Architects Of The Culture Of Death

[Socrates]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1293722' date='Jun 12 2007, 12:19 PM']I offer no comparisons between Christianity and Marxism, only an analogy between their respective leaders to their traditions. In any case, I do not believe that Marx is more responsible for Lenin or Stalin than Lenin and Stalin were. Likewise, I do not believe Jesus Christ is more responsible for Rodgrio Borgia than Borgia was. Yet, this is where the logic would lead with such reductionistic statements like "Marx killed 100 million people." Yeah, you can say that if you cut out 125 years of history and many more historical figures and characters.

And that communism is 'godless' is neither here nor there since I don't think capitalism has much to do with God anyway.[/quote]
Karl Marx dedicated his life to promoting revolution, which he idolized almost as a god in itself. Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, which proclaimed moral relativism, called for the abolition of the "bourgeois family", and concluded:
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!"

Just because Marx may not have personally killed anybody, does not mean he did not want bloody Communist revolution - his writings and life indicate otherwise. It was simply that the revolution was not able to get started in practice until Lenin's revolution.

Marx called for violent revolution against the "ruling classes" - Christ did not.

Marx's views were based in his atheism, and were explicitly anti-religious - it was truly godless in every sense of the world.

It may be fashionable in "liberal Catholic" circles to regard Karl Marx as essentially benign, but that is contary to the facts. Marx and Christ are incompatible.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1294150' date='Jun 12 2007, 09:06 PM']Karl Marx dedicated his life to promoting revolution, which he idolized almost as a god in itself. Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, which proclaimed moral relativism, called for the abolition of the "bourgeois family", and concluded:
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!"

Just because Marx may not have personally killed anybody, does not mean he did not want bloody Communist revolution - his writings and life indicate otherwise. It was simply that the revolution was not able to get started in practice until Lenin's revolution.

Marx called for violent revolution against the "ruling classes" - Christ did not.

Marx's views were based in his atheism, and were explicitly anti-religious - it was truly godless in every sense of the world.

It may be fashionable in "liberal Catholic" circles to regard Karl Marx as essentially benign, but that is contary to the facts. Marx and Christ are incompatible.[/quote]

I am not disputing that Marx theorized about revolution, but he was a thinker and intellectual above anything else. You have to give ideas their proper place and weight in historical agency. It is whiggish to say that because Marx wrote about and envisioned certain social conditions that people later tried to imitate, that either Marx caused it or that what later came about was what he exactly had in mind. In fact, I am confident in saying 'no' to both scenarios for Lenin is as much reponsible (indeed I would say much more so) for the rise of communism as Marx, and in fact Marx wouldn't have imagined his revolution taking place as it did in Russia.

As a thinker, Marx was interpreted in a certain way just as Jesus is interpreted in a certain way when he says that he came to "bring the sword." And again I am not comparing Marx and Christ in the least bit. To make the analogy: as Christ is to Christianity, so is Marx to Marxism is to say nothing of Christ to Marx or Christianity to Marxism.

Finally, while Marx may have been consciously atheist, his own writings betray a prophetic and even religious element that were due to his Jewish ancestry. I am fine calling it anti-Christian, or anti-Catholic, but it would take a very narrow definition of religion to call it completely anti-religious.

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1294150' date='Jun 12 2007, 11:06 PM']Karl Marx dedicated his life to promoting revolution, which he idolized almost as a god in itself. Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, which proclaimed moral relativism, called for the abolition of the "bourgeois family", and concluded:
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!"

Just because Marx may not have personally killed anybody, does not mean he did not want bloody Communist revolution - his writings and life indicate otherwise. It was simply that the revolution was not able to get started in practice until Lenin's revolution.

Marx called for violent revolution against the "ruling classes" - Christ did not.

Marx's views were based in his atheism, and were explicitly anti-religious - it was truly godless in every sense of the world.

It may be fashionable in "liberal Catholic" circles to regard Karl Marx as essentially benign, but that is contary to the facts. Marx and Christ are incompatible.[/quote]

yea that's in the book..

