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

Communism And Islam

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I understand your point, but I do not view Marxism the same way you do. I view Marxism as eternal, all Ideologies are eternal. To me, in some cases, Politics and Religion are separate, unless you are

"Islamic Marxist" is an oxy moron. You can't be both. There are certain irreconcilable differences between Islam and Marxism, which there is no point in me trying to talk about, as people smarter tha

When I say all Ideologies are Eternal, I mean, that as long as they are written on paper, as long as you have access to reading and learning about them, they are eternal, but if some big catastrophic

Posted Images

  • Veteran Member

"Islamic Marxist" is an oxy moron.

You can't be both.

There are certain irreconcilable differences between Islam and Marxism, which there is no point in me trying to talk about, as people smarter than me have already done so.

The Marxist notion of "historical materialism" is logically fallacious and incompatible with Islam. Shahid Motahari has written a brilliant book on historical materialism called "Society and History."

Are you Iranian? If you are, go here and scroll down until you see جامعه و تاریخ. Then click on it and read it. I think you will find Shahid Motahari's arguments very convincing.

Since you wanted my view on communism, I will give it to you. My view on communism is the same as my view on fascism: they both arose as a result of the vacuum created by the lack of true religion.

When we look at the history of prophethood, we see that the prophets of the divine religions -- unlike the kings of the time -- did not want to be acknowledged as divine or semi-divine; rather, they wanted people to acknowledge that NO man is divine. They wanted people to submit to God, not to kings (or any other man, for that matter). They demanded outright faith from their subjects to a particular set of doctrines.

So prophets demanded loyalty not to their person, but to the divine doctrines that were revealed to them. This meant that divine religion began to represent collectivism and group consciousness. The prophets cared only about uprooting debauchery, corruption, and sin, and cared nothing of how they, as individuals, were treated or seen as. They were people of poor backgrounds and humble characters.

The rise of liberalism, aside from shunning personal virtues as outdated social norms, crushed the collective spirit of religion.

Fascism and Bolshevism/Communism were ideologies born out of the lack of divine religion. By permeating every facet of life, inventing new traditions, and demanding absolute loyalty (in action as well as in belief) to a particular ideology, fascism and Bolshevism filled the vacuum left empty by the lack of collectivist divine religion.

Now let me make myself very clear: I am not suggesting that fascism and Communism are manifestations of divine religion. I am only saying that fascism and Bolshevism were similar to divine religion (and different from jahiliyah/liberalism) in two respects: (1) demanding loyalty to certain doctrines in action as well as belief, and (2) being collectivist in nature.

The reason for the eventual defeat of fascism and Communism was the same as the reason for religion becoming corrupted: a system which necessitates individual sacrifice is not sustainable. For thousands of years, jahiliyah rule prevailed throughout the world precisely because it did not demand of its people moral and ideological fortitude. Meanwhile, hardly any prophets attained political power, and when they did, their righteous leadership lasted only until their deaths.

Fascism lasted just over 20 years (if we are to consider Mussolini's ascent to power as a starting point and the fall of Berlin as an end point). Communism lasted about 70 years. Meanwhile, liberalism has lasted over 200 years with no end in sight. The longevity of liberalism is inherent in that it demands the lowest possible level of morals, character, and discipline from its subjects. Instead of trying to create a new culture (which fascism, communism, and true religion all attempt to do), it derives its legitimacy from the existing, prevalent culture (the "21st century").

Although I believe Islam and Marxism are mutually exclusive, Marxist thought has made one important contribution to history: its focus on economics. Although Marx was wrong to say that economic forces are behind every historical event (every socialist revolution to date disproves that belief), he shed light on the fact that economics is pretty darn important. That's as far as I will go.

Ya Ali

Edited by baradar_jackson
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

"Islamic Marxist" is an oxy moron.

You can't be both.

There are certain irreconcilable differences between Islam and Marxism, which there is no point in me trying to talk about, as people smarter than me have already done so.

The Marxist notion of "historical materialism" is logically fallacious and incompatible with Islam. Shahid Motahari has written a brilliant book on historical materialism called "Society and History."

Are you Iranian? If you are, go here and scroll down until you see ÌÇãÚå æ ÊÇÑیÎ. Then click on it and read it. I think you will find Shahid Motahari's arguments very convincing.

Since you wanted my view on communism, I will give it to you. My view on communism is the same as my view on fascism: they both arose as a result of the vacuum created by the lack of true religion.

When we look at the history of prophethood, we see that the prophets of the divine religions -- unlike the kings of the time -- did not want to be acknowledged as divine or semi-divine; rather, they wanted people to acknowledge that NO man is divine. They wanted people to submit to God, not to kings (or any other man, for that matter). They demanded outright faith from their subjects to a particular set of doctrines.

So prophets demanded loyalty not to their person, but to the divine doctrines that were revealed to them. This meant that divine religion began to represent collectivism and group consciousness. The prophets cared only about uprooting debauchery, corruption, and sin, and cared nothing of how they, as individuals, were treated or seen as. They were people of poor backgrounds and humble characters.

The rise of liberalism, aside from shunning personal virtues as outdated social norms, crushed the collective spirit of religion.

Fascism and Bolshevism/Communism were ideologies born out of the lack of divine religion. By permeating every facet of life, inventing new traditions, and demanding absolute loyalty (in action as well as in belief) to a particular ideology, fascism and Bolshevism filled the vacuum left empty by the lack of collectivist divine religion.

Now let me make myself very clear: I am not suggesting that fascism and Communism are manifestations of divine religion. I am only saying that fascism and Bolshevism were similar to divine religion (and different from jahiliyah/liberalism) in two respects: (1) demanding loyalty to certain doctrines in action as well as belief, and (2) being collectivist in nature.

The reason for the eventual defeat of fascism and Communism was the same as the reason for religion becoming corrupted: a system which necessitates individual sacrifice is not sustainable. For thousands of years, jahiliyah rule prevailed throughout the world precisely because it did not demand of its people moral and ideological fortitude. Meanwhile, hardly any prophets attained political power, and when they did, their righteous leadership lasted only until their deaths.

Fascism lasted just over 20 years (if we are to consider Mussolini's ascent to power as a starting point and the fall of Berlin as an end point). Communism lasted about 70 years. Meanwhile, liberalism has lasted over 200 years with no end in sight. The longevity of liberalism is inherent in that it demands the lowest possible level of morals, character, and discipline from its subjects. Instead of trying to create a new culture (which fascism, communism, and true religion all attempt to do), it derives its legitimacy from the existing, prevalent culture (the "21st century").

Although I believe Islam and Marxism are mutually exclusive, Marxist thought has made one important contribution to history: its focus on economics. Although Marx was wrong to say that economic forces are behind every historical event (every socialist revolution to date disproves that belief), he shed light on the fact that economics is pretty darn important. That's as far as I will go.

Ya Ali

I understand your point, but I do not view Marxism the same way you do. I view Marxism as eternal, all Ideologies are eternal. To me, in some cases, Politics and Religion are separate, unless you are Islamist.

1. I can be a Muslim and a Marxist at the Same time, but I can't FULLY accept everything Marx said. Some things he said were wrong. But I am a Marxist. Religiously, I am a Muslim. It's not like being a Christian and a Muslim at the same time, because, Islam, and Socialism, are in different category's. Basically, I believe that Many things Marx said were true. If you some it all up, not to be complicated, I am a Marxist. (Many Faithful Muslims were in the Soviet Communist Party's before Stalin). Lenin pointed out that Muslims can still be 'comrades' and they can practice their religion and build Mosques and their rights are protected by Soviet Rule. He even ordered that the historical Koran's that were looted by the Tsar were to be returned to the Muslim people.

2. I am not an Iranian, I am a Lebanese, but I usually do not recognize Nationality.

3. Communism did not Arise due to "Lack of Religion". Communism Arose due to the exploitation and unequal treatment of Workers, the Religious Sellouts of the Church, and Capitalism in General. The only reason many people reverted to Atheism, is due to the corrupt Churches of their time. And other Communists did so because of 'inspiration'.

Fascism arose from Corporations wanting more power, (obviously). Fascism is supercapitalism. What an ingenious way, to get your people fed up on Nationalism, and Ethnic supremacy, while they are being exploited by Corporations. I understand the world is not perfect, but the world can be far more perfect than it is now. You can't have a pie, and give nine people one piece and take the rest nine pieces for yourself! And use the excuse that "The world is not fair".

4. You are pretty misunderstood about the true meaning of Socialism, which, is to bring about Social Justice, to enlighten the exploited, to save the children dieing in Factory's, to save the people from starving, while the corporate Slave owners were throwing away food! If the prophets were alive today, would they not speak out against, against such injustice? The whole world is run on injustice, the Corporations and Banks literally control the minds of almost everyone, they dominate the average human's aspect of life, they control the Media, the Food you eat, EVERYTHING. Everyone is a SLAVE of the Bank. Wal-Mart employees, when they die, their life insurance is some times put into the hands of the Corporations, and the Slave owners take the money. The CEO of Wal-Mart refers to them as "Dead Peasants".

5. Explain how Communism lasted 70 years, that irrelevant, concluding that the Soviet Imperialists after Lenin were not EVEN COMMUNISTS. They were CAPITALISTS under a red banner. Is Islam dead because of the fall of the Turkish empire? Of course not! Communism never died, it is not a person! I have no Idea why people regard Ideals as having a life span. As long as they are written on paper, ALL Ideals are eternal. As are Religions. The POWER of ALL Things comes to an end ( Except the power of God). Soviet Power came to an end, Turkish power came to an end, and American power will come to an end. The Ideals, they will stay forever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

1. I can be a Muslim and a Marxist at the Same time, but I can't FULLY accept everything Marx said. Some things he said were wrong. But I am a Marxist. Religiously, I am a Muslim. It's not like being a Christian and a Muslim at the same time, because, Islam, and Socialism, are in different category's. Basically, I believe that Many things Marx said were true. If you some it all up, not to be complicated, I am a Marxist. (Many Faithful Muslims were in the Soviet Communist Party's before Stalin). Lenin pointed out that Muslims can still be 'comrades' and they can practice their religion and build Mosques and their rights are protected by Soviet Rule. He even ordered that the historical Koran's that were looted by the Tsar were to be returned to the Muslim people.

You are referring to the phenomenon of "national communism," which was an attempt by the Bolsheviks to draw the Muslim peoples of the former Russian Empire towards Communism by appealing to their nationalistic and religious sensibilities. The biggest figure in the national communist movement was the Tatar Bolshevik Mirza Sultan-Galiev. Galiev himself was an atheist, but he knew that the Bolsheviks could not be as violently opposed to Islam as they were to Christianity. So the Bolsheviks gave the Muslim lands of the former Russian Empire a considerable level of independence. However, was this out of charity toward Islam and Muslims? Or were there other motivations?

This much is certain:

(1) The religious sensibilities of the Central Asian and Caucasian Muslims meant that the Bolsheviks had to appeal to Islam whether they liked it or not.

(2) National Communism was a Civil War-era phenomenon. The Bolsheviks were dealing with Wrangel's Whites, the Poles, the Ukrainians, famine, and peasant revolts. They could not afford to "crack down" on Islam at that period in time.

