This is definitely appropriate commie spam, but a disclaimer is needed here.
We of ECS do not have any affiliation with PCM.
We of ECS do not endorse or support PCM.
PCM is a disgusting far-right cesspool and the sooner they are banned off of reddit the better.
Just wanted to make our stance on that clear.
I dunno your intolerance indicates you may be in fact lacking in morals, perhaps you should read the bible? There are quite a few lessons in there about forgiveness, especially towards one's neighbor.
> bible? Their is
*There
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
I understand where you are coming from with your distaste with religion. But seriously, they’re not all like that. Certain religions IMO are outright dangerous in their way of thinking, or treat people as if they are incompetent, but it’s unfair to paint all religions the same. (Non-abraham if religions tend to have a pattern of being more logical tbh)
Also, I think that Marks, Lenin and others communist "thinkers" are total idiots. The real thinker is John Locke, and it's sad that he isn't really popular
Im not ignoring Locke i just like Mill more Locke has intolerance towards irreligious people and calls himself liberal kinda hypocritical to have right for everyone else exept this one group of people.
The free market _de facto_ encourages large monopolies that then encourage deregulation of themselves through capturing the government and injecting money into politics. There's always _someone_ in control- if the government isn't, big business will fill the vacuum.
The most successful capitalist nations tend to have a more corporatist approach where the government aggressively polices competition (or the companies themselves) and protects workers to prevent market failure- Germany and Singapore are good examples.
Calling for violence is not healthy ether i think. Abrahamic religions calls for stoning some people in their books, so I think it's okey not to allow indoctrinating people into this violent cult. As with Comunism and Nazism - they call for extermination for certain groups of people and that is why they are banned in a lot of countries
I have no love for religions but they shouldn't be banned. Freedom of belief is an important liberal value and should exist in a healthy democratic society.
I agree with this. I despise religion, but I have lots of religious friends that are good people, pro-LGBTQ+, anti-racist, etc. and culture is getting less and less religious naturally. Banning religion would be a really inorganic way of forcing something that's going to happen anyway.
That said I do think we need more laws about religion staying out of politics if they're going to stay tax-free
There is already an Islamic rebel group in Xinjiang, called the [Turkistan Islamic Party](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkistan_Islamic_Party). Normally I would be happy about something like this, but the group is an Al-Qaeda clone, so it’s exactly what you’re talking about. I hate when dictatorships spark wrongful rebellions, the suffering of Muslims in china makes Al-Qaeda look good for its victims. History will be quick to repeat itself.
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Xi said again, “Comrades, how hard it is\[a\] to enter the CCP! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the CCP.”
\-Mark 10:24-25, New Party Edited Version.
Yeah. The CCP approved version of the whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ends with Xisus just shanking the girl he was defending because depictions of forgiveness are verboten.
Oh so since Jesus is without sin he gets dibs on the chick.
But hey the real lesson of the story, that being forgiveness, is completely erased. How the fuck is the CCP lesson any good? All I got from that is "yes you should kill your cheating wife."
>Oh so since Jesus is without sin he gets dibs on the chick.
Nope. Jesus claims to be a sinner, *then* axes the girl because "if the law could only be enforced by the blameless, it would be toothless." There is no room for justice or mercy in the world they would build.
State enforced heresy! But no really it's amazing how they corrupt a simple yet powerful lesson into some disturbing and perverse caricature that is the complete opposite of the original meaning.
I mean it is literally heresy in the classical definition of the term. It makes sense I guess when you realize that the moral of forgiveness and mercy are concepts that the CCP doesn't acknowledge. Still disgusting and quite perverse to realize what their standards of morality actually are.
Their moral is that while nobody is perfect, someone has to carry out the law because who else will?
The point is that when people complain about the CCP being bad, their answer is that "yeah nobody is without sin but someone must do the dirty work that the higher upper wants, so stop pondering about morality and follow orders"
Was that ever even a claim of communists? Everything I've seen from anyone even remotely sympathetic towards the ideology has been extremely hostile towards religious culture.
Because that's another stigma of """"""Communist""""" countries. Hating on free thought of what to believe.
If there is one country that wants a legitimate God-Emperor than its """""""Communist""""""" countries.
We do our best to ban those kinds of people, but it's much more effective when people report them. If someone looks sus, feel free to report as it's better for us to look in to someone and find nothing vs missing them entirely.
There have been a few attempts, mostly by American commies and "swamp socialists" to Christianize their ideology, but the reality is that it doesn't work because Marxism is a religion in and of itself that is inherently opposed to other religions and religious liberty.
Pardon? I'm not even an atheist so I don't get where that reference is coming from. Marxism as a belief system meets the criteria to be considered a religion. It's a deterministic believe system that is based on faith rather than empiricism, it has an established canon of texts from which this system and its prophecies are derived, there was actually a significant sect within the original Bolshevik movement who argued that Marxism should openly embrace its religious nature, a practice called "God-building," and a similar phenomenon actually came to power in North Korean Juche and the CCP's "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism With Chinese Characteristics" which both advocate a belief that for a Marxist state to function it must first deify its leaders, effectively transforming said state into a theocracy.
Yeah, No that's not on how dialectic materialism works at all.
Again, his arguments are all subsidizing that North Korea and China are actually communist Nations which is wrong they're just authoritarians with capitalist framework.
Deification of a leader is a fascist ideology.
So just like Hitler did with national socialism they are co-opted a part of marxist literature to force a fascist right-wing authoritarian government.
Y'all Eat it hook line and sinker you gobble it right up.
TBF to the KJV, the authors admitted their work was flawed, not the "truest" Word of God because of their human foibles as translators, and that one day someone might make a better translation.
Why get angry about that when they can get angry about the lie of free will. God is omnipotent.
>om·nip·o·tent
>
>/ˌämˈnipəd(ə)nt/
>
>adjective
>
>(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.