[GodChaser]

The Only purpose of Communism is to get rid of Christianity, because we are all opitated, in their opinion. Guess what, as they come against us, they will be the ones ashamed for what they believe in. God will humble all these murderors, and they will have to bow down before Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father. Power to the Resistance!

[-I---Love]

John Paul II understood Marxism, its implications and results, often better than the so-called Marxists themselves. It seems to me that he would disagree in being so wishy-washy against Marxism. He spent his life in protecting his beloved Poland from such evil.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1294276' date='Jun 12 2007, 11:08 PM']I am not disputing that Marx theorized about revolution, but he was a thinker and intellectual above anything else. You have to give ideas their proper place and weight in historical agency. It is whiggish to say that because Marx wrote about and envisioned certain social conditions that people later tried to imitate, that either Marx caused it or that what later came about was what he exactly had in mind. In fact, I am confident in saying 'no' to both scenarios for Lenin is as much reponsible (indeed I would say much more so) for the rise of communism as Marx, and in fact Marx wouldn't have imagined his revolution taking place as it did in Russia.

As a thinker, Marx was interpreted in a certain way just as Jesus is interpreted in a certain way when he says that he came to "bring the sword." And again I am not comparing Marx and Christ in the least bit. To make the analogy: as Christ is to Christianity, so is Marx to Marxism is to say nothing of Christ to Marx or Christianity to Marxism.

Finally, while Marx may have been consciously atheist, his own writings betray a prophetic and even religious element that were due to his Jewish ancestry. I am fine calling it anti-Christian, or anti-Catholic, but it would take a very narrow definition of religion to call it completely anti-religious.[/quote]
Marx specifically and repeatedly called for a "forcible" violent Communist revolution. This was what Marx was all about.
Marx proclaimed in the Manifesto, [b]"[The Communists] openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."[/b]

"Forcible overthrow" implies violence. Marx wasn't talking about the workers of the world all getting together and singing Kumbaya.

The truth is that words have consequences. Ideas have consequences. I am not by any means absolving Lenin & co. of responsibility for their actions, but it is foolish to claim Marx bore no repsonsibility for the actions of those who would practice what he preached regarding revolution and the total overthrow of existing societies.

If I were to write vehemently and passionately for the violent overthrow of an entire class of people, and somebody decided to take me up on my words with violent action against them, it would be a weak excuse to absolve myself by saying, "Oh I'm just a thinker and intellectual - I wouldn't hurt a fly - not my fault."

As for your claim that "Marx wouldn't have imagined his revolution taking place as it did in Russia," Marx in fact made an eerily prescient statement in 1870:
[quote]This present war will lead to one between Germany and Russia. . . . Moreover, this second war will bring to birth the inevitable social revolution in Russia."[/quote][quote]To make the analogy: as Christ is to Christianity, so is Marx to Marxism is to say nothing of Christ to Marx or Christianity to Marxism.[/quote]
Christ did not call for violent revolution ("liberation theologians" to the contrary). Marx did.
Christians are followers of Christ, just as Marxists are followers of Marx. By their fruits ye shall know them.

And your point about Marx not being "anti-religious" is nonsense. Marx was against all religion in the traditional sense. The fact that he made his own revolutionary ideology a pseudo-religion in itself does not change this.

Edited June 14, 2007 by Socrates

[Justified Saint]

double post

Edited June 14, 2007 by Justified Saint

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1294937' date='Jun 13 2007, 09:27 PM']Marx specifically and repeatedly called for a "forcible" violent Communist revolution. This was what Marx was all about.
Marx proclaimed in the Manifesto, [b]"[The Communists] openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."[/b]

"Forcible overthrow" implies violence. Marx wasn't talking about the workers of the world all getting together and singing Kumbaya.

The truth is that words have consequences. Ideas have consequences. I am not by any means absolving Lenin & co. of responsibility for their actions, but it is foolish to claim Marx bore no repsonsibility for the actions of those who would practice what he preached regarding revolution and the total overthrow of existing societies.