And surely enough, as the Soviets consolidated their power in the Muslim lands of the former Russian Empire in the 1930s, a much more violent anti-Islam campaign was launched (which included the forced unveiling of women).

I am not an Iranian, I am a Lebanese, but I usually do not recognize Nationality.

Very well. Here is a partial translation of Shahid Motahari's book, Society and History:

Part I: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/sociology/

Part II: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/philo_hist_materialism/

Much of what I am about to say is taken from this book.

Fascism arose from Corporations wanting more power, (obviously). Fascism is supercapitalism. What an ingenious way, to get your people fed up on Nationalism, and Ethnic supremacy, while they are being exploited by Corporations. I understand the world is not perfect, but the world can be far more perfect than it is now. You can't have a pie, and give nine people one piece and take the rest nine pieces for yourself! And use the excuse that "The world is not fair".

Fascism is not supercapitalism. Where did you get such an idea? Fascism is nationalism + socialism. Capitalism is the subordination of every facet of human life to business concerns. Fascism is the subordination of every facet of human life to the state. Nationalsozialismus = National Socialism. Hitler criticized capitalism just as much as he criticized Communism. Mussolini was a socialist who used the support of workers to rise to power. "Socialism" is a broad term. Any system in which the socio-economic structure is subject to state control (or even heavy state regulation) can be described as socialism.

You are pretty misunderstood about the true meaning of Socialism, which, is to bring about Social Justice, to enlighten the exploited, to save the children dieing in Factory's, to save the people from starving, while the corporate Slave owners were throwing away food! If the prophets were alive today, would they not speak out against, against such injustice? The whole world is run on injustice, the Corporations and Banks literally control the minds of almost everyone, they dominate the average human's aspect of life, they control the Media, the Food you eat, EVERYTHING. Everyone is a SLAVE of the Bank. Wal-Mart employees, when they die, their life insurance is some times put into the hands of the Corporations, and the Slave owners take the money. The CEO of Wal-Mart refers to them as "Dead Peasants".

In fact, you are describing what is called "Utopian Socialism," which Marx and Engels were very much opposed to. "Utopian Socialism" is very simple: it arises out of human concern for the plight of the deprived classes, and the desire to create social justice. Utopian Socialism conflicts with historical materialism, because -- technically -- Utopian Socialism can exist (and has existed) in any period of time, in any type of society. But chief to Marx and Engels' historical materialism was that socialist revolution can only take place in an industrialized bourgeois-capitalist society. This was what they termed "Scientific Socialism," which they said would NECESSARILY arise out of social conditions. Remember: Marx and Engels had a determinist view of history. Without such a belief, you cannot rightly call yourself a Marxist. Read more here.

Explain how Communism lasted 70 years, that irrelevant, concluding that the Soviet Imperialists after Lenin were not EVEN COMMUNISTS. They were CAPITALISTS under a red banner. Is Islam dead because of the fall of the Turkish empire? Of course not! Communism never died, it is not a person! I have no Idea why people regard Ideals as having a life span. As long as they are written on paper, ALL Ideals are eternal. As are Religions. The POWER of ALL Things comes to an end ( Except the power of God). Soviet Power came to an end, Turkish power came to an end, and American power will come to an end. The Ideals, they will stay forever.

First of all, you can't dismiss everything you dislike as "capitalism." Fascism is not capitalism, nor is Soviet Communism.

Marx believed that after socialist revolution takes place, there would be a period which he called the "expropriation of the expropriators" (what Lenin would later call the "dictatorship of the proletariat"). This did take place in Soviet Russia: following the October Revolution, princes and princesses worked as snow shovelers and garbage collectors. Marx believed that socialism would be characterized by social ownership of the means of production, the most advanced form of which is STATE ownership (which also, quite clearly, took place in the Soviet Union). In the Communist Manifesto, Marx summed up Communism in a few words: the abolition of private property. The Soviet Union did eliminate most forms of private ownership. So what was so capitalistic about the Soviet Union?

Secondly, I consider any politically irrelevant ideology to be effectively dead, which is why I consider Communism as being dead.

Re: the Ottoman Turkish Empire. Yes, I do believe that Islam died along with the Ottoman Empire. But it has experienced a rebirth in recent years, with the Islamic Revolution of Iran, Hezbollah and Amal in Lebanon, Refah/AKP in Turkey, etc. Islam has regained its political relevance, so it is no longer dead.

Anyway, I think young people should be careful not to classify themselves as "Marxists" simply because of a Utopian desire to create social justice and a classless society. If Marxism were that simple, there would be no conflict between Marxism and Islam. But Marxism is not that simple. It is a very specific ideology. It is based on certain core principles which are illogical and fallacious: historical materialism, religion as a tool to oppress the proletariat, the abolition of private property, etc.

Ya Ali

Edited by baradar_jackson
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You are referring to the phenomenon of "national communism," which was an attempt by the Bolsheviks to draw the Muslim peoples of the former Russian Empire towards Communism by appealing to their nationalistic and religious sensibilities. The biggest figure in the national communist movement was the Tatar Bolshevik Mirza Sultan-Galiev. Galiev himself was an atheist, but he knew that the Bolsheviks could not be as violently opposed to Islam as they were to Christianity. So the Bolsheviks gave the Muslim lands of the former Russian Empire a considerable level of independence. However, was this out of charity toward Islam and Muslims? Or were there other motivations?

This much is certain:

(1) The religious sensibilities of the Central Asian and Caucasian Muslims meant that the Bolsheviks had to appeal to Islam whether they liked it or not.

(2) National Communism was a Civil War-era phenomenon. The Bolsheviks were dealing with Wrangel's Whites, the Poles, the Ukrainians, famine, and peasant revolts. They could not afford to "crack down" on Islam at that period in time.

And surely enough, as the Soviets consolidated their power in the Muslim lands of the former Russian Empire in the 1930s, a much more violent anti-Islam campaign was launched (which included the forced unveiling of women).

Very well. Here is a partial translation of Shahid Motahari's book, Society and History:

Part I: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/sociology/

Part II: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/philo_hist_materialism/

Much of what I am about to say is taken from this book.

Fascism is not supercapitalism. Where did you get such an idea? Fascism is nationalism + socialism. Capitalism is the subordination of every facet of human life to business concerns. Fascism is the subordination of every facet of human life to the state. Nationalsozialismus = National Socialism. Hitler criticized capitalism just as much as he criticized Communism. Mussolini was a socialist who used the support of workers to rise to power. "Socialism" is a broad term. Any system in which the socio-economic structure is subject to state control (or even heavy state regulation) can be described as socialism.

In fact, you are describing what is called "Utopian Socialism," which Marx and Engels were very much opposed to. "Utopian Socialism" is very simple: it arises out of human concern for the plight of the deprived classes, and the desire to create social justice. Utopian Socialism conflicts with historical materialism, because -- technically -- Utopian Socialism can exist (and has existed) in any period of time, in any type of society. But chief to Marx and Engels' historical materialism was that socialist revolution can only take place in an industrialized bourgeois-capitalist society. This was what they termed "Scientific Socialism," which they said would NECESSARILY arise out of social conditions. Remember: Marx and Engels had a determinist view of history. Without such a belief, you cannot rightly call yourself a Marxist. Read more here.

First of all, you can't dismiss everything you dislike as "capitalism." Fascism is not capitalism, nor is Soviet Communism.

Marx believed that after socialist revolution takes place, there would be a period which he called the "expropriation of the expropriators" (what Lenin would later call the "dictatorship of the proletariat"). This did take place in Soviet Russia: following the October Revolution, princes and princesses worked as snow shovelers and garbage collectors. Marx believed that socialism would be characterized by social ownership of the means of production, the most advanced form of which is STATE ownership (which also, quite clearly, took place in the Soviet Union). In the Communist Manifesto, Marx summed up Communism in a few words: the abolition of private property. The Soviet Union did eliminate most forms of private ownership. So what was so capitalistic about the Soviet Union?

Secondly, I consider any politically irrelevant ideology to be effectively dead, which is why I consider Communism as being dead.

Re: the Ottoman Turkish Empire. Yes, I do believe that Islam died along with the Ottoman Empire. But it has experienced a rebirth in recent years, with the Islamic Revolution of Iran, Hezbollah and Amal in Lebanon, Refah/AKP in Turkey, etc. Islam has regained its political relevance, so it is no longer dead.

Anyway, I think young people should be careful not to classify themselves as "Marxists" simply because of a Utopian desire to create social justice and a classless society. If Marxism were that simple, there would be no conflict between Marxism and Islam. But Marxism is not that simple. It is a very specific ideology. It is based on certain core principles which are illogical and fallacious: historical materialism, religion as a tool to oppress the proletariat, the abolition of private property, etc.

Ya Ali

Well, Religion was a tool to oppress people during the time.

And, Fascism is not National Socialism, Fascism is the complete opposite of such. The only Reason the Nazi's declared themselves National Socialists is due to the popularity of Socialism in Europe at the time. Some people think Fascism involves Socialism, but very little of Socialism. Fascism is in general, Super Capitalism.

I am not into Utopian Socialism. Marxism does not have to be completely specific, I AM a Marxist, at the very least bit, I am a Socialist. After Lenin, the Muslims started to be persecuted, you know this. By the way, Private Property was brought back to the Soviet Union, and Private Property first made it's appearance during WWII, after that, it just slowly got larger. The Soviets had Communist Ideas during Lenin's time, but all Communism was destroyed soon after his death. Like I said, Capitalism under a Red Banner (China). Marx agreed with Abolishing the exploitation of Workers, and probably would agree with the Abolishment of Modern Corporations. Since when was Fascism related to Socialism? Fascism is the complete Opposite of Marxism, and Socialism.

"Soviets consolidated their power in the Muslim lands of the former Russian Empire in the 1930s, a much more violent anti-Islam campaign was launched (which included the forced unveiling of women)." Yes, under Stalin, which, if you know, weakened Soviet Marxism.

Source: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=181

Yes, Soviet "Communism" is not Capitalism, because Soviet Communism never Existed! The Soviet Union, AFTER Lenin, was Capitalist under a red banner.

If such allegations are true, the 'all or nothing' Marxist Package, Than I declare myself to have many Marxist Views, and declare myself a Mixture between Socialism, Marxism, Leftism. But that's not how I view Marxism. Like I said, my view on Marxism is complicated, so to not be complicated, I call myself a Marxist, think, wouldn't it be ridiculous if my User name was: IslamicPersonWithSomeMarxistViewsButNotAllOfThem

Link to post
Share on other sites

barader_jackson:

You said:

"Since you wanted my view on communism, I will give it to you. My view on communism is the same as my view on fascism: they both arose as a result of the vacuum created by the lack of true religion.

When we look at the history of prophethood, we see that the prophets of the divine religions -- unlike the kings of the time -- did not want to be acknowledged as divine or semi-divine; rather, they wanted people to acknowledge that NO man is divine. They wanted people to submit to God, not to kings (or any other man, for that matter). They demanded outright faith from their subjects to a particular set of doctrines."

I think you have forgotten about the very much alive Russian Orthodox Church. Let's not get into an Islamo-centric debate about "true religion". The point of fact is that there was no religious vacuum.