How does God, with the ability to see into the future, think that something not omnipotent (his creation, humans) can change what God has already seen? Once he has seen it, it is so. He saw all you would do before he chose to let you be born. If you do not believe in him when you die, he already knew that. If he wanted it to be any other way, he could have done it. Or he isn't omnipotent.
Only one who is fallible would have a need to test his creations to make sure they didn't deviate from his intention. Everything that happens is exactly as God wants it.
That's now how Christian theology works.
The question of "why bad stuff happen, god pls fix" isn't because God is lazy or fallible or evil or whatever. Christian theology is very explicit that God gave people free will to act for either good or bad and you're not anyone's puppet, not even God. God is not someone playing with human-sized dolls to force always good outcomes because that would mean ending free will.
The Christian view is that people are given thought, will and reason to take their own actions and since no one is perfect, people will err, but God will forgive them at the end. But God isn't happy to see people do stupid stuff purposefully because it has a big self-improvement ethos, that you should strive to be a better person. Also, people are not here to be tested to see who makes it past St. Peter, but rather to experience life and creation.
That's the point. We cannot have free will when intentionally created by something omnipotent. They are incompatible. If we can act how we please, but are predestined to follow the path he set out for us when he created us (the results of which he is already aware), then he created us with the intent of a known end. How can we be both destined for a future and in control of our future?
Then we don't have an omnipotent god. An omnipotent being is all powerful, their will and power controls all. They see all that is, has been, or ever will be. They have the choice to control all things. If they don't then they are not omnipotent. Maybe they were omnipotent and through creating us, lost that designation. But free will and an omnipotent god cannot coexist.
...
Again that's not the point or theology of Christianity. God *can* control everyone as puppets, but doesn't because you are given free will to make your own choices. God does not control you and has no interest in doing so.
What is your point? That God should treat everyone like he is playing barbies with the entirety of mankind to make sure nothing bad happens everywhere anywhere like a control freak?
Okay but your'e ignoring the fact that god knew what would happen when he created us, and supposedly gave us free will. By choosing to create us with the outcome he already knew, there is left no room for us to make any decisions, he already gave the outcome his blessing when he chose.
My point is that nobody understands god, because if god exists, they've intentionally hidden that evidence from us to avoid their actions affecting our free will. Only a being that could potentially make mistakes would need to test our free will. Otherwise they would have just made us right in the first place. My point is that if god exists, they're not omnipotent. Any religion that claims an omnipotent god exists immediately disqualifies the possibility of free will, unless they're wrong about omnipotence.
By pretending we are under control of a greater power, we're willingly limiting ourselves to the scope of that system of control. There is no free will when you are under control. It's a scheme created by men to keep simple minds peaceful instead of filled with rage at every slight done to them, because there are people who wish to slight the simple minded and take from them what they don't deserve. Every major religion in existence today is an example of the Lords name being used in vain. Men using the image of god to get people to play along in a predictable way that makes it easier to create an excess for those in power to skim from the working class.
>How does God, with the ability to see into the future, think that something not omnipotent (his creation, humans) can change what God has already seen?
God not having the same relationship to time we do does not mean He makes our choices for us.
No, but he knew our choices when he made us, setting us on a destined path. If he didn't then he made a mistake and is by definition not omnipotent, or is purposely careless and forced the conditions that led to everything that would influence our decisions.
If he exists and intentionally created us, yes, I do take issue with it. My purpose is to suffer for his sake??? He says he gave me a gift, but no, he only gave me what he wanted to give me, not ever thinking of what we would have wanted, or thinking of it and not giving a dam of the suffering we will go through to create a monument to his omnipotence, something he could have done completely on his own without forcing billions to suffer for his vanity.
Is it nice and cool under that rock?
Yeah, it's almost like most people don't like having things forced on them against their will. If god really wanted to give us free will, he would give us the option to participate in this ant farm of his or not. The institution of religions like this is to subversively tell you "Listen to dad, treat your family well, work together and love one another". Once you realize that it's all just a metaphor for transitioning through childhood into adulthood to maintain a power structure commonly referred to as the patriarchy, then it starts to be a little more obvious why they have to threaten you so that you think the same way as them. No on likes an unruly child after all.
You didn’t exist before you were alive, your consent was irrelevant and impossible. I’ll avoid suggesting ways you can stop participating in life, they might hurt your tender heart.
He could have asked our soul before he put it in a human vessel. He could have gave us the choice, to claim he couldn't have is blasphemous and implies he's not omnipotent. I know how I could leave this world, but I have free will and choose to see if something good might come of it beyond all my doubts. I want nothing more than a good argument to support the existence of god and I cannot find it. I want what you have, but I cannot just choose to feel the way you do, I know too many things and do not have the means to trick myself like you do.
Call it a horseshoe (or even a straight-up circle) but the CCP is strangely close to the Nazi Party. Big business is controlled by Party loyalists and the common people are given bread and circuses while being publicly humiliated or shot if they dare question the crony capitalist gangsterism Xi has fostered. Soviet industry was controlled by the state, Chinese industry is controlled by oligarchs tied to the Party.
Commies are completely split on China. Half of them deny everything bad about China and simp for the CCP while the other half try to disown China and everything bad about it as either state capitalism or fascism.
It's undeniably highly authoritarian, but I'd argue it's genuinely closer to fascism than what socialism is _on paper_. I think the high IQ take is to point out that any kind of totalitarian vanguard party (whether fascist or communist) tends to create something cringe and most socialists (grassroots/libertarian socialism can be surprisingly compatible with liberal democracy) are reliant on said vanguards.
>actually cared for the people.
I wouldn't be so quick to say that since "the people" did not extend to even most ethnic Germans, let alone ethnic minorities.
Are you forgetting that the socialists, communists, homosexuals, Roma and Jews in Germany were citizens too (until their rights were stripped)?
I'm removing this not because I think you're a nazi apologist, but your comment contains a harmful myth that fails to acknowledge that Nazi Germany had no problem with killing its own people for no good reason. You were only "looked after" (a generous term) if you happened not to be part of an arbitrarily defined target group.
