Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
IslamicMarxist

Communism And Islam

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Sorry, but I've seen enough workers, and learned enough about how work gets done to know that most have no business anywhere near the wheel.

Even in America, I suggest you look up Worker Run Factory's in America.

I don't now what kind of experience you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are implying that third world countries oppress themselves, without the 'help' of the superpowers? That makes total sense. A world Ruled by one big country, followed by four others, exploiting people all around the world, destroying, oppressing, the third world oppresses itself. Socialism is just an answer to the Capitalism that has been forced upon them. Puppet Governments funded by the Superpowers, to ensure Labor done by the citizens of the country, to produce mass amounts of goods. The laborers get little pay, and almost no pay at all, while the landowner is getting filthy rich.

Some of these Workers, or even one, questions whether this is Natural. They were told that this was Natural Selection, that they were born to do this. Some of these Workers, find ways to study Socialism, or Marxism, and find that they weren't born to do this, that much more could be produced, and the Workers could be in a much better state of labor, but the greed of the landowner prevents them from so! Than they realize why they are working in the first place, to benefit a foreign nation! People like Che Guevara emerge from these situations.

A nation cannot be conquered until it has first made itself weak through poisonous culture and failure to adapt to changing times.

Similarly a human being with dignity will not endure subjection unless, through a psychological weakness, he is able to talk himself into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nation cannot be conquered until it has first made itself weak through poisonous culture and failure to adapt to changing times.

Similarly a human being with dignity will not endure subjection unless, through a psychological weakness, he is able to talk himself into it.

Imperialism doesn't work in such a way. Since the New World was discovered, country's no longer needed to be 'conquered', only exploited. Europeans were the first to the New World, they acquired all the South American Treasures and American resources, they became the ruling elite, so, when they colonized Africa, and most of the World, they did it, not because the country was WEAK, because THEY were 1. Much more Wealthy. 2. Had much better Military's, due to wealth.

Nation's that refused to be Imperialist were colonized by the Imperialists. The Third world was only Socialist AFTER the colonization, they weren't Socialists or Communists before the US go their dirty hands on them.

The US has it's ways of 'weakening' a country, through some techniques:

1. Divide and Conquer, a specialty used in the Middle East, this tactic speaks for itself.

2. Bribery ( Bribing Officials)

3. Military Coup (Iran, South America, Some African, ect.)

4. Limit a Nations ability to acquire technology, or resources to become strong

5. Corruption through culture

6. Propaganda Broadcasts.

The List goes on and on.

How did the US get so powerful? By luck. WAR. World War Two screwed up the entire world, It made the US more powerful than ever.

So there is your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same response applies. Exploitation is a two-way relation between exploiter and exploited. No nation will get into the position of being exploited without first weakening itself from within.

You paint people as helpless, willless beasts by suggesting that nations are pure victims without the ability to recognize and defend their own interests.

The Muslims, as an example, were at the top of the world 800 years ago. 7 centuries later, the Europeans toppled the Mid East with a breath because the Middle Easterners had degraded themselves over a period of centuries. They had noone to blame but themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I've seen enough workers, and learned enough about how work gets done to know that most have no business anywhere near the wheel.

First of all your lack of confidence in the collective intelligence of the working class is appalling. Secondly I think you took the definition too literally, a little historical context in what labour/worker unions and an empowered working class have been able to achieve might help. It is obviously something "the few who seem to have it all figured out" have a problem with. It is interesting to note however that despite historically restricting the working class to a robotic mode of labour, companies are increasingly seeking out input from consumers, and workers themselves when it comes to the actual design and production process. Thus making use of the collective intelligence of all parties involved in consuming and producing the product, an intelligence which produces far more responsive and effective results than anything lone CEO's and managers could muster. This is the inevitable move towards a socialist mode of production and it is thankfully underway as we speak. Now if only the management would let workers have a say in where capital should be allocated, we would be well on our way.

A nation cannot be conquered until it has first made itself weak through poisonous culture and failure to adapt to changing times.

This argument completely ignores realities on ground. You can have two identical cultures in two nations but have one nation be endowed with strong reserves of essential natural resources. There is a natural imbalance here, and one which can easily be exploited by one in order to further worsen the others misery. Such imbalances can arise for countless different reasons, and to suggest that people for the most part are themselves to blame for their struggles is far from the truth. Victimized nations certainly have blame to share, but it is difficult to adapt to changing times when one superpower or another is constantly involved in local affairs either directly or indirectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all your lack of confidence in the collective intelligence of the working class is appalling. Secondly I think you took the definition too literally, a little historical context in what labour/worker unions and an empowered working class have been able to achieve might help. It is obviously something "the few who seem to have it all figured out" have a problem with. It is interesting to note however that despite historically restricting the working class to a robotic mode of labour, companies are increasingly seeking out input from consumers, and workers themselves when it comes to the actual design and production process. Thus making use of the collective intelligence of all parties involved in consuming and producing the product, an intelligence which produces far more responsive and effective results than anything lone CEO's and managers could muster. This is the inevitable move towards a socialist mode of production and it is thankfully underway as we speak. Now if only the management would let workers have a say in where capital should be allocated, we would be well on our way.

Anyone who has worked for a living outside the ivory tower, or who has had contact with entrepreneurs trying to run a business knows as a basic fact of life that most people are stupid and lazy and lacking in initiative or will to self-improvement. Most want to complete their 40 hours with the least effort possible and be done with it so that they can go home and drink beer and watch TV.

Meanwhile, their managers work sometimes 80 hour weeks, including weekends.

This argument completely ignores realities on ground. You can have two identical cultures in two nations but have one nation be endowed with strong reserves of essential natural resources. There is a natural imbalance here, and one which can easily be exploited by one in order to further worsen the others misery. Such imbalances can arise for countless different reasons, and to suggest that people for the most part are themselves to blame for their struggles is far from the truth. Victimized nations certainly have blame to share, but it is difficult to adapt to changing times when one superpower or another is constantly involved in local affairs either directly or indirectly.

Natural advantages are nothing without the willingness and ingenuity to make the best of these advantages. Simply having a resource doesn't magically make you rich and powerful. You have to be able to harness it, harvest it, make something of it. That takes brains, will, and effort.

Again, I return to the example of the Muslims from the 1200's to the present day.

They were ahead, well ahead, and, then as today, did not lack in natural resources. In that day they led in science and technology. Their military might menaced Europe on both sides.

Are you seriously going to claim an outside force was the primary driver of the dramatic reversal of fortunes that took place in the 7 centuries after?

No. They destroyed themselves. Weakened themselves. And continue to stay willingly weak to this day.

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some number of true victims here, but when we look at individuals in developed nations, and on the civilizational level in developing nations, generally a careful psychological study reveals that people oppress themselves, through impotent and counterproductive culture,or through failure to make the best of the natural opportunities God gifted them with. In most cases the real fundamental blocks on the progress of people's is internal. People fail to take the initiative, whether through fear or laziness, to change what is holding them back within themselves.

If you're gonna make remarks like these, you should not have a picture of Shahid Motahari in your avatar.

I'd like to see you say this to people who are starving to death. I suppose you think they deserve it because they lack initiative???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont see whats wrong with what kadhim said , Allah dont change the state of people untill they start changing from within < a quranic verse with such a maning do exist

that is not to say we shouldnt help but to put hand on the true problem

Islamic Maxist , one question for you

you said you can not enforce Islam ideology on non muslims which in fact you shouldnt but you may enforce Marxism ?

and why should be by forc to start with , can't be by convincing ? how hard it is to convince someone with the economical islam , not asking to convince them with whole sharia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who has worked for a living outside the ivory tower, or who has had contact with entrepreneurs trying to run a business knows as a basic fact of life that most people are stupid and lazy and lacking in initiative or will to self-improvement. Most want to complete their 40 hours with the least effort possible and be done with it so that they can go home and drink beer and watch TV.

