What is the Best Form of Communism?

[Socialist Czechia]

All property of all churches nationalized with also no support from State at all. Priests and monks should normally find a job like anyone else or go far away if they doesn't like it.

That's disgusting. I can't believe you hate people's rights to believe what they want. It's sick and perverted. Your socially coercive views are the bane of a society with free thought.

It's merely absolutely peaceful punishment for their actions in history. For genocides, for war, for victims of inqusition. Just take everything from them what they stole from the People, back to the People.

But of course I would defend them with weapon in hand, if angry mob would try to hang some priest.
We must not act like animals.

They can pray anywhere they want, but State would not support religious nuts by any money, and State would not allow them pray in temples built on bodies of deceived and murdered innocent people. Sometimes literally.

[Pilotto]

I consider myself to be classical Marxist with some Syndicalist tendencies, and I am shocked, that so many communists/socialists today don't have problems with religion.

Who has no problem with religion is no communist or even socialist for me.

It's just like feudalism. It outdated it's usefulness. If there was any at all times.

Only *censored* person can believe in talking dead guy at all.

The classical Marxist opposition to religion was always a mistake.

It is a mistake for ideological and philosophical reasons, because (most) religions share the Marxist desire to have a collectivist society based upon some form of solidarity and brotherhood. Most religions are against greed, selfishness, luxury, and many other key aspects of capitalism. Most religions say that people have a duty to help those less fortunate, which cuts directly against the liberal capitalist belief in individualism.

It is also a mistake for strategic reasons. By opposing religion, Marxists made a lot of enemies out of people who should have been allies. Imagine if Marxism never opposed religion in Poland, for example! It is foolish to fight a war on multiple fronts when we should be focusing all our energy on one enemy: capitalism.

The thing is, most religions want you to be generous on your own, not to have the state tax away all your money. It's not generosity if it's forced.

[Pandeeria]

That's disgusting. I can't believe you hate people's rights to believe what they want. It's sick and perverted. Your socially coercive views are the bane of a society with free thought.

It's merely absolutely peaceful punishment for their actions in history. For genocides, for war, for victims of inqusition. Just take everything from them what they stole from the People, back to the People.

But of course I would defend them with weapon in hand, if angry mob would try to hang some priest.
We must not act like animals.

They can pray anywhere they want, but State would not support religious nuts by any money, and State would not allow them pray in temples built on bodies of deceived and murdered innocent people. Sometimes literally.

Crazy zealots in the past waged genocides, not the current people. That's rather a nice form of stereotyping, or just plain censoring them.

Though the state cannot fund them.

[Constantinopolis]

The classical Marxist opposition to religion was always a mistake.

It is a mistake for ideological and philosophical reasons, because (most) religions share the Marxist desire to have a collectivist society based upon some form of solidarity and brotherhood. Most religions are against greed, selfishness, luxury, and many other key aspects of capitalism. Most religions say that people have a duty to help those less fortunate, which cuts directly against the liberal capitalist belief in individualism.

It is also a mistake for strategic reasons. By opposing religion, Marxists made a lot of enemies out of people who should have been allies. Imagine if Marxism never opposed religion in Poland, for example! It is foolish to fight a war on multiple fronts when we should be focusing all our energy on one enemy: capitalism.

The thing is, most religions want you to be generous on your own, not to have the state tax away all your money. It's not generosity if it's forced.

Historically, most religions have had absolutely no problem with forcing people to follow some or all of their moral principles.

All this "you should do X, but only if you want to" stuff is just modern liberal bullshit.

[Pilotto]

That's disgusting. I can't believe you hate people's rights to believe what they want. It's sick and perverted. Your socially coercive views are the bane of a society with free thought.

It's merely absolutely peaceful punishment for their actions in history. For genocides, for war, for victims of inqusition. Just take everything from them what they stole from the People, back to the People.

But of course I would defend them with weapon in hand, if angry mob would try to hang some priest.
We must not act like animals.

They can pray anywhere they want, but State would not support religious nuts by any money, and State would not allow them pray in temples built on bodies of deceived and murdered innocent people. Sometimes literally.

What if we blamed all communists for the 20 million killed in the name of communism? How would that make you feel?
Collective guilt is bull.

[Mkuki]

The classical Marxist opposition to religion was always a mistake.

It is a mistake for ideological and philosophical reasons, because (most) religions share the Marxist desire to have a collectivist society based upon some form of solidarity and brotherhood. Most religions are against greed, selfishness, luxury, and many other key aspects of capitalism. Most religions say that people have a duty to help those less fortunate, which cuts directly against the liberal capitalist belief in individualism.

It is also a mistake for strategic reasons. By opposing religion, Marxists made a lot of enemies out of people who should have been allies. Imagine if Marxism never opposed religion in Poland, for example! It is foolish to fight a war on multiple fronts when we should be focusing all our energy on one enemy: capitalism.