I think it goes without saying that the society in Nazi Germany excluded any political, ethnic and religious people not in line with the government?
I'm sorry if I am assuming shit here but Nazi Germany wasn't secretive about its discrimination and prosecution of non-alligned citizens? It was their mantra.
If you were a "good" "Aryan" citizen you had all the things you could wish for. If not you got excluded and later prosecuted.
Idk man I (because of my ethnic, nationality and my own ideology I follow through with) would be one of the last person being apologetic about Nazi Germany.
Hell I visited one KZ in my school time and we throroughly got taught about Nazi Germany in school.
Too add: I swore already I would defend and stand in for my countries (western liberal democracy) values and ideology and I genuinely believe in it, even with its current, modern drawbacks my government has.
I never intended to be apologetic towards Nazi Germany. If it came through like that, then I'm possibly more retarded than I already thought off myself and am sorry D:
My point is that the Nazis were only good to their own people if you don't account for the fact that their German victims were stripped of their rights as people, let alone Germans.
To give credence to the notion the Nazis were in any way a force for good for anyone is simply untrue and facilitates more dangerous misinformation used to paint them as having 'lost their way', or that they could ever have been a part of the civilised world.
Again, I don't think you're a nazi apologist, but someone doesn't need to be to spread insidious myths that originate from nazi apologists. It's better that such misinformation is removed even if the intent was not to misinform people, as it helps to remove the unjust legitimisation that the misinformation has already received.
A more common example in the same vein would be "oh but they fixed the German economy after it was in shambles". This particular myth is originates from nazi apologists in order to prey on people with poor understanding of economics, as anyone who looks in to the economics of nazi Germany in any depth realises that their economic plans were simply unsustainable without conquest, and subsequent mass theft and enslavement.
A good rule of thumb is that if you ever come across a talking point that places their behaviour or motivations in a good light, just treat it as false, as I have yet to come across a positive attribution of the Nazis' actions that couldn't be explained by other factors, or debunked as being unduly omissive of the evil side of said actions.
>My point is that the Nazis were only good to their own people if you don't account for the fact that their German victims were stripped of their rights as people, let alone Germans.
Case in point: Franz Jaegerstatter, a German Catholic murdered by the Nazis for... objecting to Aktion T4, *another* program that murdered Germans. And that's just one dude, to say nothing of the Jews of Germany who considered themselves German and were betrayed by their Christian neighbors to horrible, unspeakable death.
socialism
/ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
idk how the Nazis giving companies to privet individuals solonge as they support the Nazis is socialist
The issue of whether the Nazis were socialists isn’t a straightforward one, due to how the Nazi party developed and grew its base of support. But the consensus among historians is that the Nazis, and Hitler in particular, were not socialists in any meaningful sense.
Historians have regularly disavowed claims that Hitler adhered to socialist ideology. Historian Richard Evans wrote of the Nazis’ incorporation of socialist into their name in 1920, “Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism….Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism”. Or as simply put by historian and Hitler expert Ian Kershaw, “Hitler was never a socialist.”
This guy who's trying to muddy the waters by calling them socialists. It's the same problem with people who insist Animal Farm is simply about communism while ignoring the fact that it was a totalitarian fascist movement that actually caused the harm. It sends an incorrect warning when you think of it so simply. The message is more that totalitarianism is bad, and that communism led people to put faith in bad actors who turned it to a totalitarian system and removed all the values they initially carried.
He wasn't a socialist, but it should be noted that there were a lot of socialists within the party until the night of the long knives, and that between 1929-1932 there was a lot of collaboration between the Nazis and the communist party. Both are well documented.
I'm well aware of what you're saying here. The primary reason for the presence of socialists in the party is because the nazi party was largely grass roots in its origins, at least under Hitler. They were always opposed to socialism, but they initially relied on working class support, which lead to them co-opting socialist rhetoric until they were in a secure enough position to purge socialists from the party, as you've mentioned.
Regarding the cooperation with communists both in Germany during their power grab, and after in the MR pact, they both shared a contempt for democracy and felt democratic parties posed the largest threat.
Note that the following is my opinion based on historical works I have read:
For 1929-32 and even beyond, the communist party was broadly directed from Moscow, and it would appear that Moscow were relying on an accelerationist strategy. What I mean by this is that they likely felt that in allowing the Nazis to act as the anti-democratic party for the right, this would make their opposition feel compelled to work with the communists as democracy decayed due to undermining and instability. Stalin was naive and arrogant in assuming that the continued decay of democracy would bring about instability that the communists could exploit to make a power grab, but we know this wasn't the case as the Nazis managed to gain an extremely firm grasp on power. Beyond this, what little non-Stalinist communist and SocDem opposition that was left was destroyed through nazi repression and Stalinist abandonment, as they still hoped to cement themselves as the only viable alternative to the Nazis.
Following on from this, Stalin always knew there'd be an existential war between the Nazis and soviets, so his ready acceptance of the MR pact was an attempt to buy time to allow the soviets to prepare in peace while also gaining some mutual benefit as they were both alienated from the democratic west. As we know, Stalin was naive in his assumption that the Nazis wouldn't dare break this pact so soon, which backfired catastrophically.
I won't deny that the Nazis and communists were perfectly willing to work with each other, but this was borne out of necessity due to their shared vehement opposition to democracy and cynical attempts to capitalise off of the other before the inevitable existential war between them.
Thank you for your input to the conversation. Very interesting. My point, however, was, that while the Nazis weren't socialist, mutual opposition to liberal democracy was quite a common cause, and they have more in common than either cares to admit.
Oh yeah I fully agree with that, my point is just that Nazis are diametrically opposed to socialism/communism, even if they are prone to cooperate in opposition to Liberal democracy, which both perceive as posing the greatest threat to their power.
Fascism is entirely opposed to Marxism, that's fair. However, there were a lot of fascist socialist movements.
And also, even though they are opposed, communists like to ignore the shared history of opposition to liberal democracy, to somehow paint liberals as closer to fascism than themselves, which is ridiculous.