If I were to write vehemently and passionately for the violent overthrow of an entire class of people, and somebody decided to take me up on my words with violent action against them, it would be a weak excuse to absolve myself by saying, "Oh I'm just a thinker and intellectual - I wouldn't hurt a fly - not my fault."[/quote]

Indeed, but I never claimed that Marx is not responsible period, just considerably less so than the inane comment "Marx killed 100 million people" would suggest. And yeah, ideas do have consequences, but it is just as reductionistic to explain everything by ideas as it is by Marx's materialism.

Do you likewise consider the founding fathers evil for preaching and fomenting revolution?

[quote]As for your claim that "Marx wouldn't have imagined his revolution taking place as it did in Russia," Marx in fact made an eerily prescient statement in 1870[/quote]I am not familar with the reference or its context. But central to the [i]Manifesto[/i] is the idea of history moving in phases where the rise of communism would be conditioned by a highly developed proletariat in a post-industrial society. Russia did not fit the bill as it was mostly agrarian for much of the 19th century.

[quote]Christ did not call for violent revolution ("liberation theologians" to the contrary). Marx did.
Christians are followers of Christ, just as Marxists are followers of Marx. By their fruits ye shall know them.[/quote]

The point of comparison between Christianity and Marxism was mistunderstood from the start so I have nothing more to say on that point. However, having actually read original works by liberation theologians (which I think it is safe to assume very few here probably have) there is very little to report on "violent revolution."

[quote]And your point about Marx not being "anti-religious" is nonsense. Marx was against all religion in the traditional sense. The fact that he made his own revolutionary ideology a pseudo-religion in itself does not change this.[/quote]

There is nothing unique in such an interpretation as I have come across it from multiple sources. Such an interpretation actually fits well with any consistent understanding of the development of secularization insofar as Marx's atheism conceals deeper religious convictions. The same could be said of someone like Nietzsche, though I draw the line with Freud. (Although William James was pretty good at using Freud for his religious agenda)

Not all religion is good for it may be bad religion, but it is religion nonetheless. As I said before, something is not anti-religious for being anti-Christian or non-traditional.

[GodChaser]

Cold, hard facts about leaders who were Athiests.

Atheists like to say people of God are the greatest murderers of history NOT SO

The reality is... atheists are the greatest mass murderes in history,people do not understand this due to media brainwashing,but the facts speak for them selves.

Heres a list of the most blood thirsty leaders in history

Moa chinese communist leader kill tally =70 million DEAD(atheist)
Stalin communist kill tally= 30 to 60 million DEAD(atheist)
Polpot communist kill tally= 3 to 4 million dead(atheist)
Lenin kill tally= 10 million dead(atheist)
Trotsky communist butcher= millions dead(atheist)
Kim Jong millions dead(atheist)

Hitler 30 million DEAD(atheist)


Note this list and know that atheism is a blood thirsty religion of the left hand path and if you are thinking HITLER was a christian the reality is HITLER was an atheist warlock and the MEDIA lie about Hitler and his satanic beliefs,want proof ? (google Hitler thule society)

The media lie about HITLER being a Christian like they do over many things,the fact is atheism is a satanic religion,to say you do not believe in God is satanic and i a faith that can not be proven making atheism a religion.

Take Anton LeVay a atheist who wrote the satanic bible,Levay is a religious satanist thats why he did rituals and the black mass and other satanic doings like Crowleys sex magic,its a religion that taps into hatred and revenge.
You often hear Levays followers say they dont believe in satan but when you scratch their satanic spew below the surface you find they are into spells evil curses and all sorts of evil

Atheist always demad proof,crazy that they have no proof to say their is no God and that they choose a belief system that has the monsters of history as its followers ATHEISM= satans trickery

THE TRUTH HAS BEEN SPOKEN

[jeffpugh]

Good response, GodChaser. Just an iota, but the Communist regime was the one that started the propaganda about pope Pius XII being "Hitler's Pope", or more common "the pope who didn't do anything about the holocaust". In fact, the pope was a great resource in hiding Jews. I know there are a couple of books on it now.

