The World of Winner

Igumen, I can't state any more clear on my point, Communism, as Marx had designed, has never been correctly applied. Your entire argument is based upon the failure of Communism. However, this has not been the case. I will agree with you on one point, the idea of Common Ownership of Everything may not be liked by everyone, and if there was to be a Communist rebellion in California, changing the minds of the people to be less materialistic would take time. That doesn't mean it is ineffective. It has never been done in an Industrialized country like France, USA, Canada, etc. So saying it will fail without seeing it work is just silly.

However, we have seen peaceful gospel fail. For example, Jerusalem, Egypt, practically any Arabic country. I have also failed to see Christain gospel work in any large scale setting. Forceful gospel has worked I will admit, most used in the Colonial period of America. Basically you convert, great. If you refuse, your deemed a "Devil worshipper" or a heretic and you are burnt alive.

In a final note, Communism has nothing to do with internationalism. You could say the USSR when it wanted said something along the lines of "We shall be the light for Communism". However nothing that I have read or studied about Communism has stated anything about internationalism. Yeah, it would be nice to have some allies as a lone Communist country in a Capitalist dominated Continent wouldn't last very long.

Communism, as all materialistic-minded ideologies do, seeks to "change the world", and in doing so tramples over the rights of actual people in deference to some vaguely stated "greater good". It's all been observed before. Revolutionaries in Russia - usually middle-class intellectuals - would spend evenings proclaiming their love for mankind, and then go home and beat their servant for being slow in removing their coat.

I honestly laughed when I read this. One, you just proved my point on how the Communist ideal has never been done correctly. You said it yourself "middle-class intellectuals". A Communist rebellion is suppose to come from the working class, the factory workers, the farmers, store employess, the back bone of modern society. I haven't touched on that point yet so, thanks.

The paragraph of yours that I quoted would have made me laugh hysterically if it wasn't so late at night. When you called Communism a "materialistic ideology" I couldn't help but laugh. A common ownership of all material possessions wouldn't allow for just a bunch of stuff. Plain and simple. This just proves you have little understanding of Communism.

Igumen, I can't state any more clear on my point, Communism, as Marx had designed, has never been correctly applied. Your entire argument is based upon the failure of Communism.

What I have said is that Communism cannot work, for a very fundamental reason. I know I can be a bit wordy, so I forgive you if you've skipped over my reply and not seen the main points amid the waffle. Iwill restate what I said before, but with some pertinent emphasis added:

The point is that the ideals you put forward are literally not real. You can state and re-state until you're blue in the face (or maybe red in the face is more appropriate) about what "ideal" Communism is, but the ideal has never happened, and never come close to happening when applied as such. And that goes back to my very straightforward sentence that started this debate: a system to govern society that is only "good in theory" - i.e. only works in an idealized, theoretical, set of circumstances - is not a good system. Theories are good for developing scientific understanding, but politics and economics are all about practicalities. And that is why Communism is absolutely useless. It has failed, and will fail.

How can I state this so definitely? Because the flaws that have caused Communism to fail so utterly in the past are absolutely fundamental. Those flaws are the flaws you yourself have stated: human flaws and human greed. Communism can only work if everyone's on board, and quite frankly that will never happen whilst human beings exist as diverse peoples and individuals with there own wants, needs, strengths and weaknesses. All that wonderful diversity needs to be destroyed in order for Communism to "correctly applied". And to do this requires precisely the sort of oppression that you describe as "incorrectly applied" Communism. And that is the Catch-22. Communism is a perfect political and/or economic system so long as you're not a human being. That's a big, fat fail in my book.

However, this has not been the case. I will agree with you on one point, the idea of Common Ownership of Everything may not be liked by everyone, and if there was to be a Communist rebellion in California, changing the minds of the people to be less materialistic would take time. That doesn't mean it is ineffective. It has never been done in an Industrialized country like France, USA, Canada, etc. So saying it will fail without seeing it work is just silly.

Do you think people living in industrialized countries are less materialistic and greedy than people living in agrarian societies? Honestly?? I have already stated what the fundamental flaw of Communism is, as I see it, and that fundamental flaw is greater in an industrialized nation than it is in an agrarian one.

However, we have seen peaceful gospel fail. For example, Jerusalem, Egypt, practically any Arabic country.

You choose some poor examples there, as Christian communities still exist in those places and do live peacefully. They are oppressed and persecuted by Muslim majorities yes, but if you honestly believe this contradicts the Gospel then I am not at all sure you've read it. Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake: Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in Heaven.

I have also failed to see Christain gospel work in any large scale setting.

It is the striving to make any "system" work in a "large scale setting" that causes it to inevitably fail. I know you're not reading what I have written if you're still trying to argue this way.

Forceful gospel has worked I will admit, most used in the Colonial period of America. Basically you convert, great. If you refuse, your deemed a "Devil worshipper" or a heretic and you are burnt alive.