Meanwhile, their managers work sometimes 80 hour weeks, including weekends.

Amazing, but I actually agree with you here. It's no accident really that most Marxists, socialist, etc, leaders and thinkers in modernized nations are people who've hardly if ever worked a day in their lives by the sweat of their brow. I have, and I can say there's good reason you have workers and you have managers, and that this hierarchy isn't the result of some great conspiracy to keep the lower classes under foot but is largely a reflection of how hard people want to work coupled with their own personal talents. Doesn't mean you don't have incompetent managers out there, there's plenty for sure, but to think the solution would be simply to hand over collective ownership and control to the workers is simply being blind to the realities of the actual work place as opposed to romantic fantasies that sound nice on paper.

I think of my own brief stint as a factory worker when I was making my way (worked in a factory that makes various blow torches). The average worker there did a decent enough job, but what I noticed was a general lack of want (or even ability) to go further with what they were doing. I remember at one point I was producing higher than quota on the particular job I'd been assigned, and one of the long time workers there gave me a talk telling me not to do that. If I continued to do so the quota for the job would get raised and so they would have to work harder. In a sense I can see his point, but that type of mentality would be atrocious for someone in a managerial position, of intentionally not excelling at one's work in order to maintain the status quo.

To think of going even further than handing over control of the factories and such to the workers, to actually putting governance in the hands of such people is beyond crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont see whats wrong with what kadhim said , Allah dont change the state of people untill they start changing from within < a quranic verse with such a maning do exist

that is not to say we shouldnt help but to put hand on the true problem

Kadhim is saying that the real problem is people's individual incompetence and lack of potential. He is arguing that the world is a meritocracy.

I wonder how he would explain how Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian became as rich as they are. To be honest, Kadhim's wrongness on this issue is self-evident.

In any case, Islam rejects both communism and capitalism.

Capitalism involves spiraling consumption, careerism, hedonism, and an elitist contempt toward the masses which is truly despicable.

Communism involves the abolition of God, the universalization of serfdom, and unflinching devotion to abstract theories which are both baseless and illogical.

Islam rejects both. And, as Emam Khomeini said, Islam is the only path for workers' freedom. And as we can see today, Iranian workers enjoy human dignity that no worker in a communist or capitalist society could enjoy. Through the Workers' Basij, workers get a say in how their factory is ran as well as earn the chance to organize field trips and sporting events. Officials have been building more bases so as to increase the number of members in the Workers' Basij.

So to the OP i will repeat what I have already said: if you are looking for workers' rights, there is no need to turn to Marxism (and the strange, baseless philosophies inherent in it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as we can see today, Iranian workers enjoy human dignity that no worker in a communist or capitalist society could enjoy. Through the Workers' Basij, workers get a say in how their factory is ran as well as earn the chance to organize field trips and sporting events. Officials have been building more bases so as to increase the number of members in the Workers' Basij.

So to the OP i will repeat what I have already said: if you are looking for workers' rights, there is no need to turn to Marxism (and the strange, baseless philosophies inherent in it).

Pity then the sheer amount of corruption and incompetence in Iran's economy. And please don't try to deny how pervasive the amount of useless contracts in Iran there is, where a project that should take weeks will get dragged on for months, even years, while the money continues to change hands, which is pretty symptomatic of a country stifling under its own bureaucracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing, but I actually agree with you here. It's no accident really that most Marxists, socialist, etc, leaders and thinkers in modernized nations are people who've hardly if ever worked a day in their lives by the sweat of their brow. I have, and I can say there's good reason you have workers and you have managers, and that this hierarchy isn't the result of some great conspiracy to keep the lower classes under foot but is largely a reflection of how hard people want to work coupled with their own personal talents. Doesn't mean you don't have incompetent managers out there, there's plenty for sure, but to think the solution would be simply to hand over collective ownership and control to the workers is simply being blind to the realities of the actual work place as opposed to romantic fantasies that sound nice on paper.

I think of my own brief stint as a factory worker when I was making my way (worked in a factory that makes various blow torches). The average worker there did a decent enough job, but what I noticed was a general lack of want (or even ability) to go further with what they were doing. I remember at one point I was producing higher than quota on the particular job I'd been assigned, and one of the long time workers there gave me a talk telling me not to do that. If I continued to do so the general quota would get raised and so they would have to work harder. In a sense I can see his point, but that type of mentality would be atrocious for someone in a managerial position, of intentionally not excelling at one's work in order to maintain the status quo.

To think of going even further than handing over control of the factories and such to the workers, to actually putting governance in the hands of such people is beyond crazy.

What you have described is due to a few factors:

Workers in today's capitalist West earn a fairly decent wage (at least, when compared to their counterparts in China, Iran, Mexico, etc.).

Their countries lack a social consciousness, and thus they do not see their work as their duty to society but rather as simply a means to support themselves and their family.

So they see no need to work harder, as it would serve no purpose. They are not oppressed enough to want to revolt, and they do not identify with a greater cause so they do not feel much devotion to their work.

It are these factors which produce this condition. It is not because of some kind of "poor DNA" that makes people want to be mediocre.

In fact, apathy toward ones work is not even specific to blue-collar workers. We can see this same condition in white collar office workers. How many office workers do you know who spend most of their work days surfing the internet?

In developed countries, social consciousness is all but exterminated. In such an environment, we should not expect people to want to work one iota harder than necessary for them to remain employed.

But this situation is not prevalent everywhere. I have many relatives in Iran who have small farms. I have worked with one of my cousins on his farm, and there I can see that he puts a lot of love in his work. He doesn't even have a passion for farming. It is his father's farm; he is studying to become an accountant. But he does not work with apathy. That is because in Iran, the social consciousness has not been uprooted, as it has been in developed capitalist societies.

Pity then the sheer amount of corruption and incompetence in Iran's economy. And please don't try to deny how pervasive the amount of useless contracts in Iran there is, where a project that should take weeks will get dragged on for months, even years, while the money continues to change hands, which is pretty symptomatic of a country stifling under its own bureaucracy.

Yes, it would be much better if Iran's economy were like the US, where corporations ask the government for money so they won't have to close factories (and lay off employees), after which they proceed to close factories anyway and spend the government money on more private jets.

All the wealth and natural resources of the world are in the hands of the US. That is the basis of US economic power. Otherwise, their management is no more competent than ours. At least the government of the IRI has been able to provide some semblance of welfare for the people in spite of not having many trade partners or allies.

Edited by baradar_jackson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're gonna make remarks like these, you should not have a picture of Shahid Motahari in your avatar.

I'd like to see you say this to people who are starving to death. I suppose you think they deserve it because they lack initiative???

You need to read more closely. There are individual victims, at least in the developing world, where dysfunction socially and economically prevents some from a reasonable path to self-improvement. (In the developed world, I have a hard time making excuses even for ghetto dwellers because of the various social helps available)

But even in the developing world, on the overall civilizational, cultural level, there is something internal going on that holds some nations back. External exploitation doesn't fully explain it. There is sometying poisonous and degenerate in the culture.

For example, in India, I read recently, you have millions of people in intense hunger. There are massive food aid programs, but some 70% is wasted internally through bribes, bureaucratic wastage, and officials stealing to give their own kin or to resell for profit on the black market. I have some issues with the notion of hell as a literal fire ( rather than burning of regrets say, a metaphor), but these are the sorts of people that deserve to be burned.

You see similar situations throughout much of Africa, throughout the mideast, and elsewhere.

This is not an external problem. It is internal. It is a cultural illness that such things are allowed to persist. It is not the fault of the low level victims,

but the culture as a whole is guilty. Something is broken within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baradar_jackson

You will have to find an example that applies: "I wonder how he would explain how Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian became as rich as they are." The fact that they inherited their money doesn't mean much, sheiks, ayatollahs and every other type can benefit from inheritance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same response applies. Exploitation is a two-way relation between exploiter and exploited. No nation will get into the position of being exploited without first weakening itself from within.