A little bit of what happened is that there was a great war going on and Germany and Tsarist Russia were foes. The Tsarist army was failing and there was turmoil in Moscow and other major cities. To exploit and further the situation in Russia Germany deported Lenin to Russia. There with fiery speeches he became the center of the revolutionaries called the Bolsheviks, Russian for the majority, who were the Communists. Religion or lack of religion had very little to do with it but losing and suffering at war and an economy in the toilet plus an aloof Tsar served as a fertile ground for revolution.

"Fascism and Bolshevism/Communism were ideologies born out of the lack of divine religion. By permeating every facet of life, inventing new traditions, and demanding absolute loyalty (in action as well as in belief) to a particular ideology, fascism and Bolshevism filled the vacuum left empty by the lack of collectivist divine religion.

Now let me make myself very clear: I am not suggesting that fascism and Communism are manifestations of divine religion. I am only saying that fascism and Bolshevism were similar to divine religion (and different from jahiliyah/liberalism) in two respects: (1) demanding loyalty to certain doctrines in action as well as belief, and (2) being collectivist in nature."

We have dealt with the fallacy of a religious vacuum so we must remember that Russia became a Communist nation not a fascist one.

You went on to say:

"The rise of liberalism, aside from shunning personal virtues as outdated social norms, crushed the collective spirit of religion."

You state this as fact when it is your opinion and perhaps held by a few others without substantiation or collaboration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IslamicMarxist:

You said:

"I understand your point, but I do not view Marxism the same way you do. I view Marxism as eternal, all Ideologies are eternal. To me, in some cases, Politics and Religion are separate, unless you are Islamist."

Wow that is shockingno.gif Marxism eternal, all ideologies eternal, I believe only The Creator and the human soul are eternal. I believe nothing made by man is eternal and that church and state should always be separate.

"Communism did not Arise due to "Lack of Religion". Communism Arose due to the exploitation and unequal treatment of Workers, the Religious Sellouts of the Church, and Capitalism in General. The only reason many people reverted to Atheism, is due to the corrupt Churches of their time. And other Communists did so because of 'inspiration'. "

I am not an expert of Russian history but I have serious doubts about your claims relative to Religious Sellouts and corrupt churches".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Socialism at the very core of it simply asserts workers control over production. This is the underlining principle behind the whole concept. It is naturally a concept that should appeal to anyone who is even semi grounded in humanitarian values. The fall of Soviet Union is equated with the fall of socialism in the west and nothing could be further from the truth. Real socialist reforms that had been taking place in Russia were actually crushed by narrow and concentrated sources of power above. Soviet propaganda actually justified sweeping dictatorial reforms by claiming them to be socialist in nature. This is simply because socialism as a concept naturally appealed to Russian society and made the reforms easier to sell. The United States states at the same time started promoting socialism for the opposite reason, and this was to equate socialism to soviet dictatorship in an attempt to defame the concept at heart. This was also done so third world nations who were taking a liking to soviet socialist models could be deterred from pursuing these models which would help them gain independence and prosperity. Obviously this meant these poor nations would in the future stay subservient to US interests, refrain from nationalizing local resources so they can be exploited by US corporations.

Democratic socialism is really the most sensible way forward. South America is already headed in this direction and literally serves as a model to the rest of the world. After the worlds disastrous experiment with capitalism, more and more people are leaning towards genuine socialist reforms. This means peoples control over production, there is no central concentration of authority here, the state becomes a mechanism to manage nationalized resources but the management remains with the people for the people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism at the very core of it simply asserts workers control over production. This is the underlining principle behind the whole concept. It is naturally a concept that should appeal to anyone who is even semi grounded in humanitarian values. The fall of Soviet Union is equated with the fall of socialism in the west and nothing could be further from the truth. Real socialist reforms that had been taking place in Russia were actually crushed by narrow and concentrated sources of power above. Soviet propaganda actually justified sweeping dictatorial reforms by claiming them to be socialist in nature. This is simply because socialism as a concept naturally appealed to Russian society and made the reforms easier to sell. The United States states at the same time started promoting socialism for the opposite reason, and this was to equate socialism to soviet dictatorship in an attempt to defame the concept at heart. This was also done so third world nations who were taking a liking to soviet socialist models could be deterred from pursuing these models which would help them gain independence and prosperity. Obviously this meant these poor nations would in the future stay subservient to US interests, refrain from nationalizing local resources so they can be exploited by US corporations.

Democratic socialism is really the most sensible way forward. South America is already headed in this direction and literally serves as a model to the rest of the world. After the worlds disastrous experiment with capitalism, more and more people are leaning towards genuine socialist reforms. This means peoples control over production, there is no central concentration of authority here, the state becomes a mechanism to manage nationalized resources but the management remains with the people for the people.

Okay lets take a look at this.

Was there private property in the USSR?

Who owned all means of production in the USSR "the people" or "the state"?

If your answer to the question above is "the people" what is the differeence between "the people" owning it and "the state"?

In the USSR how did citizens pick where to live? In the USSR who determined wages?

Why did the USSR erect a wall accross Berlin? To keep people out or to keep people in?

In the USSR who determined who could seek higher education and where.?

Who owned the printing presses in the USSR?

In a Socialist nation who owns the means of production?

In a Communist nation who owns the means of the production?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I am not an expert of Russian history but I have serious doubts about your claims relative to Religious Sellouts and corrupt churches

The Russian Orthodox Church was in fact highly corrupt. Even though Russia's peasantry was highly traditional and religious, the Church did not enjoy much legitimacy amongst the masses.

I think you have forgotten about the very much alive Russian Orthodox Church. Let's not get into an Islamo-centric debate about "true religion". The point of fact is that there was no religious vacuum.

A little bit of what happened is that there was a great war going on and Germany and Tsarist Russia were foes. The Tsarist army was failing and there was turmoil in Moscow and other major cities. To exploit and further the situation in Russia Germany deported Lenin to Russia. There with fiery speeches he became the center of the revolutionaries called the Bolsheviks, Russian for the majority, who were the Communists. Religion or lack of religion had very little to do with it but losing and suffering at war and an economy in the toilet plus an aloof Tsar served as a fertile ground for revolution.

(1) The Russian Orthodox Church, as I have already mentioned, lacked legitimacy. They simply served to legitimate the Tsar.

(2) I am not arguing that the lack of religion was the cause of this revolution or that revolution. I am saying that it was what caused the formation of non-religious COLLECTIVIST ideologies, such as Communism and fascism.

(3) The Tsar abdicated in February 1917. Lenin was freed from German prison in April 1917. By the time Lenin returned to Russia, the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets (Soviet means "Council" in Russian) had already become a major political force.

We have dealt with the fallacy of a religious vacuum so we must remember that Russia became a Communist nation not a fascist one.

And as you can see, I am saying that the cause of the two are the same.

You state this as fact when it is your opinion and perhaps held by a few others without substantiation or collaboration.

Yes, I do. I think it goes without saying that the things I say are my opinions. Whose else's opinions would they be?

Socialism at the very core of it simply asserts workers control over production.

Not true brother.

Marx stated that the most advanced form of social ownership was state ownership. Lenin said the same.

Also, workers' control over production is not such a great thing. I think the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets stands testament to that.

When Lenin returned to Russia in April 1917, what did he say? "All power to the Soviets." The Workers' Soviets meant that factories had no managers. The workplace lacked discipline. The Soldiers' Soviets were even worse; when orders were given to advance, soldiers would sit and have debates about it! The grassroots Soviet democracy was disastrous. It was good for working class revenge and nothing more. The centralization of the economy -- with all its inherent cruelty -- was necessary, and what's more is that it was perfectly in keeping with scientific socialism, which calls for state ownership of the means of production.

Seriously, if communism was as generic as yall are saying, then you would have to ignore pretty much everything Marx, Engels, or Lenin has ever written.

Edited by baradar_jackson
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

IslamicMarxist:

You said:

"I understand your point, but I do not view Marxism the same way you do. I view Marxism as eternal, all Ideologies are eternal. To me, in some cases, Politics and Religion are separate, unless you are Islamist."

Wow that is shockingno.gif Marxism eternal, all ideologies eternal, I believe only The Creator and the human soul are eternal. I believe nothing made by man is eternal and that church and state should always be separate.

"Communism did not Arise due to "Lack of Religion". Communism Arose due to the exploitation and unequal treatment of Workers, the Religious Sellouts of the Church, and Capitalism in General. The only reason many people reverted to Atheism, is due to the corrupt Churches of their time. And other Communists did so because of 'inspiration'. "

I am not an expert of Russian history but I have serious doubts about your claims relative to Religious Sellouts and corrupt churches".

When I say all Ideologies are Eternal, I mean, that as long as they are written on paper, as long as you have access to reading and learning about them, they are eternal, but if some big catastrophic event happened, of course, than they would all die. But they don't die with their 'beholders'. They die through the education dieing.

And, the Russian Orthodox Church, and many others, were EXTREMELY corrupt. Even in America, the churches are extremely Corrupt. They were sellouts. I'm not saying all churches are, but the Orthodox Russian Church was DEFINITELY corrupt.

Socialism at the very core of it simply asserts workers control over production. This is the underlining principle behind the whole concept. It is naturally a concept that should appeal to anyone who is even semi grounded in humanitarian values. The fall of Soviet Union is equated with the fall of socialism in the west and nothing could be further from the truth. Real socialist reforms that had been taking place in Russia were actually crushed by narrow and concentrated sources of power above. Soviet propaganda actually justified sweeping dictatorial reforms by claiming them to be socialist in nature. This is simply because socialism as a concept naturally appealed to Russian society and made the reforms easier to sell. The United States states at the same time started promoting socialism for the opposite reason, and this was to equate socialism to soviet dictatorship in an attempt to defame the concept at heart. This was also done so third world nations who were taking a liking to soviet socialist models could be deterred from pursuing these models which would help them gain independence and prosperity. Obviously this meant these poor nations would in the future stay subservient to US interests, refrain from nationalizing local resources so they can be exploited by US corporations.

Democratic socialism is really the most sensible way forward. South America is already headed in this direction and literally serves as a model to the rest of the world. After the worlds disastrous experiment with capitalism, more and more people are leaning towards genuine socialist reforms. This means peoples control over production, there is no central concentration of authority here, the state becomes a mechanism to manage nationalized resources but the management remains with the people for the people.

You took the words out of my mouth with the whole Soviet deal. But for me, I am looking for more of a Revolutionary Socialism. I hold the belief, that in the West, if Socialism was put into place, their needs to be a COMPLETE change in the system, through a Revolutionary force. And for America, the CEO's of all the big corporations (Mcdonalds, Coke) and the Big Bankers should be sent to work camps in Alaska.

Okay lets take a look at this.

Was there private property in the USSR?

Who owned all means of production in the USSR "the people" or "the state"?

If your answer to the question above is "the people" what is the differeence between "the people" owning it and "the state"?

In the USSR how did citizens pick where to live? In the USSR who determined wages?

Why did the USSR erect a wall accross Berlin? To keep people out or to keep people in?

In the USSR who determined who could seek higher education and where.?

Who owned the printing presses in the USSR?

