I've seen people self identifying as left-leaning, socialist and communist but rarely if ever as leftist.

    No. You are correct. I applied that term to him (just not to his face, cause I am too polite for that).


  • Options
    #33
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    But why pick on the USSR when you could say the same for so many other regimes that claim to be Communist. Granted China is a powerhouse of economic success but their case it is true, they are not real Communists. Maybe that is it, when Communists are really capitalists, then they succeed and when they are not, they don`t.


    The USSR entered into this discussion because of the claim you originally made in the OP. You said:

    realitykeeper wrote: »
    For example, Communism tends to fail and it only lasts when people do not have a democratic voice.

    The problem with this claim is that while the USSR failed and it's true that it's people didn't have a democratic choice, China which is also nominally communist and is also a country where there is only very limited democracy (the ruling party decides which parties can run in elections), and is still going strong.


    So when you said communism tends to fail, China disproves that because it is a communist country and its people also don't have a true democratic voice.


    In response to me pointing this out, you claimed that China wasn't a real communist country and was only pretending to be. Bannasidhe then showed that this argument of yours is also without foundation since the USSR could also not really be described as a communist country in any meaningful way and was just a rebranding of the imperalist system which went before.



    We're not picking on the USSR just using it as an example to show that your arguments don't hold water.


  • Options
    #34
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    im a proud lefty, ive never considered myself a communist or socialist for that matter, so maybe....

    Noted. But if like me you were to consider leftism a bad thing then you might be inclined to bunch it together also. Think of the old fashioned rubbish bin before recycling started. All the rubbish went in together, just an analogy of course, no offense intended :)


  • Options
    #35
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    But why pick on the USSR when you could say the same for so many other regimes that claim to be Communist. Granted China is a powerhouse of economic success but their case it is true, they are not real Communists. Maybe that is it, when Communists are really capitalists, then they succeed and when they are not, they don`t.

    Ummm... because you had already dismissed the idea that China is actually communist so I argued that the 'other' large 'communist' bloc also wasn't really communist.

    Tell you what.
    Why don't you tell us what countries you believe are actually communist and we'll go from there.

    Mainly to see if you understand what 'communist' actually means because when you make statements like "Communists are really capitalists" I tend to wonder. See, if communists are 'really' capitalists then they aren't communists. They are capitalists.

    It's like saying when Christians are really Hindu...


  • Options
    #36
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    I bunch them all together.
    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Noted. But if like me you were to consider leftism a bad thing then you might be inclined to bunch it together also.

    How very fascist of you. :P


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,805 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Noted. But if like me you were to consider leftism a bad thing then you might be inclined to bunch it together also. Think of the old fashioned rubbish bin before recycling started. All the rubbish went in together, just an analogy of course, no offense intended :)

    as was said earlier, be very careful with over simplification of our reality, our world is a very complex place, and human behavior can be extraordinarily complex. right or more conservative thinking is also complex, and too should not be viewed in a simple manner, both exist, and both should be equally respected


  • Options
    #38
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    China which is also nominally communist ...

    Nominally indeed. I think Hitler`s national socialists were nominally socialist but his concentration camps would not be an ideal substitute for social housing. That is the difference between nominally and the real thing.


  • Options
    #39
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users Posts: 18,220 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Another 'realitykeeper' thread, another sketchy offering. Sweeping generalisations are your forte. "In-built errors" requires deeper analysis.

    I just glanced at this thread now and I was wondering why s/he was on my ignore list.

    Anyway, I think I have never seen such a comprehensive and cogent post point by point response on boards.ie than oldrnwiser's.

    It made mince meat of reality keeper's generalisations - ashes to ashes, dust to dust!

    All you can say is well done - most would not be bothered.

    He/she would be a great preacher/orator which is ironic considering the thread that is in it.