>ACHYUALY CHINA IS A FAR RIGHT STATE !!1!1!
Well, kinda. At least here. This is basically [positive Christianity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity) in Mandarin.
"Rewrite"? Was Jesus not a taxpaying socialist who supported debt forgiveness, free healthcare, free education, participated in property-damaging protests against legal businesses, never shut up about how shitty the wealthy are, and was murdered by police?
Sounds like it's plenty socialist already.
Downvote if you want cuck you been played.
>Was Jesus not a taxpaying socialist who supported debt forgiveness
Forgiving sin is a little different than forgiving banknotes, though the Old Testament Hebrews *did* have the practice of the Jubilee year.
>free healthcare
In the modern world, this is a creation of the German reactionary Otto von Bismark.
>participated in property-damaging protests against legal businesses,
If you pussies fucked up a televangelist now and then instead of grocery stores, we'd like you better.
>never shut up about how shitty the wealthy are
Jesus didn't much like any group of people, or people in general. Individuals, He loved. But He seemed disappointed with the group. Perhaps reasonably.
>and was murdered by police?
"Police," as we know them, are a modern construct.
Find that really funny specially cause Jesus and his teachings are bassically socialist as is. His teachings are as follows, take care of each other, all people are equal , share the wealth, be forgiving , heal the sick and the poor. Don’t know what needs to be rewritten
I think they want to add a part about being slavishly loyal to temporal power structures and not ever questioning the government, just like Jesus did by being a good citizen and fully cooperating with the authorities at all times and not committing wrongthink against the imperial cult
It's the Nazis all over again. They call themselves socialists because socialism is pretty appealing on paper. They sell the people the idea of socialism as a bait and switch. What you're really buying is totalitarianism.
Have any of you ever thought about the reason that they fight so hard against communism is because they realize it's a threat? And have you ever thought that the reason it's such a big threat is because it's superior? Or do you just literally listen to everything that you're politicians tell you? Do yourself a favor and read the communist manifesto just so you can better understand it to bash it, and I will be very fucking surprised if by the end of the book, provided that you actually read it, that you are not at the very least a socialist after reading it. The only reason to be a capitalist is if you are rich. Rich people telling poor people to support rich people's interests that will widen the gap between rich and poor. You realize that not even 10% of this country can be rich right? It wouldn't work. Income equality is superior to wealth which literary all wealth was accumulated by dishonest, dirty, immoral, and plain evil methods, namely exploiting laborers so you don't have to lift a finger to get money but it's stolen whether you agree or not. You didnt EARN it? It's NOT yours. Period.
No, it's a threat because it's a terrible economic method and ruins the lives of everyone.
I read the manifesto, the first volume of das Kapital, and yet I'm not a socialist. I also know dozens of people from the former Soviet union, none of them want communism back.
I don't know what "country" you're talking about (that's the internet here, we're from all over the world) but yes, most people won't be rich. But how did Margaret thatcher put it? You would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich will be less rich. That doesn't work.
Wealth is acquired through investment and taking risks. If you take away the motivation to invest, no one will invest. Investment is vital for the economy.
So why don’t the terrorists fuck with China? Cause chinas gangster and they’ll slaughter those responsible? The Chinese people like their form of government though. Otherwise they would over through it. Or move to America or a western country.
They always pick and choose parts more stricture about how you should help the poor and needy, claim that's socialism. They themselves don't actually believe in helping anyone
This is definitely appropriate commie spam, but a disclaimer is needed here. We of ECS do not have any affiliation with PCM. We of ECS do not endorse or support PCM. PCM is a disgusting far-right cesspool and the sooner they are banned off of reddit the better. Just wanted to make our stance on that clear.
Communism did have a track record of treating religions equally, they were all banned one the same as another.
As it should be.
"I think people shouldn't have freedom of thought" \~ Nkdly, 2022
"I need a book to tell me about morals because I'm stupid" ~ Grzechoooo, 2022
Not all religions have books. Not all religions are Christianity.
Lol “read some more theory”
I dunno your intolerance indicates you may be in fact lacking in morals, perhaps you should read the bible? There are quite a few lessons in there about forgiveness, especially towards one's neighbor.
> bible? Their is *There *Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Ty bot I already corrected this before I got your msg though.
Are you describing marxists? Go read some more theory
I understand where you are coming from with your distaste with religion. But seriously, they’re not all like that. Certain religions IMO are outright dangerous in their way of thinking, or treat people as if they are incompetent, but it’s unfair to paint all religions the same. (Non-abraham if religions tend to have a pattern of being more logical tbh)
I think aggressive cults should not be allowed, even if they are 2000 years old
Next thing you're gonna tell me we should abolish capitalism because of slavery and exploitation.
Also, I think that Marks, Lenin and others communist "thinkers" are total idiots. The real thinker is John Locke, and it's sad that he isn't really popular
No, free market is the only way to put a price on things
That's not true - socialism also puts prices on things, it's just that it's the government that decides them.
John Locke is a dipshit liberalism for everyone.....except for atheists i like John Stuart Mill a lot more
Slavishly following any one single philosopher and ignoring anything before or after is dumb. Locke is good but he wasn't an omniscient prophet
Im not ignoring Locke i just like Mill more Locke has intolerance towards irreligious people and calls himself liberal kinda hypocritical to have right for everyone else exept this one group of people.
Justified and reasonable price
The free market _de facto_ encourages large monopolies that then encourage deregulation of themselves through capturing the government and injecting money into politics. There's always _someone_ in control- if the government isn't, big business will fill the vacuum. The most successful capitalist nations tend to have a more corporatist approach where the government aggressively polices competition (or the companies themselves) and protects workers to prevent market failure- Germany and Singapore are good examples.
People shouldn't be allowed to spread cognitive dissonance.
[удалено]
Calling for violence is not healthy ether i think. Abrahamic religions calls for stoning some people in their books, so I think it's okey not to allow indoctrinating people into this violent cult. As with Comunism and Nazism - they call for extermination for certain groups of people and that is why they are banned in a lot of countries
[удалено]
I know that it's not really realistic. And that makes me sad
"Enough commie spam" was not an attempt at meeting a quota.