[GodChaser]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1295393' date='Jun 14 2007, 05:06 PM']Good response, GodChaser. Just an iota, but the Communist regime was the one that started the propaganda about pope Pius XII being "Hitler's Pope", or more common "the pope who didn't do anything about the holocaust". In fact, the pope was a great resource in hiding Jews. I know there are a couple of books on it now.[/quote]
I wouldn't doubt the Pope did something to hide the jews. You'd have to be a brainwashed Nazi Zombie or a sociopath not to help the jews at that time.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1295021' date='Jun 14 2007, 01:08 AM']Indeed, but I never claimed that Marx is not responsible period, just considerably less so than the inane comment "Marx killed 100 million people" would suggest. And yeah, ideas do have consequences, but it is just as reductionistic to explain everything by ideas as it is by Marx's materialism.[/quote]
I don't think anyone claims that no one but Marx is responsible for the horrors of Communism. However, it was his ideas and writings that laid the foundation for the whole gruesome enterprise.

[quote]Do you likewise consider the founding fathers evil for preaching and fomenting revolution? [/quote]The truth is that the American "Revolution" was actually not a true Revolution in the Marxist sense of tearing down and destroying all existing society and replacing it with something else. The American Revolution was primarily a War for Independence - to be self-governing, rather than governed by the British Crown. The goal was not to overthrow the British Monarchy, but for the colonies to no longer be subject to it. Some of the American founders were actually quite conservative in their politics.
My history teacher, Dr. Warren Carroll, who is an expert on the history of Communism, often emphasises how the American War for Independance was really nothing like the French or Communist Revolutions. Story on a recent lecture here: [url="http://www.christendom.edu/news/archives/archives07/carroll.shtml"]"The American War for Independence: Not a Revolution" [/url]

[quote]I am not familar with the reference or its context. But central to the [i]Manifesto[/i] is the idea of history moving in phases where the rise of communism would be conditioned by a highly developed proletariat in a post-industrial society. Russia did not fit the bill as it was mostly agrarian for much of the 19th century.[/quote]
The context was Marx writing to a German Communist during the Franco-Prussian War.
And Marx was not off-base in his prediction, as the Communist Revolution indeed took place in "agrarian" Russia.

[quote]The point of comparison between Christianity and Marxism was mistunderstood from the start so I have nothing more to say on that point. However, having actually read original works by liberation theologians (which I think it is safe to assume very few here probably have) there is very little to report on "violent revolution."
There is nothing unique in such an interpretation as I have come across it from multiple sources. Such an interpretation actually fits well with any consistent understanding of the development of secularization insofar as Marx's atheism conceals deeper religious convictions. The same could be said of someone like Nietzsche, though I draw the line with Freud. (Although William James was pretty good at using Freud for his religious agenda)

Not all religion is good for it may be bad religion, but it is religion nonetheless. As I said before, something is not anti-religious for being anti-Christian or non-traditional.[/quote]
Your original beef with me regarding this was that I refered to Marxism as "godless.' Since Marxism indeed rejects God, it fits this bill pretty well.
The fact that Marxist ideology is a kind of atheistic pseudo-religion in itself (worshipping "socialism man" and revolution, rather than God) does not change this. It seems you are just splitting hairs here.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1295574' date='Jun 14 2007, 08:15 PM']I don't think anyone claims that no one but Marx is responsible for the horrors of Communism. However, it was his ideas and writings that laid the foundation for the whole gruesome enterprise.[/quote]

That may be so, but to say that "Marx killed 100 million people," is quite simply an historically irresponsible statement that suggests that the shoes of Lenin or Stalin could have really been filled by anyone since Marx already "laid the foundation." If you cannot concede that point, then we will have to agree to disagree because I think a statement like that vastly overpriveleges the historical agency of intellectualism just as Marx overpriveleged materialism.

The problem is that you suppose that Marx, Lenin and Stalin as well as other communist dictators were all joined at the hip in historical lineage. However, I am more suspicious of uncritically lumping Marx together with that company.