In a Socialist nation who owns the means of production?

In a Communist nation who owns the means of the production?

Any Expert on Marxism would agree, the Soviet Union was far from Socialist. Yes, their WAS private property in the USSR, corporations began to emerge, the country became Imperialist( Against all forms of Socialism). Yeah, the USSR didn't want anyone to get out, what does that have to do with Socialism? The USSR was Capitalist under a red banner. You can't just be like China, and declare one part of the country Socialist and one Capitalist, because that just means BIGGER Capitalism.

The Russian Orthodox Church was in fact highly corrupt. Even though Russia's peasantry was highly traditional and religious, the Church did not enjoy much legitimacy amongst the masses.

(1) The Russian Orthodox Church, as I have already mentioned, lacked legitimacy. They simply served to legitimate the Tsar.

(2) I am not arguing that the lack of religion was the cause of this revolution or that revolution. I am saying that it was what caused the formation of non-religious COLLECTIVIST ideologies, such as Communism and fascism.

(3) The Tsar abdicated in February 1917. Lenin was freed from German prison in April 1917. By the time Lenin returned to Russia, the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets (Soviet means "Council" in Russian) had already become a major political force.

And as you can see, I am saying that the cause of the two are the same.

Yes, I do. I think it goes without saying that the things I say are my opinions. Whose else's opinions would they be?

Not true brother.

Marx stated that the most advanced form of social ownership was state ownership. Lenin said the same.

Also, workers' control over production is not such a great thing. I think the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets stands testament to that.

When Lenin returned to Russia in April 1917, what did he say? "All power to the Soviets." The Workers' Soviets meant that factories had no managers. The workplace lacked discipline. The Soldiers' Soviets were even worse; when orders were given to advance, soldiers would sit and have debates about it! The grassroots Soviet democracy was disastrous. It was good for working class revenge and nothing more. The centralization of the economy -- with all its inherent cruelty -- was necessary, and what's more is that it was perfectly in keeping with scientific socialism, which calls for state ownership of the means of production.

Seriously, if communism was as generic as yall are saying, then you would have to ignore pretty much everything Marx, Engels, or Lenin has ever written.

Well look at it this way, if the State controlled the means of production, why not have the state be controlled by the people? Isn't that what Socialism is made for? The power for the People. If the State was run by the People, that would mean, the Workers are controlling their own Factory's. It was Alexander Kerensky who overthrew the Tsar, but Kerensky wanted to continue his war against Germany, something which the Workers and Soldiers opposed, so due to Kerensky's failure to meet up with the People's needs, the Bolsheviks overthrew him.

The Russian Orthodox Church was in fact highly corrupt. Even though Russia's peasantry was highly traditional and religious, the Church did not enjoy much legitimacy amongst the masses.

(1) The Russian Orthodox Church, as I have already mentioned, lacked legitimacy. They simply served to legitimate the Tsar.

(2) I am not arguing that the lack of religion was the cause of this revolution or that revolution. I am saying that it was what caused the formation of non-religious COLLECTIVIST ideologies, such as Communism and fascism.

(3) The Tsar abdicated in February 1917. Lenin was freed from German prison in April 1917. By the time Lenin returned to Russia, the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets (Soviet means "Council" in Russian) had already become a major political force.

And as you can see, I am saying that the cause of the two are the same.

Yes, I do. I think it goes without saying that the things I say are my opinions. Whose else's opinions would they be?

Not true brother.

Marx stated that the most advanced form of social ownership was state ownership. Lenin said the same.

Also, workers' control over production is not such a great thing. I think the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets stands testament to that.

When Lenin returned to Russia in April 1917, what did he say? "All power to the Soviets." The Workers' Soviets meant that factories had no managers. The workplace lacked discipline. The Soldiers' Soviets were even worse; when orders were given to advance, soldiers would sit and have debates about it! The grassroots Soviet democracy was disastrous. It was good for working class revenge and nothing more. The centralization of the economy -- with all its inherent cruelty -- was necessary, and what's more is that it was perfectly in keeping with scientific socialism, which calls for state ownership of the means of production.

Seriously, if communism was as generic as yall are saying, then you would have to ignore pretty much everything Marx, Engels, or Lenin has ever written.

Bonofide wasn't mentioning Communism, he was Talking about Socialism. Communism is a Branch of Socialism, but Fascism has nothing at all to do with true Socialism, Fascism is Capitalism in Decay. The real cause of Fascism, is Capitalism in decay, it is, Racism, Ethnic Supremacy, National Supremacy, and an aggressive attitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Marxist Communism is a philosophy as much as it is an economic system. The end-goal of Marxist or Communist revolution is species-being. Anyone who understands anything about this notion knows that Marxism is incompatible with Islam. Now, socialist elements can be reconciled with the religion, but referring to oneself as a Marxist entails that you subscribe to the philosophy. It is better to say that you subscribe to Marxian economics or state socialism than you do to Marxism more generally if you are attempting to reconcile the two.

I just follow the religion. I don't try to reconcile it with ideologies. If anything, I ask how particular ideologies fit within Islam.

Edited by asphyxiated
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Marxist Communism is a philosophy as much as it is an economic system. The end-goal of Marxist or Communist revolution is species-being. Anyone who understands anything about this notion knows that Marxism is incompatible with Islam. Now, socialist elements can be reconciled with the religion, but referring to oneself as a Marxist entails that you subscribe to the philosophy. It is better to say that you subscribe to Marxian economics or state socialism than you do to Marxism more generally if you are attempting to reconcile the two.

I just follow the religion. I don't try to reconcile it with ideologies. If anything, I ask how particular ideologies fit within Islam.

Mashallah, that was very well put, especially the last line.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I understand your point, but I do not view Marxism the same way you do. I view Marxism as eternal, all Ideologies are eternal. To me, in some cases, Politics and Religion are separate, unless you are Islamist.

1. I can be a Muslim and a Marxist at the Same time, but I can't FULLY accept everything Marx said. Some things he said were wrong. But I am a Marxist. Religiously, I am a Muslim. It's not like being a Christian and a Muslim at the same time, because, Islam, and Socialism, are in different category's. Basically, I believe that Many things Marx said were true. If you some it all up, not to be complicated, I am a Marxist. (Many Faithful Muslims were in the Soviet Communist Party's before Stalin). Lenin pointed out that Muslims can still be 'comrades' and they can practice their religion and build Mosques and their rights are protected by Soviet Rule. He even ordered that the historical Koran's that were looted by the Tsar were to be returned to the Muslim people.

2. I am not an Iranian, I am a Lebanese, but I usually do not recognize Nationality.

3. Communism did not Arise due to "Lack of Religion". Communism Arose due to the exploitation and unequal treatment of Workers, the Religious Sellouts of the Church, and Capitalism in General. The only reason many people reverted to Atheism, is due to the corrupt Churches of their time. And other Communists did so because of 'inspiration'.

Fascism arose from Corporations wanting more power, (obviously). Fascism is supercapitalism. What an ingenious way, to get your people fed up on Nationalism, and Ethnic supremacy, while they are being exploited by Corporations. I understand the world is not perfect, but the world can be far more perfect than it is now. You can't have a pie, and give nine people one piece and take the rest nine pieces for yourself! And use the excuse that "The world is not fair".

4. You are pretty misunderstood about the true meaning of Socialism, which, is to bring about Social Justice, to enlighten the exploited, to save the children dieing in Factory's, to save the people from starving, while the corporate Slave owners were throwing away food! If the prophets were alive today, would they not speak out against, against such injustice? The whole world is run on injustice, the Corporations and Banks literally control the minds of almost everyone, they dominate the average human's aspect of life, they control the Media, the Food you eat, EVERYTHING. Everyone is a SLAVE of the Bank. Wal-Mart employees, when they die, their life insurance is some times put into the hands of the Corporations, and the Slave owners take the money. The CEO of Wal-Mart refers to them as "Dead Peasants".

5. Explain how Communism lasted 70 years, that irrelevant, concluding that the Soviet Imperialists after Lenin were not EVEN COMMUNISTS. They were CAPITALISTS under a red banner. Is Islam dead because of the fall of the Turkish empire? Of course not! Communism never died, it is not a person! I have no Idea why people regard Ideals as having a life span. As long as they are written on paper, ALL Ideals are eternal. As are Religions. The POWER of ALL Things comes to an end ( Except the power of God). Soviet Power came to an end, Turkish power came to an end, and American power will come to an end. The Ideals, they will stay forever.

Totally nonsense! Decades after the death of Soviet Union and atrocities done by them now here is somebody telling us how different these ignorant socialist-communists were? Like we lived in another planet and do not know anything? We in Islam do not need any social, justice or social justice introduced by Marx or some other murtad. Islam is complete in all basis and in all aspects. One thing for sure this Zionist piece of propaganda (Communism/Socialism) lacks is a judicial system and order. It is a failed ideology who could not see anything except claiming in saving some workers and farmers ass and all that in expense of destroying millions of other workers and innocent people.

After all the arguments of calling 'religion' a tool of rich to oppress the poor, and a world without order or without God based in materialistic ideas, you are coming from nowhere to attach this Islam with the dirty name of Marxist. Islamic Marxist is nothing but to fool a few Muslims to get along their rank and then once they are there, then to take away religion from them fully. These tactic were used by Communists in Afghanistan, in Iran and in Pakistan and in many Kurdish regions by various groups. MKO, the Iranian terrorist group is one of the giant groups of the so called Marxist-Islamists who was exposed over and over again and their claim of "Islam" was totally a trap and anti-Islam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Totally nonsense! Decades after the death of Soviet Union and atrocities done by them now here is somebody telling us how different these ignorant socialist-communists were? Like we lived in another planet and do not know anything? We in Islam do not need any social, justice or social justice introduced by Marx or some other murtad. Islam is complete in all basis and in all aspects. One thing for sure this Zionist piece of propaganda (Communism/Socialism) lacks is a judicial system and order. It is a failed ideology who could not see anything except claiming in saving some workers and farmers ass and all that in expense of destroying millions of other workers and innocent people.

After all the arguments of calling 'religion' a tool of rich to oppress the poor, and a world without order or without God based in materialistic ideas, you are coming from nowhere to attach this Islam with the dirty name of Marxist. Islamic Marxist is nothing but to fool a few Muslims to get along their rank and then once they are there, then to take away religion from them fully. These tactic were used by Communists in Afghanistan, in Iran and in Pakistan and in many Kurdish regions by various groups. MKO, the Iranian terrorist group is one of the giant groups of the so called Marxist-Islamists who was exposed over and over again and their claim of "Islam" was totally a trap and anti-Islam.

Those Iranians are not Marxists, they are Mercenaries pretending to be Marxist.

Zionist Propaganda?

Where did Zionism come into this? Are you some kind of Neo-Fascist who believes that Communism is a Jewish conspiracy? I think you should go on 'Stormfront' and join your fellow anti Semite Fascists. Their are Zionists on Stormfront too for you. Zionism = Fascism, I don't know how you can relate it to any form of Marxism.

You fail to realize that the Soviet Union was not Communist at all after Lenin. So Soviet Afghanistan, was just a Capitalist Proxy for them. Even Che Guevara said that the Soviet Union implants Capitalism into other countries so THEY will strive. I'm sick and tired of people like you bringing the Soviets into this. It's so ignorant.