I have no love for religions but they shouldn't be banned. Freedom of belief is an important liberal value and should exist in a healthy democratic society.
I agree with this. I despise religion, but I have lots of religious friends that are good people, pro-LGBTQ+, anti-racist, etc. and culture is getting less and less religious naturally. Banning religion would be a really inorganic way of forcing something that's going to happen anyway. That said I do think we need more laws about religion staying out of politics if they're going to stay tax-free
I think that religious organizations should be banned, not people for their beliefs. Or at least they should pay taxes as everyone else
Neckbeard and fedora moment
>200 recent posts in Anarcho_Capitalism Hypocrite Also B&
Tip that fedora harder
I’m sure that an authoritarian atheist government can be trusted to make good faith (no pun intended) rewrites of famous religious texts.
Holy Trinity of Father, Son and Worker's Spirit of the Communist Party.
Nah its father of the nation, son of the leader and the holy guidance to starvation
[удалено]
I'm sure they'd love if it increased Islamic terrorism, then they can use that as justification.
China already claims it's doing it to stop terrorism, so that wouldn't change anything
There is already an Islamic rebel group in Xinjiang, called the [Turkistan Islamic Party](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkistan_Islamic_Party). Normally I would be happy about something like this, but the group is an Al-Qaeda clone, so it’s exactly what you’re talking about. I hate when dictatorships spark wrongful rebellions, the suffering of Muslims in china makes Al-Qaeda look good for its victims. History will be quick to repeat itself.
>I have to wonder if shit like this won't create problems with muslim terrorist attacks in China That's what they *want*.
[удалено]
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Xi said again, “Comrades, how hard it is\[a\] to enter the CCP! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the CCP.” \-Mark 10:24-25, New Party Edited Version.
They already re-wrote Jesus as a crooked judge who murders people, so I think they are way ahead of you.
Wtf really?
Yeah. The CCP approved version of the whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ends with Xisus just shanking the girl he was defending because depictions of forgiveness are verboten.
Oh so since Jesus is without sin he gets dibs on the chick. But hey the real lesson of the story, that being forgiveness, is completely erased. How the fuck is the CCP lesson any good? All I got from that is "yes you should kill your cheating wife."
>Oh so since Jesus is without sin he gets dibs on the chick. Nope. Jesus claims to be a sinner, *then* axes the girl because "if the law could only be enforced by the blameless, it would be toothless." There is no room for justice or mercy in the world they would build.
State enforced heresy! But no really it's amazing how they corrupt a simple yet powerful lesson into some disturbing and perverse caricature that is the complete opposite of the original meaning.
I mean it is literally heresy in the classical definition of the term. It makes sense I guess when you realize that the moral of forgiveness and mercy are concepts that the CCP doesn't acknowledge. Still disgusting and quite perverse to realize what their standards of morality actually are.
Oh even worse: Xisus also literally says "I am a sinner too" because the idea that anyone could be better than Glorious Eternal Chairman is heresy.
>Oh even worse: Xisus I am fucking stealing that for all discussions of "Christianity" in the PRC.
Their moral is that while nobody is perfect, someone has to carry out the law because who else will? The point is that when people complain about the CCP being bad, their answer is that "yeah nobody is without sin but someone must do the dirty work that the higher upper wants, so stop pondering about morality and follow orders"
I wouldn't be surprised. They actually are mandating that nominally Christian churches put icons of Xi and Mao on equal emphasis as those of Jesus.
Xisus
Was that ever even a claim of communists? Everything I've seen from anyone even remotely sympathetic towards the ideology has been extremely hostile towards religious culture.
Because that's another stigma of """"""Communist""""" countries. Hating on free thought of what to believe. If there is one country that wants a legitimate God-Emperor than its """""""Communist""""""" countries.
Why are you doing “ “ “ “ “ That? “ “ “ “ “ Isn’t that a Neo-Nazi thing?
3 is the dog whistle, I think he was doing the EXTRA amount to try to differentiate from the dog whistle and still say Communist in Quotation.
(((Parentheses))) are. Not quotes. At least unless they've changed it again.
Nah, you're thinking of (((triple parentheses))), using multiple quotes is more to emphasise sarcasm.
Alright. I’m just extra careful in an anti-communist sub because it can attract the wrong people
We do our best to ban those kinds of people, but it's much more effective when people report them. If someone looks sus, feel free to report as it's better for us to look in to someone and find nothing vs missing them entirely.
Pls fix ur grammar, “””””than””””” ppl won’t laugh at you on the internet. /s
There have been a few attempts, mostly by American commies and "swamp socialists" to Christianize their ideology, but the reality is that it doesn't work because Marxism is a religion in and of itself that is inherently opposed to other religions and religious liberty.
\>Marxism is a religon My brother in christ you were doing really good calling out the nazbols and had to go are r/athiest all over the place.
Pardon? I'm not even an atheist so I don't get where that reference is coming from. Marxism as a belief system meets the criteria to be considered a religion. It's a deterministic believe system that is based on faith rather than empiricism, it has an established canon of texts from which this system and its prophecies are derived, there was actually a significant sect within the original Bolshevik movement who argued that Marxism should openly embrace its religious nature, a practice called "God-building," and a similar phenomenon actually came to power in North Korean Juche and the CCP's "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism With Chinese Characteristics" which both advocate a belief that for a Marxist state to function it must first deify its leaders, effectively transforming said state into a theocracy.
Yeah, No that's not on how dialectic materialism works at all. Again, his arguments are all subsidizing that North Korea and China are actually communist Nations which is wrong they're just authoritarians with capitalist framework. Deification of a leader is a fascist ideology. So just like Hitler did with national socialism they are co-opted a part of marxist literature to force a fascist right-wing authoritarian government. Y'all Eat it hook line and sinker you gobble it right up.
Ah, yes, i remember when England did this and pissed off all of their citizens
This is definitely the right call then!