You paint people as helpless, willless beasts by suggesting that nations are pure victims without the ability to recognize and defend their own interests.

The Muslims, as an example, were at the top of the world 800 years ago. 7 centuries later, the Europeans toppled the Mid East with a breath because the Middle Easterners had degraded themselves over a period of centuries. They had noone to blame but themselves.

That's a lie, how do you explain those damn British, they divided the Muslims, the Arabs, into tribes, ect. They divided the Sunnis and the Shia's. Once this was completed, they exploited us. You are such a fool. You really think they just stormed the nations, exploited them, without trying? THEY were the ones who caused "Weakenings" within the Nation. The people WERE helpless! Some Nations, in South America and Africa, were not as advanced as the British, there was no "weakening" through itself. What a horrible attitude. That is complete nonsense. Nations to not need to be "weakened on their own" to be exploited. Iran was not weak , how did the US manage to take down the WHOLE government and plant in a Shah? How did they manage to exploit all of Iran, was Iran the same as you are suggesting?

i dont see whats wrong with what kadhim said , Allah dont change the state of people untill they start changing from within < a quranic verse with such a maning do exist

that is not to say we shouldnt help but to put hand on the true problem

Islamic Maxist , one question for you

you said you can not enforce Islam ideology on non muslims which in fact you shouldnt but you may enforce Marxism ?

and why should be by forc to start with , can't be by convincing ? how hard it is to convince someone with the economical islam , not asking to convince them with whole sharia

You cannot force upon any Ideology, but they are already Secularized at it is. Marxism does not need to have them change their religious beliefs. Capitalism already rules all aspects of their life's! Westerners cannot adapt to Sharia, you are going to have to wait for Mahdi for that. I know this because I live in Britain.

Amazing, but I actually agree with you here. It's no accident really that most Marxists, socialist, etc, leaders and thinkers in modernized nations are people who've hardly if ever worked a day in their lives by the sweat of their brow. I have, and I can say there's good reason you have workers and you have managers, and that this hierarchy isn't the result of some great conspiracy to keep the lower classes under foot but is largely a reflection of how hard people want to work coupled with their own personal talents. Doesn't mean you don't have incompetent managers out there, there's plenty for sure, but to think the solution would be simply to hand over collective ownership and control to the workers is simply being blind to the realities of the actual work place as opposed to romantic fantasies that sound nice on paper.

I think of my own brief stint as a factory worker when I was making my way (worked in a factory that makes various blow torches). The average worker there did a decent enough job, but what I noticed was a general lack of want (or even ability) to go further with what they were doing. I remember at one point I was producing higher than quota on the particular job I'd been assigned, and one of the long time workers there gave me a talk telling me not to do that. If I continued to do so the quota for the job would get raised and so they would have to work harder. In a sense I can see his point, but that type of mentality would be atrocious for someone in a managerial position, of intentionally not excelling at one's work in order to maintain the status quo.

To think of going even further than handing over control of the factories and such to the workers, to actually putting governance in the hands of such people is beyond crazy.

'Modernized' Nations only strive while they are keeping the rest of the world down in the dirt. Not because 'they worked hard'. Why should I work hard, why should we all work hard, for a factory, owned by a man, who probably was born into a rich family, and did nothing at all to get where he is, why should I work for him, it is US who should ruling the factory, if we are 'experienced' they will adapt. This is proven. Look at worker run factory's in the USA. They are the most successful next to all of the others. Besides, factory's aren't the only problem, the Banks, consumerism, all are slavery.

Kadhim is saying that the real problem is people's individual incompetence and lack of potential. He is arguing that the world is a meritocracy.

I wonder how he would explain how Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian became as rich as they are. To be honest, Kadhim's wrongness on this issue is self-evident.

In any case, Islam rejects both communism and capitalism.

Capitalism involves spiraling consumption, careerism, hedonism, and an elitist contempt toward the masses which is truly despicable.

Communism involves the abolition of God, the universalization of serfdom, and unflinching devotion to abstract theories which are both baseless and illogical.

Islam rejects both. And, as Emam Khomeini said, Islam is the only path for workers' freedom. And as we can see today, Iranian workers enjoy human dignity that no worker in a communist or capitalist society could enjoy. Through the Workers' Basij, workers get a say in how their factory is ran as well as earn the chance to organize field trips and sporting events. Officials have been building more bases so as to increase the number of members in the Workers' Basij.

So to the OP i will repeat what I have already said: if you are looking for workers' rights, there is no need to turn to Marxism (and the strange, baseless philosophies inherent in it).

Even though Islam brought this Idea long before Socialism, that aspect, of how workers are in Iran, is an element of Socialism.

Look, I don't want to enforce any Ideology on Iran, but as long as there is no Capitalism I am fine. Communism has not been fully implemented into any society, but Capitalism has. And, it is a common myth that communism requires the abolishment of God, even Lenin said that he doesn't expect the workers to leave their faiths. The only anti-religion Lenin enforced was cracking down on the Orthodox church, other than that, He was very sensitive toward non-orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and all other religions.

But Iran doesn't need Marxism. If you look at Ahmadinejad's domestic policy's, it resembles some elements of Socialism. Under Mousavi, the workers would not be able to have those kinds of liberties in Iran.

What you have described is due to a few factors:

Workers in today's capitalist West earn a fairly decent wage (at least, when compared to their counterparts in China, Iran, Mexico, etc.).

Their countries lack a social consciousness, and thus they do not see their work as their duty to society but rather as simply a means to support themselves and their family.

So they see no need to work harder, as it would serve no purpose. They are not oppressed enough to want to revolt, and they do not identify with a greater cause so they do not feel much devotion to their work.

It are these factors which produce this condition. It is not because of some kind of "poor DNA" that makes people want to be mediocre.

In fact, apathy toward ones work is not even specific to blue-collar workers. We can see this same condition in white collar office workers. How many office workers do you know who spend most of their work days surfing the internet?

In developed countries, social consciousness is all but exterminated. In such an environment, we should not expect people to want to work one iota harder than necessary for them to remain employed.

But this situation is not prevalent everywhere. I have many relatives in Iran who have small farms. I have worked with one of my cousins on his farm, and there I can see that he puts a lot of love in his work. He doesn't even have a passion for farming. It is his father's farm; he is studying to become an accountant. But he does not work with apathy. That is because in Iran, the social consciousness has not been uprooted, as it has been in developed capitalist societies.

Yes, it would be much better if Iran's economy were like the US, where corporations ask the government for money so they won't have to close factories (and lay off employees), after which they proceed to close factories anyway and spend the government money on more private jets.

All the wealth and natural resources of the world are in the hands of the US. That is the basis of US economic power. Otherwise, their management is no more competent than ours. At least the government of the IRI has been able to provide some semblance of welfare for the people in spite of not having many trade partners or allies.

The only reason western workers have good work conditions is due to the west basically enslaving the whole world, giving Chinese, Asian, South American, African, Even middle Eastern Workers have to work like slaves and receive little to even no pay. If it weren't for them, the Western Workers would be in their shoes and work horribly.

You need to read more closely. There are individual victims, at least in the developing world, where dysfunction socially and economically prevents some from a reasonable path to self-improvement. (In the developed world, I have a hard time making excuses even for ghetto dwellers because of the various social helps available)

But even in the developing world, on the overall civilizational, cultural level, there is something internal going on that holds some nations back. External exploitation doesn't fully explain it. There is sometying poisonous and degenerate in the culture.

For example, in India, I read recently, you have millions of people in intense hunger. There are massive food aid programs, but some 70% is wasted internally through bribes, bureaucratic wastage, and officials stealing to give their own kin or to resell for profit on the black market. I have some issues with the notion of hell as a literal fire ( rather than burning of regrets say, a metaphor), but these are the sorts of people that deserve to be burned.

You see similar situations throughout much of Africa, throughout the mideast, and elsewhere.