    Anyway out of curiosity - the first overtly leftist leader of a party I thought of at the moment was Jeremy Corbyn (I don't think he is a particularly good politician but that is for the politics threads)

    Anyway when I searched "Jeremy Corbyn atheist" ( I did not know whether he was or not ) I found this interesting article below -

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2016/sep/29/corbyn-is-an-atheist-but-his-ideas-are-true-to-the-bible

    The author's take is that while Corbyn does not believe in God his ideas in line with the bible. About the rich v poor etc.

    I thought it was a very interesting way of looking at it.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Options
    #40
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Nominally indeed. I think Hitler`s national socialists were nominally socialist but his concentration camps would not be an ideal substitute for social housing. That is the difference between nominally and the real thing.

    Leaving aside that you have now Godwinned your own thread.

    I think you may be unclear as to what 'socialist' means.

    I would also refer you to the point originally raised by you re: just because a thing says it is something doesn't mean it is that thing.


  • Options
    #41
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Nominally indeed. I think Hitler`s national socialists were nominally socialist but his concentration camps would not be an ideal substitute for social housing. That is the difference between nominally and the real thing.

    Mod: That crack about concentration camps is in extremely poor taste and not really the sort of comment we encourage here in A&A. No more of that please.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    I don't believe in god but I'm not certainly not a communist, infact if anything I'm right wing economically and support the free market.

    Socially I supported gay marraige and repeal but I have no time whatsoever for modern social justice warriors or the increasingly feminist agenda in the media.

    So how did I score on the atheist/communist test?


  • Options
    #43
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,708 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Noted. But if like me you were to consider leftism a bad thing then you might be inclined to bunch it together also. Think of the old fashioned rubbish bin before recycling started. All the rubbish went in together, just an analogy of course, no offense intended :)

    That being the case, could you clearly define what you mean by the term. For example, which of the following state subsidies would you be against;

    Healthcare
    Social housing
    Social security payment
    Education
    Childcare
    Support for the elderly
    Maternity leave

    I consider myself left leaning and have no problems paying a substantial amount of my income in tax to help fund the above even though I'd imagine my contribution greatly exceeds the direct benefit to myself or my family. Personally, I'm far happier being part of a caring society than an uncaring one. While I'm an atheist, I would have thought that this was pretty much in line with the core principles of Christianity.


  • Options
    #44
    branie2
    Registered Users Posts: 10,292 ✭✭✭✭branie2


    Marx did say that religion was the opium of the people


  • Options
    #45
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,708 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    branie2 wrote: »
    Marx did say that religion was the opium of the people

    As has already been said in this thread, there's more to communism than Marxism.


  • Options
    #46
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,708 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    So how did I score on the atheist/communist test?

    Find out here; https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057191497

    Unfortunately, the old boardsie group link is down but the test still works fine. I'm now one square more left and liberal than when I originally took the test. I thought we were supposed to drift towards the right and authority as we aged?

    Edit: Fixed up the boardsie group chart in thread linked above. We A&A folks seemed to be a bunch of left leaning liberal hippies for the most part at that point, no obvious commies other than Calibos. I reckon certain posters attitudes may have changed somewhat since they last did the test.


  • Options
    #47
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    smacl wrote: »
    Find out here; https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057191497

    Unfortunately, the old boardsie group link is down but the test still works fine. I'm now one square more left and liberal than when I originally took the test. I thought we were supposed to drift towards the right and authority as we aged?

    Jaysus I haven't done that test in years. I went from slightly right of centre to centre-right, still half way down the libertarian axis though, no change there.


  • Options
    #48
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    branie2 wrote: »
    Marx did say that religion was the opium of the people
    The full quote is a little more interesting than that often-quoted bit:

    "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people


  • Options
    #49
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    In Marx's time, opium wasn't primarily thought of as a drug of abuse, but as a painkiller. Marx's argument here is that the appalling conditions created by capitalism give rise to religion, which people develop and practice because it mitigates the horrors of life in a capitalist world. He doesn't see religion as a source of problems, but as a response to them. He doesn't argue that indidivual socialists must be non-religious; more that in a socialist society there will be no religion, because there will be no need for it. Hence for those who are attempting to construct a socialist society, the persistence of religion is an embarrassment, because it is evidence that the project has not (yet) been successful.