The thing is, most religions want you to be generous on your own, not to have the state tax away all your money. It's not generosity if it's forced.

You must not be familiar with tithing or the intricate mix of church and state outside of the West.

[Socialist Czechia]

All property of all churches nationalized with also no support from State at all. Priests and monks should normally find a job like anyone else or go far away if they doesn't like it.

If the church is making a profit and is a business, then it should be taxed.

Oppressing religious people makes you no better however.

That's not oppresing religious people, but oppresing of Church. I care for people, but I don't care for Church. And if you believe in God, if you believe that He is around everywhere, why you need priest in temple?
You cannot tell your prayers anywhere to God, without some perhaps morally corrupted guy in black clothes from organisation what perhaps burned your ancestor alive just for saying own opinion?

[Vazdania]

It's a form of censorship.

You should be able to negociate your working standard and pay regardless of what ever the hell the state says. The state should have no say in what you, potentially your labour union, and a corporation decide is best for all negotiating factions. The state is merely a useless piece of trash in this situation that wants to intervene where it shouldn't.

Explain how it's form of censorship.

How about cutting out the labour union, and having the state itself put out legal standard. Then you negotiate with your employer?

It's stopping you and the Corporation from legally establishing a contract that pays below what the state deems acceptable, when you and the company could both view this pay as acceptable. Again, the state is merely sticking its nose in where it shouldn't. You have the right to contract out your labour at any price you deem appropriate.

Because the state is an involuntary organization by which you cannot escape, except of course by moving. The state presupposes you like or at least tolerate the working conditions it deems appropriate. Whereas a labour union is a voluntary organization that you can escape from, without needing to move. The union works on your behalf (when you joined it) to come up with the best working standards that it can establish with the corporation. The labourer/labour union/corporation relationship is a triad that should not be interfered with by the state. the state's attempt to make this triad, a metaphorical square is nothing more than a form of authoritarianism, that benefits none of the 3 negotiating parties.

[Regnum Dominae]

The best communism is no communism, but if I really must choose, the best communism is independent, self-sustaining communist communes functioning within a broader capitalist society, these communes being made up of people who voluntarily choose to live within a communist framework.

Here is a graph of the GNP of Ukraine since the fall of the USSR, indexed by the level of GNP in 1990:

(Image)

So yeah, the economy of capitalist Ukraine never even got above 75% the size of the economy of Soviet Ukraine. Capitalism has been a complete economic failure.

Ukraine's economic situation is the exception, not the rule, among post-Soviet states.

Nation	GDP (PPP) per capita, 1990	GDP (PPP) per capita, 2014	Percent change
Estonia	7938.07*	18722.05	135.9%
Belarus	6434.06	13427.25	108.7%
Armenia	2937.89	5727.28	94.9%
Azerbaijan	4753.93	9156.37	92.1%
Kazakhstan	7089.13	11973.25	68.9%
Latvia	10108.76	15946.28	57.7%
Uzbekistan	2002.21	3095.04	54.6%
Lithuania	12499.71	18776.13	50.2%
Turkmenistan	6114.92	9121.28	49.2%
Russia	12625.62	15177.27	20.2%
Georgia	6138.17	5068.33	-17.1%
Kyrgyzstan	2523.49	2076.60	-17.7%
Ukraine	8062.60	6393.72	-20.7%
Moldova	4583.06	2973.61	-35.1%
Tajikistan	3008.52	1936.41	-35.6%

*Estonia: oldest available data is from 1995

And, if you take a look at the formerly USSR-aligned states of the Eastern Bloc:

Nation	GDP (PPP) per capita, 1990	GDP (PPP) per capita, 2014	Percent change
Poland	8182.09	18296.52	136.2%
Slovakia	12692.58	21257.48	67.5%
Bulgaria	7524.18	12177.82	61.8%
Romania	7852.67	11443.49	45.7%
Czech Republic	16369.97	23763.40	45.2%
Hungary	13119.69	17032.56	29.8%

*I'm not going to attempt to work out the numbers for the former East Germany

(source)

I know that cherry-picking a single isolated example and detaching it from the context of a broader trend is easy and all, but that doesn't make it accurately representative of the whole picture.

[Pilotto]

The thing is, most religions want you to be generous on your own, not to have the state tax away all your money. It's not generosity if it's forced.

Historically, most religions have had absolutely no problem with forcing people to follow some or all of their moral principles.

All this "you should do X, but only if you want to" stuff is just modern liberal bullshit.

Historically, people didn't wash their hand after going to the bathroom and burned suspected witches at the stake. Why don't we try to keep this discussion relevant to modern times?

[Pandeeria]

If the church is making a profit and is a business, then it should be taxed.

Oppressing religious people makes you no better however.