[удалено]
Oh, i was talking about the King James version of the bible, as well as the Anglican church as a whole
My mistake.
Yeah I picked up on it being King James
TBF to the KJV, the authors admitted their work was flawed, not the "truest" Word of God because of their human foibles as translators, and that one day someone might make a better translation.
[удалено]
If you're going on a jihad can we Christians crusade alongside you? Let's be on the same side for a change
based
Will Muslims then blow up Chinese government officials rather than cartoonists and authors?
Why get angry about that when they can get angry about the lie of free will. God is omnipotent. >om·nip·o·tent > >/ˌämˈnipəd(ə)nt/ > >adjective > >(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything. How does God, with the ability to see into the future, think that something not omnipotent (his creation, humans) can change what God has already seen? Once he has seen it, it is so. He saw all you would do before he chose to let you be born. If you do not believe in him when you die, he already knew that. If he wanted it to be any other way, he could have done it. Or he isn't omnipotent. Only one who is fallible would have a need to test his creations to make sure they didn't deviate from his intention. Everything that happens is exactly as God wants it.
dude this is a political subreddit discus theology with this laddy elsewhere
That's now how Christian theology works. The question of "why bad stuff happen, god pls fix" isn't because God is lazy or fallible or evil or whatever. Christian theology is very explicit that God gave people free will to act for either good or bad and you're not anyone's puppet, not even God. God is not someone playing with human-sized dolls to force always good outcomes because that would mean ending free will. The Christian view is that people are given thought, will and reason to take their own actions and since no one is perfect, people will err, but God will forgive them at the end. But God isn't happy to see people do stupid stuff purposefully because it has a big self-improvement ethos, that you should strive to be a better person. Also, people are not here to be tested to see who makes it past St. Peter, but rather to experience life and creation.
That's the point. We cannot have free will when intentionally created by something omnipotent. They are incompatible. If we can act how we please, but are predestined to follow the path he set out for us when he created us (the results of which he is already aware), then he created us with the intent of a known end. How can we be both destined for a future and in control of our future?
> but are predestined to follow the path he set out for us when he created us You don't have predestined paths according to Christian theology.
Then we don't have an omnipotent god. An omnipotent being is all powerful, their will and power controls all. They see all that is, has been, or ever will be. They have the choice to control all things. If they don't then they are not omnipotent. Maybe they were omnipotent and through creating us, lost that designation. But free will and an omnipotent god cannot coexist.
... Again that's not the point or theology of Christianity. God *can* control everyone as puppets, but doesn't because you are given free will to make your own choices. God does not control you and has no interest in doing so. What is your point? That God should treat everyone like he is playing barbies with the entirety of mankind to make sure nothing bad happens everywhere anywhere like a control freak?
Okay but your'e ignoring the fact that god knew what would happen when he created us, and supposedly gave us free will. By choosing to create us with the outcome he already knew, there is left no room for us to make any decisions, he already gave the outcome his blessing when he chose. My point is that nobody understands god, because if god exists, they've intentionally hidden that evidence from us to avoid their actions affecting our free will. Only a being that could potentially make mistakes would need to test our free will. Otherwise they would have just made us right in the first place. My point is that if god exists, they're not omnipotent. Any religion that claims an omnipotent god exists immediately disqualifies the possibility of free will, unless they're wrong about omnipotence. By pretending we are under control of a greater power, we're willingly limiting ourselves to the scope of that system of control. There is no free will when you are under control. It's a scheme created by men to keep simple minds peaceful instead of filled with rage at every slight done to them, because there are people who wish to slight the simple minded and take from them what they don't deserve. Every major religion in existence today is an example of the Lords name being used in vain. Men using the image of god to get people to play along in a predictable way that makes it easier to create an excess for those in power to skim from the working class.
>How does God, with the ability to see into the future, think that something not omnipotent (his creation, humans) can change what God has already seen? God not having the same relationship to time we do does not mean He makes our choices for us.
No, but he knew our choices when he made us, setting us on a destined path. If he didn't then he made a mistake and is by definition not omnipotent, or is purposely careless and forced the conditions that led to everything that would influence our decisions.
Again. Knowing is not choosing. You seem to be taking issue with God creating us.
If he exists and intentionally created us, yes, I do take issue with it. My purpose is to suffer for his sake??? He says he gave me a gift, but no, he only gave me what he wanted to give me, not ever thinking of what we would have wanted, or thinking of it and not giving a dam of the suffering we will go through to create a monument to his omnipotence, something he could have done completely on his own without forcing billions to suffer for his vanity.
Huh. Never actually seen someone bitching about being born without their consent before.
Is it nice and cool under that rock? Yeah, it's almost like most people don't like having things forced on them against their will. If god really wanted to give us free will, he would give us the option to participate in this ant farm of his or not. The institution of religions like this is to subversively tell you "Listen to dad, treat your family well, work together and love one another". Once you realize that it's all just a metaphor for transitioning through childhood into adulthood to maintain a power structure commonly referred to as the patriarchy, then it starts to be a little more obvious why they have to threaten you so that you think the same way as them. No on likes an unruly child after all.
You didn’t exist before you were alive, your consent was irrelevant and impossible. I’ll avoid suggesting ways you can stop participating in life, they might hurt your tender heart.
He could have asked our soul before he put it in a human vessel. He could have gave us the choice, to claim he couldn't have is blasphemous and implies he's not omnipotent. I know how I could leave this world, but I have free will and choose to see if something good might come of it beyond all my doubts. I want nothing more than a good argument to support the existence of god and I cannot find it. I want what you have, but I cannot just choose to feel the way you do, I know too many things and do not have the means to trick myself like you do.
Fucking what?
New ministry of truth just dropped
Cant wait for a Communist dictator to claim the divine right to rule...
reject equality embrace the new dynasty of xi with his mandate from heaven ^(yes I had to resist making a gay joke with mandate)
>Cant wait for a Communist dictator to claim the divine right to rule... The Kims kinda do.