  • Options
    #50
    two wheels good
    Registered Users Posts: 1,996 ✭✭✭two wheels good


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    In Marx's time, opium wasn't primarily thought of as a drug of abuse, but as a painkiller. Marx's argument here is that the appalling conditions created by capitalism give rise to religion, which people develop and practice because it mitigates the horrors of life in a capitalist world. He doesn't see religion as a source of problems, but as a response to them. He doesn't argue that indidivual socialists must be non-religious; more that in a socialist society there will be no religion, because there will be no need for it. Hence for those who are attempting to construct a socialist society, the persistence of religion is an embarrassment, because it is evidence that the project has not (yet) been successful.

    Thanks. A necessary explanation. And more eloquent than I'd have written.
    "Opium of the people " and "Survival of the fittest": two quotations consistently misinterpreted.


  • Options
    #51
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    In Marx's time, opium wasn't primarily thought of as a drug of abuse, but as a painkiller.

    I'm not so sure about that,

    China didn't fight the British in relation to opium just because they didn't like British illegal importing it. They saw it for what it was, addictive and damaging to their society.

    The British knew well it was addictive too, but like drug company's are doing right now with opioids painkillers the British were happy to sell as much of it as they could while they could get away with it. They even fought any restrictions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    two wheels good
    Registered Users Posts: 1,996 ✭✭✭two wheels good


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    By the same token the argument can be made that the Soviet Union was not communist.

    ...

    I think it's necessary to differentiate between Russian communism in the aftermath of the revolution and when Stalin gained power.
    The revolution was a remarkable overthrowing of oppressive control unfortunately re-imposed in another form by Stalin's "counter-revolution.


  • Options
    #53
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Cabaal wrote: »
    I'm not so sure about that,

    China didn't fight the British in relation to opium just because they didn't like British illegal importing it. They saw it for what it was, addictive and damaging to their society.

    The British knew well it was addictive too, but like drug company's are doing right now with opioids painkillers the British were happy to sell as much of it as they could while they could get away with it. They even fought any restrictions.

    I would agree with Peregrinus' explanation.

    You are talking about a time when laudanum (a tincture contain opium) was freely available and used for a verity of conditions. The fact that a substance was addictive did not impact on it's availability.

    Yes, the UK flooded China with opium as part of it's tactic to gain control. But that was because it dulled the senses. It hooked people and stupefied them. A doped population is a compliant population.
    I think this is the context Marx was referring to - religion dulled the pain and doped people. Most religions promise a 'better' time after this life if you obey their rules. So it gave 'hope' to the downtrodden that after death things would improve for them. Socialism was promising people a better time before death so would make religion unnecessary.


  • Options
    #54
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    two wheels good wrote: »
    I think it's necessary to differentiate between Russian communism in the aftermath of the revolution and when Stalin gained power.
    The revolution was a remarkable overthrowing of oppressive control unfortunately re-imposed in another form by Stalin's "counter-revolution.

    If the OP was interested in an actual discussion about the myriad forms of communism (and indeed socialism) it would - but as the OP is a, in their own words, "bunch them all together" kinda poster I fear it would be a futile exercise.


  • Options
    #55
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Cabaal wrote: »
    I'm not so sure about that,

    China didn't fight the British in relation to opium just because they didn't like British illegal importing it. They saw it for what it was, addictive and damaging to their society.

    The British knew well it was addictive too, but like drug company's are doing right now with opioids painkillers the British were happy to sell as much of it as they could while they could get away with it. They even fought any restrictions.
    All true. But it's worth pointing out that Marx is writing in Germany in 1843; it's unlikely that the East India Company's opium trade had done much at that point to shape the notions of Marx's world about opium and what it might signify as a literary allusion.