No, this is not the Gospel working. This is the Gospel applied as an ideology and failing as a result. Again, you are measuring success in purely materialistic ways (and I will come on to what I mean by materialism further down)

I honestly laughed when I read this. One, you just proved my point on how the Communist ideal has never been done correctly. You said it yourself "middle-class intellectuals". A Communist rebellion is suppose to come from the working class, the factory workers, the farmers, store employess, the back bone of modern society. I haven't touched on that point yet so, thanks.

Like I say, you keep dealing with non-existent ideal situations, I'll keep bringing up what actually happens. I did go on after this statement to say exactly why this "incorrect" application always happens. It is because of the materialism of Communism as a political ideology. And I promised I' explain what I mean by that, so without further ado:

The paragraph of yours that I quoted would have made me laugh hysterically if it wasn't so late at night. When you called Communism a "materialistic ideology" I couldn't help but laugh.

Perhaps this is because you haven't yet come across "Materialism" as philosophy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Materialism here isn't a synonym with greed or avarice: it is a system of thought that Communism strictly adheres to. You yourself adhere to it with your materialistic views on "success", which skew things so wildly that you believe that the Gospel applied through violence is a successful application of the Gospel-life!

The barriers to our communication are fundamental. It will not be solved by you teaching me about what Communism really is, or I teaching you what the Gospel really is. However, the discussion has brought out some important points which may be read by the gallery, and it is to them that I repeat my last comments, which were not addressed by you:

The poison is not Communism, per se, but ideology. All ideology is poisonous, even "religious ideology", which also certainly exists. Ideology is poisonous because it causes people to lie to other people and themselves. The "ideal" rules over them and becomes an idol. Everything else, including personal relationships, become subordinate to it and suffer from it. The Gospel does not do this because it demands exactly the opposite: it requires us to put other people - our relationships with others, including our enemies - above ideology, and even above ourselves.

Basically it teaches, demands, and provides the means for us to obtain: humility. Ideologies deal with grand theories, all-encompassing principles, that treat people as an amorphous mass of humanity, rather than actual persons created by God. They compel people to gaze towards the grand vista of imaginary ideals instead of dealing with practicalities. When we look to this man-made horizon, and try to take in the whole world and all within it, our perspective is skewed and we stumble. On the other hand, if we humbly cast our gaze to the ground, we can correctly order our steps one at a time and in this way live our lives.

Nothing you have said convinces me you appreciate these statements: you have neither agreed to them or disagreed with them: you've simply ignored them. Until they are addressed we are just talking past each other.

Nothing you have said convinces me you appreciate these statements: you have neither agreed to them or disagreed with them: you've simply ignored them. Until they are addressed we are just talking past each other.

I have read those paragraphs several times. However I believe we will continue to talk past each other whether or not these are adressed. The reason is, as you have stated several times, these are ideologies. In our minds, we believe our's to be the best. You believe Christain gospel is the correct way to go, as I believe Communism is the best way to go. As i have stated before in a previous topic, debating these things never are successful and rarely go anywhere, proven here.

Thanks for the debate in any case. Its nice to have a debate every once in awhile. I'll let you win this one

I have read those paragraphs several times. However I believe we will continue to talk past each other whether or not these are adressed. The reason is, as you have stated several times, these are ideologies. In our minds, we believe our's to be the best.

For the sake of anyone still reading, I just wish to reiterate that I do not believe the Gospel to be an ideology. That is why it so often succeeds where ideologies like Communism fail. I made a concession that ideologies can be religious, and that you can have "Christian ideologues", and I further stated that they are as misguided as socialist/facist/liberal/conservative ideologues; however, I state with firm conviction that the Gospel is not an ideology.

The Gospel is a way of life that can be followed without hypocrisy and with every success, by the grace of God. It can do this because the Gospel speaks to individuals, and provides a way of life for every one of us. Some of us choose to follow it in word and deed, some do not (non-believers), whilst others follow it in word but not in deed (and their fall is lager than the second category). Communism - and any other political ideology - proscribes and prescribes principles for "society" and "humanity". It is this "broad view", that ignores or even spurns the human person as an individual that causes an ideology to inevitably fail. It's not "practical" enough. It provides ideals, ideas, and principles, but the tools to carry them out are not available to most humans (those tools are: absolute selflessness and altruism).

The Gospel is practical because it deals with changing the inner-man: and this happens all the time. The means for acheiving this are also given to us: namely repentance, humility, and surrender to God. We can all do this, even if not everyone does. The Gospel even explicitly states that "the world" - the thing that Communism and other political ideologies try to change - is fundamentally corrupt and will not get better through human effort. The only thing it will do is eventually pass away. The Gospel cannot be considered to fail at doing something it never sets out to do! Communism can be considered to fail because what it sets out to achieve - change society - has always failed. This is true of all ideologies, for the reasons I stated above. We are talking about Communism specifically because that is the subject of this thread. I also reiterate that Communism has failed spectacularly badly (in terms of human suffering), which is why its simply not worth experimenting with it again. But apart from that difference, I am as suspicious of Communism as any other political/economical philosophy that promises a utopia.

Just wanted to clear that up. I know you won't reply as you've already "let me win"