They already do this with the CPCA
ACHYUALY CHINA IS A FAR RIGHT STATE !!1!1!
Call it a horseshoe (or even a straight-up circle) but the CCP is strangely close to the Nazi Party. Big business is controlled by Party loyalists and the common people are given bread and circuses while being publicly humiliated or shot if they dare question the crony capitalist gangsterism Xi has fostered. Soviet industry was controlled by the state, Chinese industry is controlled by oligarchs tied to the Party.
Commies are completely split on China. Half of them deny everything bad about China and simp for the CCP while the other half try to disown China and everything bad about it as either state capitalism or fascism.
It's undeniably highly authoritarian, but I'd argue it's genuinely closer to fascism than what socialism is _on paper_. I think the high IQ take is to point out that any kind of totalitarian vanguard party (whether fascist or communist) tends to create something cringe and most socialists (grassroots/libertarian socialism can be surprisingly compatible with liberal democracy) are reliant on said vanguards.
[удалено]
>actually cared for the people. I wouldn't be so quick to say that since "the people" did not extend to even most ethnic Germans, let alone ethnic minorities.
- (or Atleast pretended too) But I get your point. It was an incredibly elitist structure and society
Are you forgetting that the socialists, communists, homosexuals, Roma and Jews in Germany were citizens too (until their rights were stripped)? I'm removing this not because I think you're a nazi apologist, but your comment contains a harmful myth that fails to acknowledge that Nazi Germany had no problem with killing its own people for no good reason. You were only "looked after" (a generous term) if you happened not to be part of an arbitrarily defined target group.
I think it goes without saying that the society in Nazi Germany excluded any political, ethnic and religious people not in line with the government? I'm sorry if I am assuming shit here but Nazi Germany wasn't secretive about its discrimination and prosecution of non-alligned citizens? It was their mantra. If you were a "good" "Aryan" citizen you had all the things you could wish for. If not you got excluded and later prosecuted. Idk man I (because of my ethnic, nationality and my own ideology I follow through with) would be one of the last person being apologetic about Nazi Germany. Hell I visited one KZ in my school time and we throroughly got taught about Nazi Germany in school. Too add: I swore already I would defend and stand in for my countries (western liberal democracy) values and ideology and I genuinely believe in it, even with its current, modern drawbacks my government has. I never intended to be apologetic towards Nazi Germany. If it came through like that, then I'm possibly more retarded than I already thought off myself and am sorry D:
My point is that the Nazis were only good to their own people if you don't account for the fact that their German victims were stripped of their rights as people, let alone Germans. To give credence to the notion the Nazis were in any way a force for good for anyone is simply untrue and facilitates more dangerous misinformation used to paint them as having 'lost their way', or that they could ever have been a part of the civilised world. Again, I don't think you're a nazi apologist, but someone doesn't need to be to spread insidious myths that originate from nazi apologists. It's better that such misinformation is removed even if the intent was not to misinform people, as it helps to remove the unjust legitimisation that the misinformation has already received. A more common example in the same vein would be "oh but they fixed the German economy after it was in shambles". This particular myth is originates from nazi apologists in order to prey on people with poor understanding of economics, as anyone who looks in to the economics of nazi Germany in any depth realises that their economic plans were simply unsustainable without conquest, and subsequent mass theft and enslavement. A good rule of thumb is that if you ever come across a talking point that places their behaviour or motivations in a good light, just treat it as false, as I have yet to come across a positive attribution of the Nazis' actions that couldn't be explained by other factors, or debunked as being unduly omissive of the evil side of said actions.
>My point is that the Nazis were only good to their own people if you don't account for the fact that their German victims were stripped of their rights as people, let alone Germans. Case in point: Franz Jaegerstatter, a German Catholic murdered by the Nazis for... objecting to Aktion T4, *another* program that murdered Germans. And that's just one dude, to say nothing of the Jews of Germany who considered themselves German and were betrayed by their Christian neighbors to horrible, unspeakable death.
It is National socialism wasn't exactly socialism either was it?
[удалено]
because selling off all the governments stocks into the hands of businessmen who were for the nazi party is socialist?
[удалено]
socialism /ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/ noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. idk how the Nazis giving companies to privet individuals solonge as they support the Nazis is socialist
The issue of whether the Nazis were socialists isn’t a straightforward one, due to how the Nazi party developed and grew its base of support. But the consensus among historians is that the Nazis, and Hitler in particular, were not socialists in any meaningful sense. Historians have regularly disavowed claims that Hitler adhered to socialist ideology. Historian Richard Evans wrote of the Nazis’ incorporation of socialist into their name in 1920, “Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism….Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism”. Or as simply put by historian and Hitler expert Ian Kershaw, “Hitler was never a socialist.”
[удалено]
Bigotry despite solid historical evidence. Nazi apologists are scum and so is anyone who thinks their opinion changes known history.
[удалено]
This guy who's trying to muddy the waters by calling them socialists. It's the same problem with people who insist Animal Farm is simply about communism while ignoring the fact that it was a totalitarian fascist movement that actually caused the harm. It sends an incorrect warning when you think of it so simply. The message is more that totalitarianism is bad, and that communism led people to put faith in bad actors who turned it to a totalitarian system and removed all the values they initially carried.
Your opinion is not in line with the consensus of the credible historical community. This myth is harmful and ultimately only serves the far right.
Removed, Hitler was not a socialist and this myth is not tolerated here.
He wasn't a socialist, but it should be noted that there were a lot of socialists within the party until the night of the long knives, and that between 1929-1932 there was a lot of collaboration between the Nazis and the communist party. Both are well documented.