This is not an external problem. It is internal. It is a cultural illness that such things are allowed to persist. It is not the fault of the low level victims,

but the culture as a whole is guilty. Something is broken within.

LIKE I SAID, DUE TO THE CORRUPT OFFICIALS MAKING SUCH BRIBES THAT WERE IMPLANTED BY THE WEST IN THE FIRST PLACE. THOSE OFFICIALS WERE PUT IN BY THE WEST! IT ALL GOES BACK TO THE IMPERIALISTS!

Baradar_jackson

You will have to find an example that applies: "I wonder how he would explain how Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian became as rich as they are." The fact that they inherited their money doesn't mean much, sheiks, ayatollahs and every other type can benefit from inheritance.

Well the point is, workers in Vietnam( US slave) have to work and work and work for little and [Edited Out]ty pay, same with in South America, while Kim Kardashian get's rich by doing nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, other than the ""imperialists'"" no one has any intelligence or free will. If someone tries to interfere with a non imperialist nation, they are powerless to resist. The person offered a bribe is deterministically forced to accept it, the person encouraged to betray his country has no choice in the matter. Similarly, intelligence services of the nation have no capability whatsoever to perceive these plots, nor do the leaders have any possibility of learning from history so as to recognize that they are being targetted. Total helplessness.

Right.

It's more than clear by now that you have no clue how the world actually works outside of Marxist textbooks.

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, other than the ""imperialists'"" no one has any intelligence or free will. If someone tries to interfere with a non imperialist nation, they are powerless to resist. The person offered a bribe is deterministically forced to accept it, the person encouraged to betray his country has no choice in the matter. Similarly, intelligence services of the nation have no capability whatsoever to perceive these plots, nor do the leaders have any possibility of learning from history so as to recognize that they are being targetted. Total helplessness.

Right.

It's more than clear by now that you have no clue how the world actually works outside of Marxist textbooks.

Yes, it's the corrupt officials fault for accepting the bribe. Now answer the damn question, why was Iran enslaved by the US? How did they manage to get rid of a Progressive, modernized government and bring in a filthy Shah?

You are missing the point. People have free will, and they do resist, like the FARC in Colombia or the Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraqi resistance, ect. They are helpless and oppressed people. Palestinians are helpless! The CIA and MI6 have their own world of conspiracy's and techniques. You need to be open minded, and stop thinking like Ronald Reagan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh... Communism, Marxism, put in one sentence with "Islam" nonetheless. The first thing that reminds me off are MEK terrorists. Not to mention a very long list of the most brutal people ever known to man. None of whom "of course" followed the true communist/Marxist path, right? ;)

The two/three do not go together and it really is not worth the time to talk about it. These ideologies have died out. When it was still alive, we rejected these foreign ideologies and methods of governance. No wise person is interested in digging up this grave. Iranian scholars had written books on this matter when there were millions of 'you' around the world. Today, it's barely worth to post about it anymore. Can't believe there are still people who believe in this nonsense.

These beliefs are experiments by 'the elite' to find something to put in place of religion. Their most successful experiment, Capitalism, is currently in cardiac arrest. The grave has already been dug. They're busy with many defibrillators at the moment, if they fail to reset the heart, that too will enter the museum of political history. Time for these 'elite' to come with something new for the mentally retarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh... Communism, Marxism, put in one sentence with "Islam" nonetheless. The first thing that reminds me off are MEK terrorists. Not to mention a very long list of the most brutal people ever known to man. None of whom "of course" followed the true communist/Marxist path, right? ;)

The two/three do not go together and it really is not worth the time to talk about it. These ideologies have died out. When it was still alive, we rejected these foreign ideologies and methods of governance. No wise person is interested in digging up this grave. Iranian scholars had written books on this matter when there were millions of 'you' around the world. Today, it's barely worth to post about it anymore. Can't believe there are still people who believe in this nonsense.

These beliefs are experiments by 'the elite' to find something to put in place of religion. Their most successful experiment, Capitalism, is currently in cardiac arrest. The grave has already been dug. They're busy with many defibrillators at the moment, if they fail to reset the heart, that too will enter the museum of political history. Time for these 'elite' to come with something new for the mentally retarded.

It is generally in Capitalist countries where people have the most freedom to practice their religion, whether they choose to or not is their business. Communist, Marxist, Socialist countries have to be generally ruled by dictatorships, and the people are not allowed to practice any religion, as it seen as a threat to the ruling dictatorships. Communist, Marxist, Socialist experiments have virtually all died a very quick death, and the few remaining one's have had to become such severe dictatorships that life for the people living under them is such hell, that they need to be locked into the country to force them from leaving, and thrown in labour camps for even the most minoring questioning of the ruling elite classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is generally in Capitalist countries where people have the most freedom to practice their religion, whether they choose to or not is their business. Communist, Marxist, Socialist countries have to be generally ruled by dictatorships, and the people are not allowed to practice any religion, as it seen as a threat to the ruling dictatorships. Communist, Marxist, Socialist experiments have virtually all died a very quick death, and the few remaining one's have had to become such severe dictatorships that life for the people living under them is such hell, that they need to be locked into the country to force them from leaving, and thrown in labour camps for even the most minoring questioning of the ruling elite classes.

The "freedom of religion" in the West is a very ingenious inception.

Capitalism distracts people. It is not coercive (which is precisely why it outlasted Communism). Rather, it appeals to people's impulses and material wants. Consumerism and careerism are the unofficial "replacement religions" of capitalism. People attain a certain degree of material wealth and comfort and feel they no longer have the need for religion. But because capitalism technically did not "force" them to abandon religion, it can claim innocence in the spiritual decay of a society. But how can a system that actually encourages excessive consumption not be responsible for the fall of religion? It is encouraging people to do things that are opposed to religion, it is making these things cultural norms, and it is making it easier for people to turn to these things instead of religion. It is much easier to find a shopping mall than a place of worship. Even the churches in the US need to offer something of material value in order to compete. Christianity in the US is a true travesty. It has tried to reconcile itself with capitalism in order to preserve itself. It has preserved itself, but at great cost.

Religion is inherently opposed to capitalism. This is true for all religions, because in spite of their differences, they all teach to refrain from excessive consumption. They all teach of the evils of material wealth.

Communism shows its true face with respect to religion. It identifies it as an enemy and actively seeks to undermine and subvert it. In some ways it is successful, and in other ways not so. Yes, Baku may have been secularized, but Baku was one of the few places in the Caucasus with an industrial working class (and thus, a support base for the Bolsheviks). On the other hand, look at Chechnya. You could not imagine that for 70 years it was under Soviet rule.

So I think it is fair to say that Communism was unsuccessful in uprooting religion. Capitalism, on the other hand, has been quite successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "freedom of religion" in the West is a very ingenious inception.

Capitalism distracts people. It is not coercive (which is precisely why it outlasted Communism). Rather, it appeals to people's impulses and material wants. Consumerism and careerism are the unofficial "replacement religions" of capitalism. People attain a certain degree of material wealth and comfort and feel they no longer have the need for religion.

So its impossible to have a good career, a nice home, nice car and a few holidays a year and still be religious?

But because capitalism technically did not "force" them to abandon religion, it can claim innocence in the spiritual decay of a society. But how can a system that actually encourages excessive consumption not be responsible for the fall of religion?

Not sure that capitalism 'encourages excessive consumption', as opposed to encouraging people to generate enough wealth to be comfortable, whilst working hard to make a contribution to society at the same time. Not everybody wants to be a banker or currency trader. Can a person still be wealthy and religious?.

It is encouraging people to do things that are opposed to religion, it is making these things cultural norms, and it is making it easier for people to turn to these things instead of religion. It is much easier to find a shopping mall than a place of worship. Even the churches in the US need to offer something of material value in order to compete. Christianity in the US is a true travesty. It has tried to reconcile itself with capitalism in order to preserve itself. It has preserved itself, but at great cost.