Totally nonsense! Decades after the death of Soviet Union and atrocities done by them now here is somebody telling us how different these ignorant socialist-communists were? Like we lived in another planet and do not know anything? We in Islam do not need any social, justice or social justice introduced by Marx or some other murtad. Islam is complete in all basis and in all aspects. One thing for sure this Zionist piece of propaganda (Communism/Socialism) lacks is a judicial system and order. It is a failed ideology who could not see anything except claiming in saving some workers and farmers ass and all that in expense of destroying millions of other workers and innocent people.

After all the arguments of calling 'religion' a tool of rich to oppress the poor, and a world without order or without God based in materialistic ideas, you are coming from nowhere to attach this Islam with the dirty name of Marxist. Islamic Marxist is nothing but to fool a few Muslims to get along their rank and then once they are there, then to take away religion from them fully. These tactic were used by Communists in Afghanistan, in Iran and in Pakistan and in many Kurdish regions by various groups. MKO, the Iranian terrorist group is one of the giant groups of the so called Marxist-Islamists who was exposed over and over again and their claim of "Islam" was totally a trap and anti-Islam.

The Ottoman Empire committed countless atrocities, were those atrocities Islamic ones to Benefit the Islamic Ummah, or ones to benefit the Turkish People? Were Soviet Atrocities Communist ones to benefit the International Oppressed , or ones to benefit the RUSSIAN people. You fail to understand Communism brother.

Totally nonsense! Decades after the death of Soviet Union and atrocities done by them now here is somebody telling us how different these ignorant socialist-communists were? Like we lived in another planet and do not know anything? We in Islam do not need any social, justice or social justice introduced by Marx or some other murtad. Islam is complete in all basis and in all aspects. One thing for sure this Zionist piece of propaganda (Communism/Socialism) lacks is a judicial system and order. It is a failed ideology who could not see anything except claiming in saving some workers and farmers ass and all that in expense of destroying millions of other workers and innocent people.

After all the arguments of calling 'religion' a tool of rich to oppress the poor, and a world without order or without God based in materialistic ideas, you are coming from nowhere to attach this Islam with the dirty name of Marxist. Islamic Marxist is nothing but to fool a few Muslims to get along their rank and then once they are there, then to take away religion from them fully. These tactic were used by Communists in Afghanistan, in Iran and in Pakistan and in many Kurdish regions by various groups. MKO, the Iranian terrorist group is one of the giant groups of the so called Marxist-Islamists who was exposed over and over again and their claim of "Islam" was totally a trap and anti-Islam.

Was ISLAM a failure because the Ottoman empire collapsed? Was ISLAM a dead Ideology, a failure?

Speaking of Iran, ever notice their only Allies are at the least, Socialists?

Totally nonsense! Decades after the death of Soviet Union and atrocities done by them now here is somebody telling us how different these ignorant socialist-communists were? Like we lived in another planet and do not know anything? We in Islam do not need any social, justice or social justice introduced by Marx or some other murtad. Islam is complete in all basis and in all aspects. One thing for sure this Zionist piece of propaganda (Communism/Socialism) lacks is a judicial system and order. It is a failed ideology who could not see anything except claiming in saving some workers and farmers ass and all that in expense of destroying millions of other workers and innocent people.

After all the arguments of calling 'religion' a tool of rich to oppress the poor, and a world without order or without God based in materialistic ideas, you are coming from nowhere to attach this Islam with the dirty name of Marxist. Islamic Marxist is nothing but to fool a few Muslims to get along their rank and then once they are there, then to take away religion from them fully. These tactic were used by Communists in Afghanistan, in Iran and in Pakistan and in many Kurdish regions by various groups. MKO, the Iranian terrorist group is one of the giant groups of the so called Marxist-Islamists who was exposed over and over again and their claim of "Islam" was totally a trap and anti-Islam.

Wait a minute, doesn't the so-called Al-Queda use Religion as a tool to kill innocents? Let's not deny that Religion is sometimes used in the wrong hands, to make money, or to kill people. Under your logic, Pat Robertson does not use Religion as a tool to get rich? Religion was created to guide humanity to God, to show them the true ways, but some people, like Tsar Nicholas II and the King of Saudi Arabia, use it to gain Power and Money. This is undeniable!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Okay lets take a look at this.

Was there private property in the USSR?

Who owned all means of production in the USSR "the people" or "the state"?

If your answer to the question above is "the people" what is the differeence between "the people" owning it and "the state"?

In the USSR how did citizens pick where to live? In the USSR who determined wages?

Why did the USSR erect a wall accross Berlin? To keep people out or to keep people in?

In the USSR who determined who could seek higher education and where.?

Who owned the printing presses in the USSR?

In a Socialist nation who owns the means of production?

In a Communist nation who owns the means of the production?

Maybe you should reread my post? Did I anywhere in my post state that soviet union had become a socialist nation? All I said was that the Russian masses sought out socialism as a solution and wide spread attempts by them to enlist socialist reforms were eventually crushed from above. I clearly stated that equating Soviet fall to fall of socialism is wrong because Russia was not a socialist state, it was the exact opposite, working people had no control over anything. The state propaganda machine used socialism to justify its actions since socialism had strong moral appeal to the general public. If anything, the fall of Soviet Union was a victory for socialism.

Not true brother.

Marx stated that the most advanced form of social ownership was state ownership. Lenin said the same.

Also, workers' control over production is not such a great thing. I think the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets stands testament to that.

When Lenin returned to Russia in April 1917, what did he say? "All power to the Soviets." The Workers' Soviets meant that factories had no managers. The workplace lacked discipline. The Soldiers' Soviets were even worse; when orders were given to advance, soldiers would sit and have debates about it! The grassroots Soviet democracy was disastrous. It was good for working class revenge and nothing more. The centralization of the economy -- with all its inherent cruelty -- was necessary, and what's more is that it was perfectly in keeping with scientific socialism, which calls for state ownership of the means of production.

Seriously, if communism was as generic as yall are saying, then you would have to ignore pretty much everything Marx, Engels, or Lenin has ever written.

Marx or Lennin do not have a monopoly over what constitutes socialism. In fact if you consider Lennin, Everyone considered Lennin to be a very right wing deviation of socialism, this isnt even a disputed fact. When he came back in 1917, he did take a more libertarian stance to gain appeal, but when he actually took power during what really should be called a coup and not a revolution in 1917, the immediate step was to get rid of factory councils across the board. That is pretty much uprooting socialism from its core. As soon as taking over power, Lennin had reverted back to his original unpopular position. This whole prevailing notion after Lennin took power of a "disciplined labour army" subjected to a single figurehead above couldn't have been any further from what socialism is. In fact these were seeds which led to outright totalitarianism down the road. A trend which obviously had nothing to do with communism or anything Karl Marx proposed.

When Marx talks about state ownership, he doesn't refer to it the way most of us do. State ownership today is synonymous with a highly centralized, highly concentrated control over resources, capital and labour. This is far from what Marx visualized, this is outright totalitarianism and these are precisely the misconceptions that give communism and socialism a bad name. I am not one for communism, but a lot of Marx's analysis , insight and predictions were spot on. The sad thing is that although Lennin and co might have claimed to have been inspired by his works, in practice what they created was as far away from socialism as you can imagine and certainly also not in line with Marx's communist principles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Those Iranians are not Marxists, they are Mercenaries pretending to be Marxist.

Zionist Propaganda?

Where did Zionism come into this? Are you some kind of Neo-Fascist who believes that Communism is a Jewish conspiracy? I think you should go on 'Stormfront' and join your fellow anti Semite Fascists. Their are Zionists on Stormfront too for you. Zionism = Fascism, I don't know how you can relate it to any form of Marxism.

You fail to realize that the Soviet Union was not Communist at all after Lenin. So Soviet Afghanistan, was just a Capitalist Proxy for them. Even Che Guevara said that the Soviet Union implants Capitalism into other countries so THEY will strive. I'm sick and tired of people like you bringing the Soviets into this. It's so ignorant.

The Ottoman Empire committed countless atrocities, were those atrocities Islamic ones to Benefit the Islamic Ummah, or ones to benefit the Turkish People? Were Soviet Atrocities Communist ones to benefit the International Oppressed , or ones to benefit the RUSSIAN people. You fail to understand Communism brother.

Was ISLAM a failure because the Ottoman empire collapsed? Was ISLAM a dead Ideology, a failure?

Speaking of Iran, ever notice their only Allies are at the least, Socialists?

1. Do not quote my reply many times. Short the post.

2. You are defending socialism and comparing it in a way that if we were the ones who called to impose Islam on non Muslim Socialists. NO! We only respond to the so called Islamic Marxist, trying to impose Marxism on Muslims in claiming that Islam needs socialism and how good they are. You are free to have your socialism in Venezuela or in Cuba or anywhere. You don't have Islam there, you are in need of such a system or some other systems to govern those countries. But, stay away for attaching "Islam" with "Marxism" or else you are from those you call them "Mercenaries" pretending to be Muslims.

3. You did not go through main points I made, except defending Russia, and God knows from where you compare Ottoman that I have nothing to do with, with Soviets. And telling us how Iran likes socialist countries. Yes, it does because of socialist folks are moving Iran toward this disaster... making her to fight the world and leaves only the doors of socialist countries open.

Again,

We in Islam do not need any social, justice or social justice introduced by Marx or some other murtad. Islam is complete in all basis and in all aspects. One thing for sure this Zionist piece of propaganda (Communism/Socialism) lacks is a judicial system and order. It is a failed ideology who could not see anything except claiming in saving some workers and farmers ass and all that in expense of destroying millions of other workers and innocent people.

After all the arguments of calling 'religion' a tool of rich to oppress the poor, and a world without order or without God based in materialistic ideas, you are coming from nowhere to attach this Islam with the dirty name of Marxist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Marx or Lennin do not have a monopoly over what constitutes socialism. In fact if you consider Lennin, Everyone considered Lennin to be a very right wing deviation of socialism, this isnt even a disputed fact. When he came back in 1917, he did take a more libertarian stance to gain appeal, but when he actually took power during what really should be called a coup and not a revolution in 1917, the immediate step was to get rid of factory councils across the board. That is pretty much uprooting socialism from its core. As soon as taking over power, Lennin had reverted back to his original unpopular position. This whole prevailing notion after Lennin took power of a "disciplined labour army" subjected to a single figurehead above couldn't have been any further from what socialism is. In fact these were seeds which led to outright totalitarianism down the road. A trend which obviously had nothing to do with communism or anything Karl Marx proposed.

When Marx talks about state ownership, he doesn't refer to it the way most of us do. State ownership today is synonymous with a highly centralized, highly concentrated control over resources, capital and labour. This is far from what Marx visualized, this is outright totalitarianism and these are precisely the misconceptions that give communism and socialism a bad name. I am not one for communism, but a lot of Marx's analysis , insight and predictions were spot on. The sad thing is that although Lennin and co might have claimed to have been inspired by his works, in practice what they created was as far away from socialism as you can imagine and certainly also not in line with Marx's communist principles.