That's not oppresing religious people, but oppresing of Church. I care for people, but I don't care for Church. And if you believe in God, if you believe that He is around everywhere, why you need priest in temple?
You cannot tell your prayers anywhere to God, without some perhaps morally corrupted guy in black clothes from organisation what perhaps burned your ancestor alive just for saying own opinion?

If you oppress the church and people's right of religion, you're oppressing the people.

[Constantinopolis]

It's merely absolutely peaceful punishment for their actions in history. For genocides, for war, for victims of inqusition. Just take everything from them what they stole from the People, back to the People.

Comrade, we have done some horrible things too, in our own history. Should we also punish ourselves for it? The past is in the past.

[Vazdania]

That's disgusting. I can't believe you hate people's rights to believe what they want. It's sick and perverted. Your socially coercive views are the bane of a society with free thought.

It's merely absolutely peaceful punishment for their actions in history. For genocides, for war, for victims of inqusition. Just take everything from them what they stole from the People, back to the People.

But of course I would defend them with weapon in hand, if angry mob would try to hang some priest.
We must not act like animals.

They can pray anywhere they want, but State would not support religious nuts by any money, and State would not allow them pray in temples built on bodies of deceived and murdered innocent people. Sometimes literally.

And what of the more than 20 million deaths the attempts at communism have brought? Communism itself should be punished for these deaths. This ludicrous attempt at scapegoating religion is utter bullshit.

[Constantinopolis]

I know that cherry-picking a single isolated example and detaching it from the context of a broader trend is easy and all, but that doesn't make it accurately representative of the whole picture.

I didn't cherry-pick the example, I was responding to another person who was specifically talking about Ukraine in particular.

[Regnum Dominae]

That's disgusting. I can't believe you hate people's rights to believe what they want. It's sick and perverted. Your socially coercive views are the bane of a society with free thought.

It's merely absolutely peaceful punishment for their actions in history. For genocides, for war, for victims of inqusition. Just take everything from them what they stole from the People, back to the People.

But of course I would defend them with weapon in hand, if angry mob would try to hang some priest.
We must not act like animals.

They can pray anywhere they want, but State would not support religious nuts by any money, and State would not allow them pray in temples built on bodies of deceived and murdered innocent people. Sometimes literally.

I'm an atheist and no big fan of religion, but state-sponsored suppression of peaceful religious belief is a horrible, horrible thing.

[The Liberated Territories]

The best communism is no communism, but if I really must choose, the best communism is independent, self-sustaining communist communes functioning within a broader capitalist society, these communes being made up of people who voluntarily choose to live within a communist framework.

Pretty much this. I have no problem with people voluntary entering communes. If communism replaces capitalism and it all works out well, then that's great. If it doesn't, then that is fine too, you can still do the former.

Just do not force communism on others by the use of statist or authoritarian means.

[Socialist Czechia]

It's merely absolutely peaceful punishment for their actions in history. For genocides, for war, for victims of inqusition. Just take everything from them what they stole from the People, back to the People.

But of course I would defend them with weapon in hand, if angry mob would try to hang some priest.
We must not act like animals.

They can pray anywhere they want, but State would not support religious nuts by any money, and State would not allow them pray in temples built on bodies of deceived and murdered innocent people. Sometimes literally.

What if we blamed all communists for the 20 million killed in the name of communism? How would that make you feel?
Collective guilt is bull.

I do not blame religious people, I blame Church. Or you didn't get it? I won't start burn the Bibles or Qurans, but zealots in funny clothes what reading them to crowds must be stopped.

My distaste of so-called-communists "believing in gods" is another, different topic. More philosophic one.

[Constantinopolis]

Historically, people didn't wash their hand after going to the bathroom and burned suspected witches at the stake. Why don't we try to keep this discussion relevant to modern times?

Uh... because the point is that most religions do not actually believe what you said they believe?

Collective guilt is bull.

Yes. This. Precisely.

...aaaand I've just agreed with Pilotto.

[Vazdania]

What if we blamed all communists for the 20 million killed in the name of communism? How would that make you feel?
Collective guilt is bull.

I do not blame religious people, I blame Church. Or you didn't get it? I won't start burn the Bibles or Qurans, but zealots in funny clothes what reading them to crowds must be stopped.

My distaste of so-called-communists "believing in gods" is another, different topic. More philosophic one.

HA! Let's stop the Politicians then!!! .

You don't like free speech or free thought do you??? I love sitting at the pulpits and listening to people speak about and of the Bible. It is luminous and invigorates my soul. And why should I not be allowed to enjoy myself? Why should I not be allowed to these people speak?

[Socialist Czechia]

It's merely absolutely peaceful punishment for their actions in history. For genocides, for war, for victims of inqusition. Just take everything from them what they stole from the People, back to the People.

But of course I would defend them with weapon in hand, if angry mob would try to hang some priest.
We must not act like animals.