There are churches around if people still want to find them, they just dont. Religion was dropping back in many countries even before WWII, and Capitalism was not really a part of a normal persons life them. A few super rich around back them, but most people were very poor and just had enough to barely get by.

Religion is inherently opposed to capitalism. This is true for all religions, because in spite of their differences, they all teach to refrain from excessive consumption. They all teach of the evils of material wealth.

Back to excessive consumption again, as opposed to having enough wealth to live a nice lifestyle. I seem to remember a post from you a while ago, saying an uncle of yours was a 'dollar' millionaire in Iran?. Is he religious?

Communism shows its true face with respect to religion. It identifies it as an enemy and actively seeks to undermine and subvert it. In some ways it is successful, and in other ways not so. Yes, Baku may have been secularized, but Baku was one of the few places in the Caucasus with an industrial working class (and thus, a support base for the Bolsheviks). On the other hand, look at Chechnya. You could not imagine that for 70 years it was under Soviet rule.

Chechnya was one country, what happened to the religions in all the other countries?. The Muslims in Kosovo?. As for the Chechen President, now there is someone where excessive consumption can be talked about.

So I think it is fair to say that Communism was unsuccessful in uprooting religion. Capitalism, on the other hand, has been quite successful.

Very sucessful in Russia, and 'virtually' ALL the former states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh... Communism, Marxism, put in one sentence with "Islam" nonetheless. The first thing that reminds me off are MEK terrorists. Not to mention a very long list of the most brutal people ever known to man. None of whom "of course" followed the true communist/Marxist path, right? ;)

The two/three do not go together and it really is not worth the time to talk about it. These ideologies have died out. When it was still alive, we rejected these foreign ideologies and methods of governance. No wise person is interested in digging up this grave. Iranian scholars had written books on this matter when there were millions of 'you' around the world. Today, it's barely worth to post about it anymore. Can't believe there are still people who believe in this nonsense.

These beliefs are experiments by 'the elite' to find something to put in place of religion. Their most successful experiment, Capitalism, is currently in cardiac arrest. The grave has already been dug. They're busy with many defibrillators at the moment, if they fail to reset the heart, that too will enter the museum of political history. Time for these 'elite' to come with something new for the mentally retarded.

1. Funny, I don't know where the MEK are mentioned as Marxists of any kind. Their Ideal seems to only be "religious Socialism". And I tell you now, Socialism is a VERY broad term.

2. That's also funny, because I can't imagine the "elite" experimenting with Communism, since Capitalism was long before, and Socialism itself is just a Reaction to Capitalism. All forms of Marxism are quite "rebellious" against the Elite.

It is generally in Capitalist countries where people have the most freedom to practice their religion, whether they choose to or not is their business. Communist, Marxist, Socialist countries have to be generally ruled by dictatorships, and the people are not allowed to practice any religion, as it seen as a threat to the ruling dictatorships. Communist, Marxist, Socialist experiments have virtually all died a very quick death, and the few remaining one's have had to become such severe dictatorships that life for the people living under them is such hell, that they need to be locked into the country to force them from leaving, and thrown in labour camps for even the most minoring questioning of the ruling elite classes.

Dictatorships? It seems that your only Knowledge of Communism is the bull[Edited Out] you learned at school. Dictatorships have nothing at all to do with Communism, or Marxism. Do you even know the definition of Marxism, and don't tell me "Dictatorships where people can't believe in God" because that is far from the definition. Locked into a country? Are you completely retarded? Why don't you read some works of Marx and than come talk to me, because abolishing Religion, and "dictatorships" are far from what he taught.

I guess Islam likes to throw acid on little girls because the Taliban did it, yes yes the Taliban represents Islam 100% right? So does Saudi Arabia.

The "freedom of religion" in the West is a very ingenious inception.

Capitalism distracts people. It is not coercive (which is precisely why it outlasted Communism). Rather, it appeals to people's impulses and material wants. Consumerism and careerism are the unofficial "replacement religions" of capitalism. People attain a certain degree of material wealth and comfort and feel they no longer have the need for religion. But because capitalism technically did not "force" them to abandon religion, it can claim innocence in the spiritual decay of a society. But how can a system that actually encourages excessive consumption not be responsible for the fall of religion? It is encouraging people to do things that are opposed to religion, it is making these things cultural norms, and it is making it easier for people to turn to these things instead of religion. It is much easier to find a shopping mall than a place of worship. Even the churches in the US need to offer something of material value in order to compete. Christianity in the US is a true travesty. It has tried to reconcile itself with capitalism in order to preserve itself. It has preserved itself, but at great cost.

Religion is inherently opposed to capitalism. This is true for all religions, because in spite of their differences, they all teach to refrain from excessive consumption. They all teach of the evils of material wealth.

Communism shows its true face with respect to religion. It identifies it as an enemy and actively seeks to undermine and subvert it. In some ways it is successful, and in other ways not so. Yes, Baku may have been secularized, but Baku was one of the few places in the Caucasus with an industrial working class (and thus, a support base for the Bolsheviks). On the other hand, look at Chechnya. You could not imagine that for 70 years it was under Soviet rule.

So I think it is fair to say that Communism was unsuccessful in uprooting religion. Capitalism, on the other hand, has been quite successful.

Well, 70 years ago not many Muslims were religious at all, Communism or no Communism, the only time it has been brought back is with Khomeini.

Communism teaches that religion, is sometimes used as a tool to teach you things the opposite of the true religion, for example, the Bible, it doesn't teach people natural selection, but the preachers and such did it anyway.

Communists have abolished religion, after they have resorted to Capitalism. China has not banned Islam, only after it became Capitalistic.

I believe some Communists wanted to uproot religion in their own country, but to be honest, I doubt that Marx, Egels, or Lenin wanted to destroy all religion.

You are right about Capitalism though. But imagine if the Capitalist nations were Socialist, their religions would be more in tact, and I'm talking Socialism in general, without the branches, if they were Socialist, they wouldn't have consumerism, or the fallacy that religion should be abolished or anything in the liking. Many churches in fact preach Socialism.

I don't think the Capitalists wanted to destroy all religion, I think they wanted to emote an illusion of pat robertson's christianity, and keep the people thinking that what they are doing is Christian, and being patriotic toward America is also very Christian. They are slowly taking away their true religious beliefs, but not making them atheists.

A few super rich around back them, but most people were very poor and just had enough to barely get by.

Which is why people started joining Communist or Socialist party's in the first place.

So its impossible to have a good career, a nice home, nice car and a few holidays a year and still be religious?

Not sure that capitalism 'encourages excessive consumption', as opposed to encouraging people to generate enough wealth to be comfortable, whilst working hard to make a contribution to society at the same time. Not everybody wants to be a banker or currency trader. Can a person still be wealthy and religious?.

There are churches around if people still want to find them, they just dont. Religion was dropping back in many countries even before WWII, and Capitalism was not really a part of a normal persons life them. A few super rich around back them, but most people were very poor and just had enough to barely get by.

Back to excessive consumption again, as opposed to having enough wealth to live a nice lifestyle. I seem to remember a post from you a while ago, saying an uncle of yours was a 'dollar' millionaire in Iran?. Is he religious?

Chechnya was one country, what happened to the religions in all the other countries?. The Muslims in Kosovo?. As for the Chechen President, now there is someone where excessive consumption can be talked about.

Very sucessful in Russia, and 'virtually' ALL the former states.

Except Russia wasn't Communist to begin with and neither were it's proxy states. Russia Russia Russia who cares about Russia? What does that have to do with Communism? Russia was Capitalist with a Red Banner like their neighbor below, China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dictatorships? It seems that your only Knowledge of Communism is the bull[Edited Out] you learned at school.

I seems like you never went to school at all :lol:

I have visited Russia and other former states that were under Communist control, and yeah they had real democracy at the time. North Korea is great democracy now also, so long as you are a son of the leader :D

Dictatorships have nothing at all to do with Communism, or Marxism.