As I said, socialism is a broad term. Fascism is a form of socialism, Bathism is a form of socialism, and even some current day European liberals could be considered socialists.

But most forms of socialism fall under the category of Utopian Socialism.

Scientific socialism is an idea first espoused by Marx/Engels, and later elaborated upon by Lenin. So they do have the monopoly over it.

The notion of the October Revolution being a coup is something which is completely and utterly false. This myth is perpetuated by people like Richard Pipes, who reduces the rise of Bolshevism in Russia to Russia being Eastern and thus accustomed to autocracy and dictatorship. There is a certain element of pompous Western self-satisfaction in that belief, but I will leave that for another discussion.

In fact, the October Revolution had a lot of support among Russia's workers and landless peasants. The Bolsheviks had always had firm support amongst the workers of Moscow and Petrograd (Russia's largest and most "European" cities). And this was before the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries -- the party with the most support from amongst the peasants -- completely severed ties with the Bolsheviks. One of the main reasons for the collapse of Tsarist Russia was the discontent over the continuation of the war. And yet, Kerensky's provisional government wanted to continue the war. The Bolsheviks promised to end it. In short, that's how they won over the Russian masses (yes, they actually won them over).

The disbanding of the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets should not be considered part of a previously-planned plot by Lenin to institute a totalitarian system. Rather, these were natural reactions to the ineffectiveness of the system. By 1918, the Civil War had started, and the Bolshevik government was just one of 30 in the lands of the former Russian Empire. The Bolsheviks needed to put their army into fighting condition, and put all of their economy on a war footing. This required one-man factory management, grain requisitions, and the de-democratization of the army.

Without these changes, Soviet Russia would surely have fallen. So they did these things not because that was their vision of socialism, but out of necessity. Lenin later admitted that he and his comrades wrongly assumed -- prior to coming to power -- that governing was the easiest of possible tasks, and that they were forced to do many things they never thought necessary. For example: they thought proleterian revolution would spread to all the countries of Europe and they would have no need for an army.

The definition of "right" and "left" differ from system to system, so I won't comment on Lenin being "right wing." For example: Gorbachev's perestroika reforms would be considered "right wing" in many countries (the economic aspect of them, anyway), but in the Soviet Union they were considered "left wing."

Ya Ali

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

1. Do not quote my reply many times. Short the post.

2. You are defending socialism and comparing it in a way that if we were the ones who called to impose Islam on non Muslim Socialists. NO! We only respond to the so called Islamic Marxist, trying to impose Marxism on Muslims in claiming that Islam needs socialism and how good they are. You are free to have your socialism in Venezuela or in Cuba or anywhere. You don't have Islam there, you are in need of such a system or some other systems to govern those countries. But, stay away for attaching "Islam" with "Marxism" or else you are from those you call them "Mercenaries" pretending to be Muslims.

3. You did not go through main points I made, except defending Russia, and God knows from where you compare Ottoman that I have nothing to do with, with Soviets. And telling us how Iran likes socialist countries. Yes, it does because of socialist folks are moving Iran toward this disaster... making her to fight the world and leaves only the doors of socialist countries open.

Again,

Well BROTHER that was my damn point, I always say, Islamism for the Ummah and Marxism for the Non Muslims! That was my whole point! Imposing Marxism on Muslim Nations is absurd! I say we should only Have ISLAM in the middle east, no CAPITALISM. And for the rest of the world, MARXISM, since we do not force ISLAM on non MUSLIMS. Why can't Socialists and Muslims unite against the oppressors? We have a common cause!

I live in the UK! I am a Marxist and a Muslim, but I believe that the Muslim Nations need Islamic Revolutions because they don't need Marxism, since they have Islam, but that doesn't mean you go on about Bashing it, it is actually a great Ideal! I think that instead of trying to have a Capitalist Islamic system, why not MORE of a Socialist one, NO that doesn't mean SOCIALISM, but aspects of Socialism, such as Universal Health care, and education ect. ect. Iran is friends with Socialist Nations because they are the only ones who experienced US imperialism, and since they went through such a horrible phase, they want Iran and the Muslims to win against the Imperialists, since they were defeated!

Some Marxists would say "I don't know why you bring in the Soviet Union which I have nothing to do with!" Same thing! Unless you believe that Islam failed because of the Ottoman empire, you cannot accept that Marxism failed because of the Capitalist Soviet Russia.

Maybe you should reread my post? Did I anywhere in my post state that soviet union had become a socialist nation? All I said was that the Russian masses sought out socialism as a solution and wide spread attempts by them to enlist socialist reforms were eventually crushed from above. I clearly stated that equating Soviet fall to fall of socialism is wrong because Russia was not a socialist state, it was the exact opposite, working people had no control over anything. The state propaganda machine used socialism to justify its actions since socialism had strong moral appeal to the general public. If anything, the fall of Soviet Union was a victory for socialism.

Marx or Lennin do not have a monopoly over what constitutes socialism. In fact if you consider Lennin, Everyone considered Lennin to be a very right wing deviation of socialism, this isnt even a disputed fact. When he came back in 1917, he did take a more libertarian stance to gain appeal, but when he actually took power during what really should be called a coup and not a revolution in 1917, the immediate step was to get rid of factory councils across the board. That is pretty much uprooting socialism from its core. As soon as taking over power, Lennin had reverted back to his original unpopular position. This whole prevailing notion after Lennin took power of a "disciplined labour army" subjected to a single figurehead above couldn't have been any further from what socialism is. In fact these were seeds which led to outright totalitarianism down the road. A trend which obviously had nothing to do with communism or anything Karl Marx proposed.

When Marx talks about state ownership, he doesn't refer to it the way most of us do. State ownership today is synonymous with a highly centralized, highly concentrated control over resources, capital and labour. This is far from what Marx visualized, this is outright totalitarianism and these are precisely the misconceptions that give communism and socialism a bad name. I am not one for communism, but a lot of Marx's analysis , insight and predictions were spot on. The sad thing is that although Lennin and co might have claimed to have been inspired by his works, in practice what they created was as far away from socialism as you can imagine and certainly also not in line with Marx's communist principles.

Lenin was a good man, despite his religious beliefs (or Lack-of) but that is non of my business, the fact he fought for justice makes him a true Socialist. No, they don't have a monopoly over Socialism, but in the case of the Capitalist Nations, you can't bring about true Socialism with stupid reforms and protests, their needs to be a complete change through force. And for the Puppet Capitalist Nations, the Muslim ones, they need to follow Iran's example, although, Iran needs to make an example by bringing in some SERIOUS reforms. No Regime change, just BIG reforms.

As I said, socialism is a broad term. Fascism is a form of socialism, Bathism is a form of socialism, and even some current day European liberals could be considered socialists.

But most forms of socialism fall under the category of Utopian Socialism.

Scientific socialism is an idea first espoused by Marx/Engels, and later elaborated upon by Lenin. So they do have the monopoly over it.

The notion of the October Revolution being a coup is something which is completely and utterly false. This myth is perpetuated by people like Richard Pipes, who reduces the rise of Bolshevism in Russia to Russia being Eastern and thus accustomed to autocracy and dictatorship. There is a certain element of pompous Western self-satisfaction in that belief, but I will leave that for another discussion.

In fact, the October Revolution had a lot of support among Russia's workers and landless peasants. The Bolsheviks had always had firm support amongst the workers of Moscow and Petrograd (Russia's largest and most "European" cities). And this was before the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries -- the party with the most support from amongst the peasants -- completely severed ties with the Bolsheviks. One of the main reasons for the collapse of Tsarist Russia was the discontent over the continuation of the war. And yet, Kerensky's provisional government wanted to continue the war. The Bolsheviks promised to end it. In short, that's how they won over the Russian masses (yes, they actually won them over).

The disbanding of the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets should not be considered part of a previously-planned plot by Lenin to institute a totalitarian system. Rather, these were natural reactions to the ineffectiveness of the system. By 1918, the Civil War had started, and the Bolshevik government was just one of 30 in the lands of the former Russian Empire. The Bolsheviks needed to put their army into fighting condition, and put all of their economy on a war footing. This required one-man factory management, grain requisitions, and the de-democratization of the army.

Without these changes, Soviet Russia would surely have fallen. So they did these things not because that was their vision of socialism, but out of necessity. Lenin later admitted that he and his comrades wrongly assumed -- prior to coming to power -- that governing was the easiest of possible tasks, and that they were forced to do many things they never thought necessary. For example: they thought proleterian revolution would spread to all the countries of Europe and they would have no need for an army.

The definition of "right" and "left" differ from system to system, so I won't comment on Lenin being "right wing." For example: Gorbachev's perestroika reforms would be considered "right wing" in many countries (the economic aspect of them, anyway), but in the Soviet Union they were considered "left wing."

Ya Ali

To be completely random, you are write about that, what some might consider right in Western Nations, is Left in other Nations, this, I have experienced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Well BROTHER that was my damn point, I always say, Islamism for the Ummah and Marxism for the Non Muslims! That was my whole point! Imposing Marxism on Muslim Nations is absurd! I say we should only Have ISLAM in the middle east, no CAPITALISM. And for the rest of the world, MARXISM, since we do not force ISLAM on non MUSLIMS. Why can't Socialists and Muslims unite against the oppressors? We have a common cause!

I live in the UK! I am a Marxist and a Muslim, but I believe that the Muslim Nations need Islamic Revolutions because they don't need Marxism, since they have Islam, but that doesn't mean you go on about Bashing it, it is actually a great Ideal! I think that instead of trying to have a Capitalist Islamic system, why not MORE of a Socialist one, NO that doesn't mean SOCIALISM, but aspects of Socialism, such as Universal Health care, and education ect. ect. Iran is friends with Socialist Nations because they are the only ones who experienced US imperialism, and since they went through such a horrible phase, they want Iran and the Muslims to win against the Imperialists, since they were defeated!

Some Marxists would say "I don't know why you bring in the Soviet Union which I have nothing to do with!" Same thing! Unless you believe that Islam failed because of the Ottoman empire, you cannot accept that Marxism failed because of the Capitalist Soviet Russia.

That is the thing; they are free to practice their socialism in their backyards, but being to close with them and sharing a common ground against others? No, never! We can not go along socialist-communist anymore. They are playing the role of a 'monafiq' in today's world. They are hoping for a new order of socialism across the globe, not only in majority socialist countries. They are conspiring against religion and against capitalism at the same time.

And that is what the ignorant president of Iran and his team are doing, speaking on behalf of communists-socialists and trying hard to benefit them in the expense of his country and Islam. Countries like Russia, China, India, Brazil and some more pushed these people in Iran for decades in creating many animosity and hatred between our nations and capitalist nations. But, what happened at the end of the day? The same countries stood by Israel, voted for rounds and rounds of sanctions against Iran, denied selling the defensive weapons such as S300 and behind the scene called "Iran the biggest danger" in today's world (a reference to Russian president's secret meeting with Gates), hoping the West may attack Iran, halting the IPI project and fully implementing UNSC sanctions against Iran and 100s of other misbehavior by all these countries who are the so called socialist friends of Iran.