They can pray anywhere they want, but State would not support religious nuts by any money, and State would not allow them pray in temples built on bodies of deceived and murdered innocent people. Sometimes literally.

I'm an atheist and no big fan of religion, but state-sponsored suppression of peaceful religious belief is a horrible, horrible thing.

So no money from taxes to pedophiles in black clothes is horrible thing?

To not allow zealots spitting lies and fairytales from ancient times to be comfortable in temples built from blood is horrible?

Why all people around mixing destruction of Church organisations with oppresion of common guys?

There is huuuuge difference, fellas.

[Pandeeria]

Explain how it's form of censorship.

How about cutting out the labour union, and having the state itself put out legal standard. Then you negotiate with your employer?

It's stopping you and the Corporation from legally establishing a contract that pays below what the state deems acceptable, when you and the company could both view this pay as acceptable. Again, the state is merely sticking its nose in where it shouldn't. You have the right to contract out your labour at any price you deem appropriate.

Because the state is an involuntary organization by which you cannot escape, except of course by moving. The state presupposes you like or at least tolerate the working conditions it deems appropriate. Whereas a labour union is a voluntary organization that you can escape from, without needing to move. The union works on your behalf (when you joined it) to come up with the best working standards that it can establish with the corporation. The labourer/labour union/corporation relationship is a triad that should not be interfered with by the state. the state's attempt to make this triad, a metaphorical square is nothing more than a form of authoritarianism, that benefits none of the 3 negotiating parties.

That's not censorship. It's not punishing you for speaking your own mind. It's not locking you away. It doesn't restrict your expression, it's not a violation of the right of free speech.

The worker's union and the state can work together. The state can put up required conditions that said corporation must follow. That why said business has to follow the requirements even if the union fails to negotiate for you.

[Pandeeria]

I'm an atheist and no big fan of religion, but state-sponsored suppression of peaceful religious belief is a horrible, horrible thing.

So no money from taxes to pedophiles in black clothes is horrible thing?

To not allow zealots spitting lies and fairytales from ancient times to be comfortable in temples built from blood is horrible?

Why all people around mixing destruction of Church organisations with oppresion of common guys?

There is huuuuge difference, fellas.

Stop trying to stereotype and suppress religion.

[Vazdania]

It's stopping you and the Corporation from legally establishing a contract that pays below what the state deems acceptable, when you and the company could both view this pay as acceptable. Again, the state is merely sticking its nose in where it shouldn't. You have the right to contract out your labour at any price you deem appropriate.

Because the state is an involuntary organization by which you cannot escape, except of course by moving. The state presupposes you like or at least tolerate the working conditions it deems appropriate. Whereas a labour union is a voluntary organization that you can escape from, without needing to move. The union works on your behalf (when you joined it) to come up with the best working standards that it can establish with the corporation. The labourer/labour union/corporation relationship is a triad that should not be interfered with by the state. the state's attempt to make this triad, a metaphorical square is nothing more than a form of authoritarianism, that benefits none of the 3 negotiating parties.

That's not censorship. It's not punishing you for speaking your own mind. It's not locking you away. It doesn't restrict your expression, it's not a violation of the right of free speech.

The worker's union and the state can work together. The state can put up required conditions that said corporation must follow. That why said business has to follow the requirements even if the union fails to negotiate for you.

It is a censorship of your right to legally contract at a wage you and a corporation deem appropriate.

The Labour Union, The Labourer, and the Corproation can work together. The state has no business putting its nose in the economic affairs of people.

[Regnum Dominae]

That's not censorship. It's not punishing you for speaking your own mind. It's not locking you away. It doesn't restrict your expression, it's not a violation of the right of free speech.

The worker's union and the state can work together. The state can put up required conditions that said corporation must follow. That why said business has to follow the requirements even if the union fails to negotiate for you.

It is a censorship of your right to legally contract at a wage you and a corporation deem appropriate.

The Labour Union, The Labourer, and the Corproation can work together. The state has no business putting its nose in the economic affairs of people.

...yeah it does. And it doesn't just have the right to do so, it has the responsibility to do so.

[Pandeeria]

That's not censorship. It's not punishing you for speaking your own mind. It's not locking you away. It doesn't restrict your expression, it's not a violation of the right of free speech.

The worker's union and the state can work together. The state can put up required conditions that said corporation must follow. That why said business has to follow the requirements even if the union fails to negotiate for you.

It is a censorship of your right to legally contract at a wage you and a corporation deem appropriate.

The Labour Union, The Labourer, and the Corproation can work together. The state has no business putting its nose in the economic affairs of people.

That's economic oppression. Not oppression nor violation of freedom of expression, petition, public assembly, or speech.

If the labour union fails, or the business just says tough shit and doesn't allow you in without lowered pay and standard, if hurts said worker.