Strange that virtually ALL the 'communist' regimes that existed were dictorships then.

Do you even know the definition of Marxism, and don't tell me "Dictatorships where people can't believe in God" because that is far from the definition.

Marxism is a ideal that falls into dictorship very quickly, once the ruling elite dont wont to give up the good life they have. Dictatorship did not stop people believing in God, most just banned people from practising their religion openly, and people were persecuted if they were caught doing so.

Locked into a country? Are you completely retarded? Why don't you read some works of Marx and than come talk to me, because abolishing Religion, and "dictatorships" are far from what he taught.

And you would be a retard ( and a dead one at that ) if you though people in East Germany could just walk up the border guards on that side of the wall and say 'I dont like it here much anymore', I would like to go into West Germany.

I guess Islam likes to throw acid on little girls because the Taliban did it, yes yes the Taliban represents Islam 100% right? So does Saudi Arabia.

Seperate issue totally. Maybe 0.0000000000001% of Muslims have every thrown acid on a girls face. Virtually all so called 'Communist' regimes that have ever existed fell into dictatorships very rapidly.

Edited by Irishman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seems like you never went to school at all :lol:

I have visited Russia and other former states that were under Communist control, and yeah they had real democracy at the time. North Korea is great democracy now also, so long as you are a son of the leader :D

Strange that virtually ALL the 'communist' regimes that existed were dictorships then.

Marxism is a ideal that falls into dictorship very quickly, once the ruling elite dont wont to give up the good life they have. Dictatorship did not stop people believing in God, most just banned people from practising their religion openly, and people were persecuted if they were caught doing so.

And you would be a retard ( and a dead one at that ) if you though people in East Germany could just walk up the border guards on that side of the wall and say 'I dont like it here much anymore', I would like to go into West Germany.

Seperate issue totally. Maybe 0.0000000000001% of Muslims have every thrown acid on a girls face. Virtually all so called 'Communist' regimes that have ever existed fell into dictatorships very rapidly.

Due to those regime's not being Communist at all. I like how westerners throw in Communist dictators during the cold war, and their dictator proxy's but let me remind you of the AMERICAN proxy states Dictators in the Cold War, in Iran, in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, their were just as much "Capitalist" dictators as their were Communist. The reason for the Dictatorships, is if the country's were democratic, the people would not tolerate American, or Soviet Capitalist Imperialism. None of those states were truly Communist, in Fact, even Che Guevara stated that the USSR promotes Capitalism in their proxy states so the Russian's will profit. The USSR was far from Communist, and you must be a fool to think that they were During and After Stalin. Stalin implanted all the Nationalism, all the Capitalism, all the Gulags. All of those Communist states were heavily Nationalist, which goes against Communism. They were Capitalist and Nationalist under a red flag.

People like you only pay attention to the dictators from one side of the coin, but Capitalist dictators existed from Batista to the Shah.

The only reason for the Dictatorships has nothing to do with the Ideal, but the Imperialism.

Seperate issue totally. Maybe 0.0000000000001% of Muslims have every thrown acid on a girls face. Virtually all so called 'Communist' regimes that have ever existed fell into dictatorships very rapidly.

Really? Name me one non Oppressive 'Islamic' Regime other than Iran.

Almost 99% of all the Regimes in the Middle East are Imperialist proxy's and have horrible human rights problems. Iran is probably the only Islamic regime without some of these problems. Does this mean that Islam, promotes dictatorship, and violations of Human rights? Do these regimes represent Islam or Imperialism?

I woulld say .000000000001% of Communists advocate Dictatorships.

Virtually all so called 'Islamic' regimes have fell into Imperialist proxy's.

So the truth: Islam is not a dictator Ideology, but Imperialism has created puppets in the Nation of these country's, so others will profit, with the extra topping that it gives Islam a bad name.

And guess what? Communism apply in the same way!

I'm not comparing Islam and Communism, no, but I am saying that both were used by Imperialists to exploit people.

Capitalism, exploits people, Imperialism or no Imperialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to those regime's not being Communist at all. I like how westerners throw in Communist dictators during the cold war, and their dictator proxy's but let me remind you of the AMERICAN proxy states Dictators in the Cold War, in Iran, in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, their were just as much "Capitalist" dictators as their were Communist. The reason for the Dictatorships, is if the country's were democratic, the people would not tolerate American, or Soviet Capitalist Imperialism. None of those states were truly Communist, in Fact, even Che Guevara stated that the USSR promotes Capitalism in their proxy states so the Russian's will profit. The USSR was far from Communist, and you must be a fool to think that they were During and After Stalin. Stalin implanted all the Nationalism, all the Capitalism, all the Gulags. All of those Communist states were heavily Nationalist, which goes against Communism. They were Capitalist and Nationalist under a red flag.

People like you only pay attention to the dictators from one side of the coin, but Capitalist dictators existed from Batista to the Shah.

The only reason for the Dictatorships has nothing to do with the Ideal, but the Imperialism.

What 'real communist' states have existed, or do exist at present that is the glowing example of what it can be, and that are not dictatorships and where people can pick and choose who leads them, and are free to leave that state if they dont like it, and where the wealth is evenly distributed amoung the people, and the leaders are not living a very different lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange that virtually ALL the 'communist' regimes that existed were dictorships then.

Funny, because also strange, all 'capitalist' regimes that exist are dictatorships. They just don't openly admit so. You don't think America, or even Europe, aren't dictated by Banks and Corporations? But of course, Western Bias always prevails in your case. Western media does not decide which states are Communist and which states are not, Western Media is all bull[Edited Out], just in case you missed the last hundred years.

Like I said, maybe you should read the woks of Marx, just like, if one wanted to know about Islam, he wouldn't look around at Saudi Arabia or the UAE, he would read the Quran.

What 'real communist' states have existed, or do exist at present that is the glowing example of what it can be, and that are not dictatorships and where people can pick and choose who leads them, and are free to leave that state if they dont like it, and where the wealth is evenly distributed amoung the people, and the leaders are not living a very different lifestyle.

Such a state has never existed, due to Imperialists not being able to tolerate such. Put it this way, if you have America out of the picture, such a state could be easily created.

Stop ignoring the truth, you moron, what about the Capitalist dictatorships I mentioned? Name me a successful Capitalist state, where the people elect the way the country is run, where the people are free to talk against the nation without being publicly raped by the Media, and the leaders are not slaves of corporations or other Superpowers.

What 'real communist' states have existed, or do exist at present that is the glowing example of what it can be, and that are not dictatorships and where people can pick and choose who leads them, and are free to leave that state if they dont like it, and where the wealth is evenly distributed amoung the people, and the leaders are not living a very different lifestyle.

Out of all the things I explained to you, you choose that? Nice job, idiot, I've been trying to explain so much to you, but your ignorant Westernized semi-retard excuse for a brain will not transmit it. NONE OF THOSE STATES WERE [Edited Out]ING COMMUNIST TO BEGIN WITH. NAME ME AN ISLAMIC STATE, BESIDES IRAN, WITHIN THE 20TH CENTURY TO TODAY, THAT DID NOT PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND DID NOT GIVE AWAY MOST OF THE COUNTRY'S WEALTH TO EITHER THE RULING FAMILY'S OR FOREIGN NATIONS. LOOK AT SADDAM'S IRAQ! Oh, but now your going to tell me Saddam's regime was not Islamist, oh, guess what, STALIN'S REGIME WAS NOT COMMUNIST!

What 'real communist' states have existed, or do exist at present that is the glowing example of what it can be, and that are not dictatorships and where people can pick and choose who leads them, and are free to leave that state if they dont like it, and where the wealth is evenly distributed amoung the people, and the leaders are not living a very different lifestyle.

It is just as retarded to call the USSR, and their proxy's Communist regime, to call Baathist Iraq and Hosni Mubarak's Egypt, along with all the other Arab Nationalist states Islamist.

The USSR never even declared itself Communist, only "Socialist".