We can trust anyone in this world but these mfkkkkk@#@# socialist-communists. Today they are the number one monafiqeen and agents of Israel's propaganda and agendas in many countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, and Iran. All Iranian Leftist groups called for destruction of Islamic government in Iran and agreed to fight under the banner of Zionists.

And regarding oppressors: Let me tell you something, no body was more oppressor than the so called socialist groups and leaders. Their notorious intelligence services in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Russia, China, Cambodia and other countries tortured living human beings in a way that no one can do such things to animals in today's world.

We still remember who Mao was and what he did to millions of people, who Saddam and his Baathists were and what they did, who the communist gangs in Afghanistan were, who Stalin was and how many millions perished because of this wild animal. Now that you are trying to totally not relate these characters with socialism-communism, because somehow Ottoman did not represent Islam, that is a different and weird story.

If you are a Muslim or you come from a Muslim parents, open your eyes and do not fall for these traps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

That is the thing; they are free to practice their socialism in their backyards, but being to close with them and sharing a common ground against others? No, never! We can not go along socialist-communist anymore. They are playing the role of a 'monafiq' in today's world. They are hoping for a new order of socialism across the globe, not only in majority socialist countries. They are conspiring against religion and against capitalism at the same time.

And that is what the ignorant president of Iran and his team are doing, speaking on behalf of communists-socialists and trying hard to benefit them in the expense of his country and Islam. Countries like Russia, China, India, Brazil and some more pushed these people in Iran for decades in creating many animosity and hatred between our nations and capitalist nations. But, what happened at the end of the day? The same countries stood by Israel, voted for rounds and rounds of sanctions against Iran, denied selling the defensive weapons such as S300 and behind the scene called "Iran the biggest danger" in today's world (a reference to Russian president's secret meeting with Gates), hoping the West may attack Iran, halting the IPI project and fully implementing UNSC sanctions against Iran and 100s of other misbehavior by all these countries who are the so called socialist friends of Iran.

We can trust anyone in this world but these mfkkkkk@#@# socialist-communists. Today they are the number one monafiqeen and agents of Israel's propaganda and agendas in many countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, and Iran. All Iranian Leftist groups called for destruction of Islamic government in Iran and agreed to fight under the banner of Zionists.

And regarding oppressors: Let me tell you something, no body was more oppressor than the so called socialist groups and leaders. Their notorious intelligence services in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Russia, China, Cambodia and other countries tortured living human beings in a way that no one can do such things to animals in today's world.

We still remember who Mao was and what he did to millions of people, who Saddam and his Baathists were and what they did, who the communist gangs in Afghanistan were, who Stalin was and how many millions perished because of this wild animal. Now that you are trying to totally not relate these characters with socialism-communism, because somehow Ottoman did not represent Islam, that is a different and weird story.

If you are a Muslim or you come from a Muslim parents, open your eyes and do not fall for these traps.

Sorry brother but what you are saying is not entirely true.

Yes, Iranian communist groups like Tudeh and MKO played the role of Munafiq. In fact, in Iran, MKO is referred to as 'Monafeghin' instead of 'Mojahedin.'

But there are a few problems with what you have said.

Firstly, Russia is not socialist. If anything, they have been desperately trying to liberalize their economy and culture since the fall of the Soviet Union. India is not socialist either. Of the countries you listed, only Brasil and China are socialist, and even then, it is not of the Marxist-Leninist variety.

And there is no Marxist-Zionist conspiracy. If anything, the Soviet Union was very anti-Zionist. Brezhnev kicked out all the Jews from the Bolshoi (Russian symphony orchestra) and declared them "enemies of the people" because of suspected ties to Israel. Venezuela and Cuba recently severed ties with Israel.

So although i agree with the basic point you are making, a lot of the things you have said are not correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Sorry brother but what you are saying is not entirely true.

Yes, Iranian communist groups like Tudeh and MKO played the role of Munafiq. In fact, in Iran, MKO is referred to as 'Monafeghin' instead of 'Mojahedin.'

But there are a few problems with what you have said.

Firstly, Russia is not socialist. If anything, they have been desperately trying to liberalize their economy and culture since the fall of the Soviet Union. India is not socialist either. Of the countries you listed, only Brasil and China are socialist, and even then, it is not of the Marxist-Leninist variety.

And there is no Marxist-Zionist conspiracy. If anything, the Soviet Union was very anti-Zionist. Brezhnev kicked out all the Jews from the Bolshoi (Russian symphony orchestra) and declared them "enemies of the people" because of suspected ties to Israel. Venezuela and Cuba recently severed ties with Israel.

So although i agree with the basic point you are making, a lot of the things you have said are not correct.

Bro, we all know that, this socialist was a joke at first place, it is all about alliances of some countries against others.... Today, they are either socialists or ex-communists or Leftist blocs... It is Russia and China who support and aid Venezuela, not the US or Britain. WHY? The main players of the yesterday's group, organized a new front who are actively pursuing an agenda to take over the world "BRIC" I remember posting a video documentary and an article from Al-Jazeera a while ago on this front. If we are talking about specific scriptures, even Cuba is changing some of its methods in favor of capitalism and even the US is implementing some socialists methods... But, that is a different issue. Some poor countries are only the victims. A change from dollar to Euro and a takeover of Chinese markets in Africa and kicking America out of every corner only benefits these powers, not other countries as most people in Muslim world and poor countries think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

That is the thing; they are free to practice their socialism in their backyards, but being to close with them and sharing a common ground against others? No, never! We can not go along socialist-communist anymore. They are playing the role of a 'monafiq' in today's world. They are hoping for a new order of socialism across the globe, not only in majority socialist countries. They are conspiring against religion and against capitalism at the same time.

And that is what the ignorant president of Iran and his team are doing, speaking on behalf of communists-socialists and trying hard to benefit them in the expense of his country and Islam. Countries like Russia, China, India, Brazil and some more pushed these people in Iran for decades in creating many animosity and hatred between our nations and capitalist nations. But, what happened at the end of the day? The same countries stood by Israel, voted for rounds and rounds of sanctions against Iran, denied selling the defensive weapons such as S300 and behind the scene called "Iran the biggest danger" in today's world (a reference to Russian president's secret meeting with Gates), hoping the West may attack Iran, halting the IPI project and fully implementing UNSC sanctions against Iran and 100s of other misbehavior by all these countries who are the so called socialist friends of Iran.

We can trust anyone in this world but these mfkkkkk@#@# socialist-communists. Today they are the number one monafiqeen and agents of Israel's propaganda and agendas in many countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, and Iran. All Iranian Leftist groups called for destruction of Islamic government in Iran and agreed to fight under the banner of Zionists.

And regarding oppressors: Let me tell you something, no body was more oppressor than the so called socialist groups and leaders. Their notorious intelligence services in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Russia, China, Cambodia and other countries tortured living human beings in a way that no one can do such things to animals in today's world.

We still remember who Mao was and what he did to millions of people, who Saddam and his Baathists were and what they did, who the communist gangs in Afghanistan were, who Stalin was and how many millions perished because of this wild animal. Now that you are trying to totally not relate these characters with socialism-communism, because somehow Ottoman did not represent Islam, that is a different and weird story.

If you are a Muslim or you come from a Muslim parents, open your eyes and do not fall for these traps.

Okay now I know your stance. You are simply a Westernized fool or an Extremist freak. Capitalist Nations can go to hell, for all that they have done in the world, especially the USA, they have killed more people than ANY empire in history. Iran needs to stay away from talks with these Imperialist Nations.

Who voted for sanctions? China and Russia? NEITHER ARE SOCIALISTS! To hell with EVERY superpower. Venezuela and Cuba, North Korea, Daniel Ortega, all have been against sanctions. THE most oppressive are the Capitalists, the Americans and their filthy Corporations and Banks.

Shame on you. How dare you openly accuse our Allies of trying "To create walls between Iran and Capitalist Nations". Iran was born under Defiance against these scum. Saddam was a Fascist, not a Communist! Ahmadinejad, has Socialist policy's himself! Is he an Israeli agent? God, maybe you should go on the Stormfront forums, you would be more welcome. "Countries like Russia, China, India, Brazil..." NONE OF WHICH ARE EVEN CLOSE TO SOCIALIST! Venezuela is conspiracy against Religion too? HUGO CHAVEZ IS A DEVOUT CHRISTIAN! God, where the hell do you get your information? Alex Jones? Iran's SOCIALIST FRIENDS are Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Nicaragua.. ect. NONE OF WHICH voted for Sanctions. You really think Brazil and India, China and Russia are Socialist? At the very least China, but it has become CAPITALIST.

You do know, that the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, right, and now, it is called 'Russian Federation"? LOL, they aren't Socialists, Neither was the Soviet Union, but at least the RF admits it. Those Iranian 'Leftists' are western mercinaries. You fail to realize the cause of the real problems, : The WEST. Israel is a COLONY of the west. Stop trying to be a dog and saying "We need better relations with the Capitalist Nations ( Imperialists, Fascists, Murderers) but the Dirty Communists won't let us. That's bull-[Edited Out].

Bro, we all know that, this socialist was a joke at first place, it is all about alliances of some countries against others.... Today, they are either socialists or ex-communists or Leftist blocs... It is Russia and China who support and aid Venezuela, not the US or Britain. WHY? The main players of the yesterday's group, organized a new front who are actively pursuing an agenda to take over the world "BRIC" I remember posting a video documentary and an article from Al-Jazeera a while ago on this front. If we are talking about specific scriptures, even Cuba is changing some of its methods in favor of capitalism and even the US is implementing some socialists methods... But, that is a different issue. Some poor countries are only the victims. A change from dollar to Euro and a takeover of Chinese markets in Africa and kicking America out of every corner only benefits these powers, not other countries as most people in Muslim world and poor countries think.

The Poor Countries (A.K.A the Third World) are the BIGGEST victims of CAPITALISM. Every Superpower is Capitalist! Russia and China 'support and aid' Venezuela no more than they do for Iran, so according to your logic, they are also screwing over Venezuela, which I wouldn't doubt. It's no big conspiracy, it is known. It's not like Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, North Korea, China, Russia are all plotting against Iran, if anything, China and Russia are plotting against the Third World. Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, North Korea, Iran, Syria, All victims of Imperialism must fight against these superpowers. We are all in this together. People like you are favored by the USA and the Superpowers. USA is the most deviant, and evil of all superpowers, and most of the problems in the world stand with a tall and firm US flag next to it. This are words right out of the Mouth of Khomeini.. I know he wasn't a big fan of Socialism, but that was because he emerged in a world where it was being trashed by the Soviet Imperialists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

LOL This is enough. No need to read further your BS. Get lost you fkin atheist belly dancer product of Zionist-Baathist-Russian mushrik.

This just proves how much you know, considering I am not an "Atheist". And an actual oxymoron Zionist-Baathist makes no sense whatsoever, you Black Panther-White Supremacist-Asian mushrik! (LOL). Zionists have long been the enemies of Marxists. In Bolshevik Russia, Zionism was outlawed. You stupid Neo-Nazi 'Protocols of Zion' narrow minded fool.

"Get lost you fkin atheist belly dancer product of Zionist-Baathist-Russian mushrik " - Someone50, Expert on Ideologies of the twentieth century.