  • Options
    #56
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,708 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Yes, the UK flooded China with opium as part of it's tactic to gain control.

    Worth remembering that at this time a number of other world powers were also in the process of 'carving up the Chinese melon' and the British were trying to get as large a slice as possible in a hotly contested land grab. Christianity rode in alongside this in best imperial fashion, though those missionaries outside of gates of Peking when the boxers came knocking didn't fare so well.


  • Options
    #57
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »

    The author's take is that while Corbyn does not believe in God his ideas in line with the bible. About the rich v poor etc.

    I thought it was a very interesting way of looking at it.

    The parable of the workers in the vineyard is applicable in today`s Ireland. The unions typically negotiate a deals for existing employees which exclude any future employees, teachers being one example Then when new recruits are employed and get paid less than everyone else, they and the unions bleat on about the unfairness of it all. Leaving aside the hypocrisy of the unions and the foolishness of the new recruits for paying dues to these unions, the parable of the workers in the vineyard basically says a deal is a deal. Honorable people would know this.

    Also, the parable of the servants and the talents tells us that those who have plenty will receive more and those who have little will have the little taken from them. This is basically saying laziness does not pay and that is something socialists should learn.

    I do however believe that where capitalism is alive and thriving, the wealthy should be generous to the poor. If they are not generous, socialism will take root and the wealthy then have to up sticks and move.


  • Options
    #58
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    I think op should ask themselves do atheists tend to be communists. I'd expect a very low show of hands if a quick poll is to be run.

    Tyrants want to be in control, regardless of the potical ideals they "assume." This means breaking down culture. Which is something religion would fall under. People need a culture to relate to. Which along with economic strife is why you get the unrest from the masses.


  • Options
    #59
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    smacl wrote: »
    That being the case, could you clearly define what you mean by the term. For example, which of the following state subsidies would you be against;

    Healthcare
    Social housing
    Social security payment
    Education
    Childcare
    Support for the elderly
    Maternity leave

    I consider myself left leaning and have no problems paying a substantial amount of my income in tax to help fund the above even though I'd imagine my contribution greatly exceeds the direct benefit to myself or my family. Personally, I'm far happier being part of a caring society than an uncaring one. While I'm an atheist, I would have thought that this was pretty much in line with the core principles of Christianity.

    When paid for by the taxpayer (as opposed to the consumer) I would consider the items on your list a shameful waste of money. I think you are unwise if you don`t mind my saying. You should have a big problem with paying for something and not getting value for money. By the way, you (and the country) have not been covering the cost of state spending. Payment happens in work, blood, sweat, tears, repossessions and not just taxes. A point in time will come when Ireland will not be able to fund it`s debt and that is when payment will begin in a the visceral sense, with weeping and gnashing of teeth.


  • Options
    #60
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    I think op should ask themselves do atheists tend to be communists. I'd expect a very low show of hands if a quick poll is to be run.

    This is a valid point. Communism has been discredited by it`s own failures and a lot of people who would otherwise have been Communist, do not identify as such for that reason. That said, Communism is just a name and people who are prone to that way of thinking will still gravitate to the left and come up with new names for their leftist ideologies, and of course ideologies mutate so that they will end up being Communist again but by a different name.

    All this should be obvious. In Ireland, people seem to think property rights are about leaving defaulters in the bank`s houses. I believe property rights should be about kicking defaulters out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,911 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    The unions typically negotiate a deals for existing employees which exclude any future employees, teachers being one example Then when new recruits are employed and get paid less than everyone else, they and the unions bleat on about the unfairness of it all.

    This is a myth constantly trotted out by the right. It simply did not happen.

    Public sector pay cuts were not negotiated with or agreed by the unions, they were unilaterally imposed by the FF/Green government in the wake of the crash its policies caused.

    Life ain't always empty.



Advertisement