Al the so-called "communist" states were never Communist, only Western Media declared them Communist, due to westerners having their heads up their asses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, because also strange, all 'capitalist' regimes that exist are dictatorships. They just don't openly admit so. You don't think America, or even Europe, aren't dictated by Banks and Corporations? But of course, Western Bias always prevails in your case. Western media does not decide which states are Communist and which states are not, Western Media is all bull[Edited Out], just in case you missed the last hundred years.

Like I said, maybe you should read the woks of Marx, just like, if one wanted to know about Islam, he wouldn't look around at Saudi Arabia or the UAE, he would read the Quran.

Funny that in many 'capitalist' regimes, anybody in a local area can put themselves forward to be an MP, and can possibly become Prime Minister. They dont need to be pre-approved by a 'religious' leader in advance either.

Such a state has never existed, due to Imperialists not being able to tolerate such. Put it this way, if you have America out of the picture, such a state could be easily created.

Stop ignoring the truth, you moron, what about the Capitalist dictatorships I mentioned? Name me a successful Capitalist state, where the people elect the way the country is run, where the people are free to talk against the nation without being publicly raped by the Media, and the leaders are not slaves of corporations or other Superpowers.

A good Muslim you are for calling a person a 'moron' just because they dont agree with you. Countries and civilisation have been around a long time, and the US has only become the 'Big Brother' in maybe the last 50 years or so. So why did none of these perfect communist states form before that?, or maybe they tried and failed miserably.

Edited by Irishman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that in many 'capitalist' regimes, anybody in a local area can put themselves forward to be an MP, and can possibly become Prime Minister. They dont need to be pre-approved by a 'religious' leader in advance either.

A good Muslim you are for calling a person a 'moron' just because thet dont agree with you. Countries and civilisation have been around a long time, and the US has only become the 'Big Brother' in maybe the last 50 years or so. So why did not of these perfect communist states form before that?, or maybe they tried and failed miserably.

The US only became Big Brother due to World War II, and their help from almost all of the European Union. The USSR failed because, all of their "Capitalist" comrades turned on them, and they eventually got themselves [Edited Out]ed. And I don't care if they can be an MP, they aren't going to get anywhere if they don't pull down their pants and take a big one from the Corporate establishment. I don't care who you elect, no matter what, the nation will always be run by Corporations and Banks, things that you CANNOT elect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any country that is ruled by dictatorships is by definition not a socialist or a communist country so please do not equate the two. To have a real socialist society as compared to an authoritarian state which justifies its authority in the name of socialism are two completely opposite things. Secondly do you need to be reminded of the times the so called capitalist model has totally collapsed? Only to be bailed out by desperate state intervention, in a true capitalist society, there would be no state intervention, no adjustments of the interest rates from above and certainly no bail outs of failing large corporations. How many times has socialism failed? I would suggest you do not refer to fall of Soviet Russia as that was as far from a socialist state as America is from a democracy.

Adam Smith, widely considered as the father of capitalism himself stated that for any civilized society, something had to be done to prevent division of labour as it would turn people into mindless ignorant creatures. Yeah capitalism has led to immense freedom's, that is why it has virtually gifted power away to completely unaccountable private tyrannies that are global in scale and subject people into wage slavery.

I've been trying to explain this to him for a very long time. He just doesn't seem to listen. He mentions the Soviet Union and their proxy states, and repeatedly talks about Dictatorships and so on. I don't know what is wrong with this person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing, but I actually agree with you here. It's no accident really that most Marxists, socialist, etc, leaders and thinkers in modernized nations are people who've hardly if ever worked a day in their lives by the sweat of their brow. I have, and I can say there's good reason you have workers and you have managers, and that this hierarchy isn't the result of some great conspiracy to keep the lower classes under foot but is largely a reflection of how hard people want to work coupled with their own personal talents. Doesn't mean you don't have incompetent managers out there, there's plenty for sure, but to think the solution would be simply to hand over collective ownership and control to the workers is simply being blind to the realities of the actual work place as opposed to romantic fantasies that sound nice on paper.

I think of my own brief stint as a factory worker when I was making my way (worked in a factory that makes various blow torches). The average worker there did a decent enough job, but what I noticed was a general lack of want (or even ability) to go further with what they were doing. I remember at one point I was producing higher than quota on the particular job I'd been assigned, and one of the long time workers there gave me a talk telling me not to do that. If I continued to do so the quota for the job would get raised and so they would have to work harder. In a sense I can see his point, but that type of mentality would be atrocious for someone in a managerial position, of intentionally not excelling at one's work in order to maintain the status quo.

To think of going even further than handing over control of the factories and such to the workers, to actually putting governance in the hands of such people is beyond crazy.

Ya Allah not another one

Workers control over production doesn't mean that you head to the nearest nike factory and let the all the workers into the management office so they can start signing checks boo boo. It is an utterly simplistic and naive view of what socialism is all about even though in the long run I can assure you it would produce heartening results . Have you ever wondered why workers you worked with were never motivated to do more? Or more significantly as you and Khadim implied, they seemed incompetent, stupid and lazy? Maybe its because they are forced to pack the same box of chocolates repeatedly nonstop over their 12 hour shifts? Maybe if they were given even the slightest bit more room to exercise their creativity or have any kind of input in the design process beyond blindly following orders from competent managers, perhaps they would be more motivated, excited and not so lazy? This purposeful dumbing down of workers is to restrict them from gaining their fair share in manager and CEO salaries which know no bounds. This is the primary source of financial inequality in place today and the gap has continued to increase over the course of our experiment with capitalism. It is naive to look at general economic numbers and judge the standard of a nation as a whole. Where is the money concentrated? Is it hardly surprising that a so called communist nation under siege forever in Cuba has a universal health care system in place while American's bent on staying true to their capitalistic roots will not provide their citizens basic health care services?

Maybe if you took a look at 1950's American working class, perhaps you would notice that the factory girls were some of the most enlightened contributing members towards production and of society as a result? You would also perhaps notice that they started an underground workers press which pretty much constituted the freeist press America has ever witnessed. A press dealing with real issues and not one targeting of the top 1% of the population which constitutes corporate CEO's and managers in the business section that we see in the papers today?

The current system is fabulous, it completely undermines, restricts and limits the collective creative and intelligence capabilities of the working class which I believe are a heck of a lot more capable than current management bent on restricting capital to a select few. I mean this is common sense, workers constitute the majority of the population, what they take part in collectively is to benefit the working class as a whole which means the majority of us, managers represent a ridiculously small number and they are primarily bent on insuring the money moves upwards to ensure financial security for the privileged few. It is called wage slavery, it really isnt much different from chatel slavery.

LOL this whole idea of managers working harder than workers is the joke of this century. especially considering manager share in revenues.

Now all this isnt to say that with a truly socialist system in place, there would be no boring, robotic forms of work present to be undertaken. I will however ask you one thing, as a worker working in a system which represents your fellow workers and their families, would you not be more motivated to take part in robotic forms of work as compared to the current system where you know all your mindless hard work is to benefit a select group of competent managers whose primary goal is to deprive you of your fair share? Any sane and aware individual would want to contribute the minimum amount to this system of exploitation and get the hell back home, it would frankly be stupid and demeaning to work any harder.

It is generally in Capitalist countries where people have the most freedom to practice their religion, whether they choose to or not is their business. Communist, Marxist, Socialist countries have to be generally ruled by dictatorships, and the people are not allowed to practice any religion, as it seen as a threat to the ruling dictatorships. Communist, Marxist, Socialist experiments have virtually all died a very quick death, and the few remaining one's have had to become such severe dictatorships that life for the people living under them is such hell, that they need to be locked into the country to force them from leaving, and thrown in labour camps for even the most minoring questioning of the ruling elite classes.