[quote]The truth is that the American "Revolution" was actually not a true Revolution in the Marxist sense of tearing down and destroying all existing society and replacing it with something else. The American Revolution was primarily a War for Independence - to be self-governing, rather than governed by the British Crown. The goal was not to overthrow the British Monarchy, but for the colonies to no longer be subject to it. Some of the American founders were actually quite conservative in their politics.
My history teacher, Dr. Warren Carroll, who is an expert on the history of Communism, often emphasises how the American War for Independance was really nothing like the French or Communist Revolutions.[/quote]That is pretty cool having Dr. Carroll as a history teacher. However, a couple of problems I see here is that firstly you equate revolution with Marxism. Revolution is not unique to Marxism. Additionally, it is a bad reading of Marx to argue that the Marxist understanding of revolution is only a "tearing down and destroying all existing society." The whole point of the [i]Manifesto[/i] is to argue that the triumph of communism could only come at a certan time and under certain conditions. The rise of capitalism and industrial labor is essential to that culmination, which is why it is easy to argue that the communist revolution happened prematurely in Russia. Thus the point is not to tear down and destroy those conditions, but to bring them, in Marx's eyes, to their proper fulfilment. That may involve violence and overthrow, but that doesn't mean Marx wants to completely tear down society and rebuild it. If that is what happened in subsequent communist revolutions, then it only validates the disjunction that should exist between Marxist theory and its enactors.

I would indeed agree with you that the American Revolution was a conservative revolution, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a revolution. It was an overthow of government by means of force and that is what a revolution is. For even if the colonials wanted to completely overthrow the British Crown, that would have been essentially impossible. They could barely defend their own land, much less invade England across the Atlantic Ocean. Also, it is not as if the founding fathers were one monolithic entity. It is one thing to talk about George Washington as a founding father and quite another to talk about Thomas Jefferson as one. Yet, both men exercised a lot of influence.


[quote]The context was Marx writing to a German Communist during the Franco-Prussian War.
And Marx was not off-base in his prediction, as the Communist Revolution indeed took place in "agrarian" Russia.[/quote]

Be that as it may, I guess I am willing to give more weight to Marx's theoretical work than a letter he wrote to friend.

[quote]Your original beef with me regarding this was that I refered to Marxism as "godless.' Since Marxism indeed rejects God, it fits this bill pretty well.
The fact that Marxist ideology is a kind of atheistic pseudo-religion in itself (worshipping "socialism man" and revolution, rather than God) does not change this. It seems you are just splitting hairs here.[/quote]

Actually, if you want to be technical, I objected to your charge of "godlessness" as being irrelevant to which you responded by equivocating that which is "godless" with "anti-religious." And on that point, I think my arguments are perfectly valid given the fact that there are religions which are non-theistic and quite traditional too. I'll agree that it is "godless" in a certain traditional understanding of the term, but I will not agree that it is entirely "anti-religious" since the whole manifesto betrays a religiosity that flies in the face of any conventional scientific understanding of the text. And again, there is nohting novel or unique in such an interpretation.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Justified Saint

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1295393' date='Jun 14 2007, 06:06 PM']Good response, GodChaser. Just an iota, but the Communist regime was the one that started the propaganda about pope Pius XII being "Hitler's Pope", or more common "the pope who didn't do anything about the holocaust". In fact, the pope was a great resource in hiding Jews. I know there are a couple of books on it now.[/quote]

Yes the pope was called a "righteous gentile" by many jewish rabbi's of the time.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1294522' date='Jun 13 2007, 11:51 AM']The Only purpose of Communism is to get rid of Christianity, because we are all opitated, in their opinion. Guess what, as they come against us, they will be the ones ashamed for what they believe in. God will humble all these murderors, and they will have to bow down before Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father. Power to the Resistance![/quote]

If this is the case, then a Monarchy is Anti-Christian but the fact remains there's a gigantic difference between communism [as mennonites, Amish, some Nuns and Monks live in] and Marxism.

Edited June 16, 2007 by RezaLemmyng