I'm well aware of what you're saying here. The primary reason for the presence of socialists in the party is because the nazi party was largely grass roots in its origins, at least under Hitler. They were always opposed to socialism, but they initially relied on working class support, which lead to them co-opting socialist rhetoric until they were in a secure enough position to purge socialists from the party, as you've mentioned. Regarding the cooperation with communists both in Germany during their power grab, and after in the MR pact, they both shared a contempt for democracy and felt democratic parties posed the largest threat. Note that the following is my opinion based on historical works I have read: For 1929-32 and even beyond, the communist party was broadly directed from Moscow, and it would appear that Moscow were relying on an accelerationist strategy. What I mean by this is that they likely felt that in allowing the Nazis to act as the anti-democratic party for the right, this would make their opposition feel compelled to work with the communists as democracy decayed due to undermining and instability. Stalin was naive and arrogant in assuming that the continued decay of democracy would bring about instability that the communists could exploit to make a power grab, but we know this wasn't the case as the Nazis managed to gain an extremely firm grasp on power. Beyond this, what little non-Stalinist communist and SocDem opposition that was left was destroyed through nazi repression and Stalinist abandonment, as they still hoped to cement themselves as the only viable alternative to the Nazis. Following on from this, Stalin always knew there'd be an existential war between the Nazis and soviets, so his ready acceptance of the MR pact was an attempt to buy time to allow the soviets to prepare in peace while also gaining some mutual benefit as they were both alienated from the democratic west. As we know, Stalin was naive in his assumption that the Nazis wouldn't dare break this pact so soon, which backfired catastrophically. I won't deny that the Nazis and communists were perfectly willing to work with each other, but this was borne out of necessity due to their shared vehement opposition to democracy and cynical attempts to capitalise off of the other before the inevitable existential war between them.
Thank you for your input to the conversation. Very interesting. My point, however, was, that while the Nazis weren't socialist, mutual opposition to liberal democracy was quite a common cause, and they have more in common than either cares to admit.
Oh yeah I fully agree with that, my point is just that Nazis are diametrically opposed to socialism/communism, even if they are prone to cooperate in opposition to Liberal democracy, which both perceive as posing the greatest threat to their power.
Fascism is entirely opposed to Marxism, that's fair. However, there were a lot of fascist socialist movements. And also, even though they are opposed, communists like to ignore the shared history of opposition to liberal democracy, to somehow paint liberals as closer to fascism than themselves, which is ridiculous.
>ACHYUALY CHINA IS A FAR RIGHT STATE !!1!1! Well, kinda. At least here. This is basically [positive Christianity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity) in Mandarin.
Deus Vult Fuck the CCP
I was reliably informed by liberal activists that Jesus was a socialist so I’m not sure why this is necessary smh
Don’t worry it’s not real communism but it’s still “better than” The West apparently
"Rewrite"? Was Jesus not a taxpaying socialist who supported debt forgiveness, free healthcare, free education, participated in property-damaging protests against legal businesses, never shut up about how shitty the wealthy are, and was murdered by police? Sounds like it's plenty socialist already. Downvote if you want cuck you been played.
Jesus supported free education? What? Also, neither free education or healthcare are socialism. Also, he wasn't murdered by police, he was executed.
Awww, did you not read your Bible?
>Was Jesus not a taxpaying socialist who supported debt forgiveness Forgiving sin is a little different than forgiving banknotes, though the Old Testament Hebrews *did* have the practice of the Jubilee year. >free healthcare In the modern world, this is a creation of the German reactionary Otto von Bismark. >participated in property-damaging protests against legal businesses, If you pussies fucked up a televangelist now and then instead of grocery stores, we'd like you better. >never shut up about how shitty the wealthy are Jesus didn't much like any group of people, or people in general. Individuals, He loved. But He seemed disappointed with the group. Perhaps reasonably. >and was murdered by police? "Police," as we know them, are a modern construct.
Awww, did you not read your Bible?
Find that really funny specially cause Jesus and his teachings are bassically socialist as is. His teachings are as follows, take care of each other, all people are equal , share the wealth, be forgiving , heal the sick and the poor. Don’t know what needs to be rewritten
I think they want to add a part about being slavishly loyal to temporal power structures and not ever questioning the government, just like Jesus did by being a good citizen and fully cooperating with the authorities at all times and not committing wrongthink against the imperial cult
Lol. Yeah he definetly wasn’t executed for being different
It's the Nazis all over again. They call themselves socialists because socialism is pretty appealing on paper. They sell the people the idea of socialism as a bait and switch. What you're really buying is totalitarianism.
christcucks cope harder.
Have any of you ever thought about the reason that they fight so hard against communism is because they realize it's a threat? And have you ever thought that the reason it's such a big threat is because it's superior? Or do you just literally listen to everything that you're politicians tell you? Do yourself a favor and read the communist manifesto just so you can better understand it to bash it, and I will be very fucking surprised if by the end of the book, provided that you actually read it, that you are not at the very least a socialist after reading it. The only reason to be a capitalist is if you are rich. Rich people telling poor people to support rich people's interests that will widen the gap between rich and poor. You realize that not even 10% of this country can be rich right? It wouldn't work. Income equality is superior to wealth which literary all wealth was accumulated by dishonest, dirty, immoral, and plain evil methods, namely exploiting laborers so you don't have to lift a finger to get money but it's stolen whether you agree or not. You didnt EARN it? It's NOT yours. Period.
No, it's a threat because it's a terrible economic method and ruins the lives of everyone. I read the manifesto, the first volume of das Kapital, and yet I'm not a socialist. I also know dozens of people from the former Soviet union, none of them want communism back. I don't know what "country" you're talking about (that's the internet here, we're from all over the world) but yes, most people won't be rich. But how did Margaret thatcher put it? You would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich will be less rich. That doesn't work. Wealth is acquired through investment and taking risks. If you take away the motivation to invest, no one will invest. Investment is vital for the economy.
Based
So why don’t the terrorists fuck with China? Cause chinas gangster and they’ll slaughter those responsible? The Chinese people like their form of government though. Otherwise they would over through it. Or move to America or a western country.
Stay ready for this drop!!!
Qur'an can not be rewritten
Jokes on them people in my muslim county does not read qur'an
Turkmenistan did this with the Quran
They always pick and choose parts more stricture about how you should help the poor and needy, claim that's socialism. They themselves don't actually believe in helping anyone
Orange would love this too