Any country that is ruled by dictatorships is by definition not a socialist or a communist country so please do not equate the two. To have a real socialist society as compared to an authoritarian state which justifies its authority in the name of socialism are two completely opposite things. Secondly do you need to be reminded of the times the so called capitalist model has totally collapsed? Only to be bailed out by desperate state intervention, in a true capitalist society, there would be no state intervention, no adjustments of the interest rates from above and certainly no bail outs of failing large corporations. How many times has socialism failed? I would suggest you do not refer to fall of Soviet Russia as that was as far from a socialist state as America is from a democracy.

Adam Smith, widely considered as the father of capitalism himself stated that for any civilized society, something had to be done to prevent division of labour as it would turn people into mindless ignorant creatures. Yeah capitalism has led to immense freedom's, that is why it has virtually gifted power away to completely unaccountable private tyrannies that are global in scale and subject people into wage slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US only became Big Brother due to World War II, and their help from almost all of the European Union. The USSR failed because, all of their "Capitalist" comrades turned on them, and they eventually got themselves [Edited Out]ed. And I don't care if they can be an MP, they aren't going to get anywhere if they don't pull down their pants and take a big one from the Corporate establishment. I don't care who you elect, no matter what, the nation will always be run by Corporations and Banks, things that you CANNOT elect.

You have still not answered the question,

"Countries and civilisation have been around a long time, and the US has only become the 'Big Brother' in maybe the last 50 years or so, likewise the bankers etc.... So why did none of these perfect 'communist' states form before that?, or maybe they tried and failed miserably."

Why has there never been one?. Maybe the book 'Animal Farm' will explain why, some may have started, but ALL ended up as being something very different.

Edited by Irishman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have still not answered the question,

"Countries and civilisation have been around a long time, and the US has only become the 'Big Brother' in maybe the last 50 years or so, likewise the bankers etc.... So why did none of these perfect 'communist' states form before that?, or maybe they tried and failed miserably."

Why has there never been one?. Maybe the book 'Animal Farm' will explain why, some may have started, but ALL ended up as being something very different.

I told you, the World War made the US a superpower, and the US, Britain, were the "first" to get to the German Scientists. None of these [Edited Out]ING states were COMMUNIST to begin with, you thick skulled fool. They didn't form, because the US was not the only 'Big Bother'. The British empire, even the US, as a 'semi' super power, did and Europe, and pretty much Capitalists from ALL around the world. Maybe you fail miserably at understanding Socialism to begin with. Maybe Animal Farm just represented Stalinism in the Soviet Union. George Orwell, the author of Animal farm, was a Socialist. All Regimes during the time did the greatest they could to prevent a peasant revolt, and with WWII as a topping, they ruined most hopes of doing so. Besides, the Soviets took control of many Communist Movements, altering them, corrupting them into implanting Capitalism.

You have still not answered the question,

"Countries and civilisation have been around a long time, and the US has only become the 'Big Brother' in maybe the last 50 years or so, likewise the bankers etc.... So why did none of these perfect 'communist' states form before that?, or maybe they tried and failed miserably."

Why has there never been one?. Maybe the book 'Animal Farm' will explain why, some may have started, but ALL ended up as being something very different.

You MORON, STOP IGNORING WHAT I SAY, I HAVE EXPLAINED THE CAPITALIST DICTATORSHIPS, AND THE FALLACY OF 'COMMUNIST' DICTATORS, BUT YOU ALWAYS CHANGE THE SUBJECT. STOP JUMPING OUT OF THE WHOLE THAT YOU DUG FOR YOURSELF!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, funny thing is Orwell was a hardcore socialist. Einstein himself was one too, so is Chomsky, Howard Zinn. List goes on.

And for anyone else here who seems to doubt the collective intelligence and power of a functioning working class, I would suggest you take a look at the Spanish revolution. You will undoubtedly be much enlightened.

RIP the great Howard Zinn, the world needs more of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I told you, the World War made the US a superpower, and the US, Britain, were the "first" to get to the German Scientists. None of these [Edited Out]ING states were COMMUNIST to begin with, you thick skulled fool. They didn't form, because the US was not the only 'Big Bother'. The British empire, even the US, as a 'semi' super power, did and Europe, and pretty much Capitalists from ALL around the world. Maybe you fail miserably at understanding Socialism to begin with. Maybe Animal Farm just represented Stalinism in the Soviet Union. George Orwell, the author of Animal farm, was a Socialist. All Regimes during the time did the greatest they could to prevent a peasant revolt, and with WWII as a topping, they ruined most hopes of doing so. Besides, the Soviets took control of many Communist Movements, altering them, corrupting them into implanting Capitalism.

You MORON, STOP IGNORING WHAT I SAY, I HAVE EXPLAINED THE CAPITALIST DICTATORSHIPS, AND THE FALLACY OF 'COMMUNIST' DICTATORS, BUT YOU ALWAYS CHANGE THE SUBJECT. STOP JUMPING OUT OF THE WHOLE THAT YOU DUG FOR YOURSELF!

Poor little fool gets all hot headed and starts throwing insults around again when I ask a very easy question. I guess you are just too dumb to understand it, so 3rd time luckly, now read it very slowly

"Countries and civilisation have been around a long time, and the US HAS ONLY BECOME a Superpower and a 'Big Brother' in maybe the LAST 50 years or so, likewise the bankers etc.... So why did none of these perfect 'communist' states form BEFORE THAT?, or maybe they tried and failed miserably ( which explains why you are avoiding the question and instead throwing insults around :P )

So there is always a reason going right back a few hundred years why no country could ever achieve it. Yeah ( rolls eyes ). As Orwell pointed out, human greed will always get in the way.

Edited by Irishman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So its impossible to have a good career, a nice home, nice car and a few holidays a year and still be religious?

Yes.

I am assuming you are Christian? I do not claim to be a Biblical scholar, but I do remember a few stories from the Bible that show the complete incompatibility between Christianity and Capitalism.

One of my favorites was when a wealthy, religious Jew goes to Jesus and asks what he needed to do to gain God's approval. Jesus says that he must give all his worldly possessions to the poor and follow Jesus on his mission. The wealthy Jew walks away without saying a word.

Not sure that capitalism 'encourages excessive consumption', as opposed to encouraging people to generate enough wealth to be comfortable, whilst working hard to make a contribution to society at the same time.

If everyone in the world consumed as much as the average American, the world would have to be 10 times larger. That's excessive consumption.

Not everybody wants to be a banker or currency trader. Can a person still be wealthy and religious?.

No.

The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) said that kings are the most unfortunate people, because they do not live amongst the people.

There are churches around if people still want to find them, they just dont. Religion was dropping back in many countries even before WWII, and Capitalism was not really a part of a normal persons life them. A few super rich around back them, but most people were very poor and just had enough to barely get by.

Not entirely true. Perhaps for Europe, but not for the US. Consumer Capitalism started in the US in the 1920s. That was when average Americans could afford to buy consumer products such as cars, radios, refrigerators, etc. That was also when people started rebelling against cultural/religious norms (i.e. violating prohibition).

Back to excessive consumption again, as opposed to having enough wealth to live a nice lifestyle. I seem to remember a post from you a while ago, saying an uncle of yours was a 'dollar' millionaire in Iran?. Is he religious?

Supposedly, yes. According to my knowledge of religion, no.

BTW according to my knowledge of religion, I am not religious either. The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) said that a true Muslim is one whose neighbors are warm and fed. I have 800 million neighbors

Chechnya was one country, what happened to the religions in all the other countries?. The Muslims in Kosovo?. As for the Chechen President, now there is someone where excessive consumption can be talked about.

Perhaps I was wrong to say it was unsuccessful.

But the methods they used to uproot religion would never be accepted in today's political climate. Stalin treated entire populations as building materials; he moved them around at will. This not only eliminated national differences but also religious differences.

Very sucessful in Russia, and 'virtually' ALL the former states.

Soviet Communists' success in uprooting religion is indicative of: (1) a population already in the process of becoming irreligious, and (2) highly cruel methods.

That would never have worked on Iranians. But capitalism works on any population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...