And you call Ahmadinejad ignorant?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^I decided not to reply to you anymore because you are koko, in one post calling me brother and in another bad mouthing yourself and calling me names. But, then I saw the name Imam Khomeini ( R ) in that reply... really surprising how low you can get and use him for your own purpose. There is no doubt that the late Imam Khomeini ( R ) was born as a Muslim and died as a Muslim and had nothing to do with Mushrikeen.

Here I just found a few of his quotes on communism in one of the websites dedicated to him:

"From its inception, Communism has had the most dictatorial governments, its authorities have been most dictatorial, power-hungry and monopolistic persons."

"It is clear to all that from now on communism may be looked up in the museums of World's political history." Link

And there are 100s of other references in guiding Muslims and Iranians in not taking side with Zionists and their products Communists. "No To East AND No To West" known as the biggest slogan of Iranian Islamic revolution.

I hope that is enough for you and leave one of the greatest man of the 20th century alone. Anyone who uses Islam and Islamic personalities for Socialists benefits are monafiq and ignorant too, be it you or Ahmadinejad or anybody else.

_________________

"Zionist-Baathist-Russian" as if it is a lie or what? Wasn't for example Saddam lahnati the head of socialist Baath party a Zionist agent, a Baathist murderer and a Russian puppet? And a Mushrik? You want me name more? Or simply Saddam was a Shia Islamists?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Socialism at the very core of it simply asserts workers control over production. This is the underlining principle behind the whole concept. It is naturally a concept that should appeal to anyone who is even semi grounded in humanitarian values. The fall of Soviet Union is equated with the fall of socialism in the west and nothing could be further from the truth. Real socialist reforms that had been taking place in Russia were actually crushed by narrow and concentrated sources of power above. Soviet propaganda actually justified sweeping dictatorial reforms by claiming them to be socialist in nature. This is simply because socialism as a concept naturally appealed to Russian society and made the reforms easier to sell. The United States states at the same time started promoting socialism for the opposite reason, and this was to equate socialism to soviet dictatorship in an attempt to defame the concept at heart. This was also done so third world nations who were taking a liking to soviet socialist models could be deterred from pursuing these models which would help them gain independence and prosperity. Obviously this meant these poor nations would in the future stay subservient to US interests, refrain from nationalizing local resources so they can be exploited by US corporations.

Democratic socialism is really the most sensible way forward. South America is already headed in this direction and literally serves as a model to the rest of the world. After the worlds disastrous experiment with capitalism, more and more people are leaning towards genuine socialist reforms. This means peoples control over production, there is no central concentration of authority here, the state becomes a mechanism to manage nationalized resources but the management remains with the people for the people.

Worker control over production.

Yeah, let's take control out of the hands of those with innovative ideas, the motivation to work long and hard toward these ideas, the managerial expertise to organize and coordinate the effort, and the entrepreneurial willingness to take calculated risk, and replace them with the 9-5ers who lack these qualities.

That'll work great.

I find the following song lyrics effectively sum up the socialist / communist experience:

There is unrest in the forest

There is trouble with the trees

For the maples want more sunlight

And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples

(And they're quite convinced they're right)

They say the oaks are just too lofty

And they grab up all the light

But the oaks can't help their feelings

If they like the way they're made

And they wonder why the maples

Can't be happy in their shade?

There is trouble in the forest

And the creatures all have fled

As the maples scream 'oppression!'

And the oaks, just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union

And demanded equal rights

'The oaks are just too greedy

We will make them give us light'

Now there's no more oak oppression

For they passed a noble law

And the trees are all kept equal

By hatchet

Axe

And saw

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^I decided not to reply to you anymore because you are koko, in one post calling me brother and in another bad mouthing yourself and calling me names. But, then I saw the name Imam Khomeini ( R ) in that reply... really surprising how low you can get and use him for your own purpose. There is no doubt that the late Imam Khomeini ( R ) was born as a Muslim and died as a Muslim and had nothing to do with Mushrikeen.

Here I just found a few of his quotes on communism in one of the websites dedicated to him:

"From its inception, Communism has had the most dictatorial governments, its authorities have been most dictatorial, power-hungry and monopolistic persons."

"It is clear to all that from now on communism may be looked up in the museums of World's political history." Link

And there are 100s of other references in guiding Muslims and Iranians in not taking side with Zionists and their products Communists. "No To East AND No To West" known as the biggest slogan of Iranian Islamic revolution.

I hope that is enough for you and leave one of the greatest man of the 20th century alone. Anyone who uses Islam and Islamic personalities for Socialists benefits are monafiq and ignorant too, be it you or Ahmadinejad or anybody else.

_________________

"Zionist-Baathist-Russian" as if it is a lie or what? Wasn't for example Saddam lahnati the head of socialist Baath party a Zionist agent, a Baathist murderer and a Russian puppet? And a Mushrik? You want me name more? Or simply Saddam was a Shia Islamists?

Excuse me? I wasn't using his name for Socialist Benefits. I agree he was the greatest man of the 20th century, but I disagree with him on one aspect. That is my right.

I'm sure he did not specialize in Communism, their was no need to.

I agree with No East and No West, because peoples from the East were imperialistic and so were peoples of the west. Khomeini saw what the Soviets were doing and thought that was Communism. I don't blame him. He grew up where Islam took Communism's place in Fighting Capitalism. No, Communism did not die, but the beholder's of Communism died, due to them corrupting it.

To me, you are a brother, and I would sometimes call my brother a fool. Than I apologize, if you took it that way. By 'Fool' I wasn't implying you were stupid or anything, it's almost 'slang'. But what you were saying was Foolish. Communism and Zionism have nothing to do with each other.

And if you truly believe that Communism is dead, why don't you visit it's grave, so you will learn from it's mistake, and crush the Imperialists once and for all.

But I don't believe Communism is dead.

Worker control over production.

Yeah, let's take control out of the hands of those with innovative ideas, the motivation to work long and hard toward these ideas, the managerial expertise to organize and coordinate the effort, and the entrepreneurial willingness to take calculated risk, and replace them with the 9-5ers who lack these qualities.

That'll work great.

I find the following song lyrics effectively sum up the socialist / communist experience:

That poem is totally irrelevant. The 'Oaks'. Or the Ruling Elite, aren't taking up all the 'sunlight' because they were born that way, they took the sunlight through power, through corruption! The mass propaganda machines, the media, the consumerism, the oppression! You make it seem like all these Bankers and CEO's are their Naturally. It is not natural, not natural like trees. Humanity didn't start from this. Humanity started with people working together so everyone will benefit.

Capitalism is the biggest failure in the History of Civilization. The only way Capitalism strives is through the misery of the host, the host used to be the American workers, now the Host are the workers in third world countries, serving the needs of the west. Which is why most of the west is wealthy, because the Economy globalized, and the ruling elite is almost all of America.

The only way Capitalism can strive is through a majority sacrificing their freedom, and rights, so another can be rich.

Worker control over production.

Yeah, let's take control out of the hands of those with innovative ideas, the motivation to work long and hard toward these ideas, the managerial expertise to organize and coordinate the effort, and the entrepreneurial willingness to take calculated risk, and replace them with the 9-5ers who lack these qualities.

That'll work great.

I find the following song lyrics effectively sum up the socialist / communist experience:

What a garbage song, so, because Children had to die in factory's being paid [Edited Out] and men treated as animals to serve the interests of the Corporate Elite, the "Oaks" were just being ignorant? This song is so [Edited Out]ed up it's not even funny, it makes no sense at all, Workers formed unions because of the atrocities committed against them!

"Zionist-Baathist-Russian" as if it is a lie or what? Wasn't for example Saddam lahnati the head of socialist Baath party a Zionist agent, a Baathist murderer and a Russian puppet? And a Mushrik? You want me name more? Or simply Saddam was a Shia Islamists?

Saddam was both an American and a Russian puppet. And the Baath party in Iraq, were Fascist, not much Socialist. So, yes it's true that the Zionists are Fascists, BUT I am no Fascist, so you cannot call me a Zionist. Saddam was an American agent to fight Iran, and was funded by the Soviets. But Iran was funded by the American's and the Soviet's too, during the Iran-Iraq war, remember? The time they funded both sides so they would ultimately eliminate each other? L

The Baathist party is not Zionist, I disagree with it, but it is NOT Zionist. Just like the Israelis aren't Marxist. And Russians have a history of not being Zionists, but then again, Russians have a history of doing what it wants only for it's own interests. Need I say more?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Excuse me? I wasn't using his name for Socialist Benefits. I agree he was the greatest man of the 20th century, but I disagree with him on one aspect. That is my right.

I never said that you do not have the right to disagree with the late Imam or even with our 12 Imams or holy prophets or the holy Quran. It is your freedom and you have different ideology, but do not ask us (Muslims) impatiently to back the idea of a unity front of "Marxist-and-Islam" that is all.

I'm sure he did not specialize in Communism, their was no need to.

I agree with No East and No West, because peoples from the East were imperialistic and so were peoples of the west. Khomeini saw what the Soviets were doing and thought that was Communism. I don't blame him. He grew up where Islam took Communism's place in Fighting Capitalism. No, Communism did not die, but the beholder's of Communism died, due to them corrupting it.

Yea right, I forgot, Imam Khomeini was just like these Wahabi Mula Bin Laden who grew in caves and did not see anything beyond Qom and only knew how to memorize holy Quran and that is all. :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

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.

Socialism is at heart a resentment of the fruitful by the impotent. It is a push to steal by those who lack the will or talent to produce or create for themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I never said that you do not have the right to disagree with the late Imam or even with our 12 Imams or holy prophets or the holy Quran. It is your freedom and you have different ideology, but do not ask us (Muslims) impatiently to back the idea of a unity front of "Marxist-and-Islam" that is all.

Yea right, I forgot, Imam Khomeini was just like these Wahabi Mula Bin Laden who grew in caves and did not see anything beyond Qom and only knew how to memorize holy Quran and that is all. :huh:

So, because Khomeini did not pay much attention to Communism, he was like Mula Bin Laden who grew in a Cave and did not see anything but Islam?

Khomeini was extremely intellectual, and he had no reason to pay much attention to Communism, think about it, if Khomeini talked good things about Marxism, during a time where the Name of Communism had a negative view point, and the Soviet Union(Capitalist) was getting destroyed, wouldn't it make more sense to just reject Western Capitalism AND Soviet 'Communism'(Capitalism under a red banner).

Khomeini was brilliant, he brought back Islam at a time where the West thought that it almost was able to control the world without resistance, right when it's enemies were being defeated, along springs up a fire that shakes the world, one that defies all interests of the Corporations and the West, a whole new enemy one that brings waves and waves of influence.

Truly, Imam Khomeini had shaken a World, that hasn't had such since 1917.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Worker control over production.

Yeah, let's take control out of the hands of those with innovative ideas, the motivation to work long and hard toward these ideas, the managerial expertise to organize and coordinate the effort, and the entrepreneurial willingness to take calculated risk, and replace them with the 9-5ers who lack these qualities.

That'll work great.

You have got to be kidding me with this... Honestly, left me speechless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

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.

Socialism is at heart a resentment of the fruitful by the impotent. It is a push to steal by those who lack the will or talent to produce or create for themselves.

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.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...