Communism and Liberalism

[Matty_boy]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 4 2006, 09:12 PM']First of all, I'm Socrates.  KnightofChrist and I are two different people, so let's not confuse us and our respective arguments.

And "Utopia" means "Nowhere."  St. Thomas Moore was well aware that this society could never exist in the real world.

[right][snapback]846229[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Stop. Before we go any further in this conversation, we need to clarify what we are talking about. Are we discussing Communism in practice or Communism in theory. I am and have been speaking in terms of Communism as a THEORY. It seems that most others in this thread are talking about it in the context of modern practice (last 200 years), which is more or less developed by Karl Marx into Marxism, a derivative of the therory of traditional communism with an added bonus of kicking others down in order to rise up (similar to affirmative action but with the use of violence.)

So if you're talking about theory, then great. If you're talking about practice, then great. But some of the posts seem to be trying to define common practice as theory.

Finally, I never said that communism can work, does work, has worked, will ever work, that it is just or unjust, etc. I only said very little about what it is not.

ps -- it was St. Thomas More (one "o") Thomas Moore was an Irish Poet.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Matty_boy

[Akalyte]

my Father in law called Jesus a liberal to the point of communism. I want to punch him for saying that.

[Matty_boy]

[quote name='Akalyte' date='Jan 5 2006, 01:02 PM']my Father in law called Jesus a liberal to the point of communism. I want to punch him for saying that.
[right][snapback]846949[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Did you post this in the wrong thread before you posted it here?

[Akalyte]

no.lol

[Socrates]

[quote name='Matty_boy' date='Jan 5 2006, 09:21 AM']Stop.  Before we go any further in this conversation, we need to clarify what we are talking about.  Are we discussing Communism in practice or Communism in theory.  I am and have been speaking in terms of Communism as a THEORY.  It seems that most others in this thread are talking about it in the context of modern practice (last 200 years), which is more or less developed by Karl Marx into Marxism, a derivative of the therory of traditional communism with an added bonus of kicking others down in order to rise up (similar to affirmative action but with the use of violence.)

So if you're talking about theory, then great.  If you're talking about practice, then great.  But some of the posts seem to be trying to define common practice as theory. 

Finally, I never said that communism can work, does work, has worked, will ever work, that it is just or unjust, etc.  I only said very little about what it is not.

ps -- it was St. Thomas More (one "o")  Thomas Moore was an Irish Poet.
[right][snapback]846662[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok, everything's cool, but it just seems to make more sense to talk about actual practice than empty theory when discussing Communism.
The only Communism that had any historical impact is the Marxist/Leninist variety, and this is what people commonly mean by the word "Communist."

Since Communism can't work, doesn't work, hasn't worked, and will never work, I see little point in discussing this as a theory. I'd much rather discuss how it doesn't work in fact.
If I wanted to discuss pure fantasy, I'd start another Lord of the Rings thread (and LOTR actually is much more grounded in reality than the theories of communism).

[ruso]

It is left the Comunism liberty or troskista,never applied in ningun site.
The boys of Stalin squashed it and they assassinated a Trosky.
Good Trosky was not an angel either.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='Akalyte' date='Jan 5 2006, 12:02 PM']my Father in law called Jesus a liberal to the point of communism. I want to punch him for saying that.
[right][snapback]846949[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Other than certain life issues (which is the area that I suspect your reaction had to do with), that might describe him. Except maybe certain aspects of support through the government would ideally not have to come from legally required taxes.

Edited January 6, 2006 by Light and Truth

[Socrates]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Jan 5 2006, 07:34 PM']Other than certain life issues (which is the area that I suspect your reaction had to do with), that might describe him.  Except maybe certain aspects of support through the government would ideally not have to come from legally required taxes.
[right][snapback]847415[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The part of the Gospel where Christ calls for more government expansion and the creation of radical-secularist welfare state seems to allude me.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 5 2006, 09:55 PM']The part of the Gospel where Christ calls for more government expansion and the creation of radical-secularist welfare state seems to allude me.
[right][snapback]847451[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 5 2006, 07:55 PM']The part of the Gospel where Christ calls for more government expansion and the creation of radical-secularist welfare state seems to allude me.
[right][snapback]847451[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 5 2006, 06:55 PM']The part of the Gospel where Christ calls for more government expansion and the creation of radical-secularist welfare state seems to allude me.
[right][snapback]847451[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Like I said, "except maybe certain aspects of support through the government would ideally not have to come from legally required taxes."

[Socrates]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Jan 6 2006, 08:55 PM']Like I said, "except maybe certain aspects of support through the government would ideally not have to come from legally required taxes."
[right][snapback]848421[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
. . . at which point it ceases to be liberalism and becomes liberality, or voluntary charity, which is not at all contrary to conservatism.

[Tata126]

Liberalism isn't just about government expansion and the welfare state. Come on people, you should all be intelligent enough to know that every political party is going to be multi-faceted, and people are going to subscribe to it for different reasons. Jesus was sort of radical for his culture with regards to the dignity of women, and that's always been a rather liberal position, though of course it's gotten really messed up recently. I'm just saying, liberals have brains too, even though you might disagree with them.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Tata126' date='Jan 7 2006, 10:10 PM']Liberalism isn't just about government expansion and the welfare state.  Come on people, you should all be intelligent enough to know that every political party is going to be multi-faceted, and people are going to subscribe to it for different reasons.  Jesus was sort of radical for his culture with regards to the dignity of women, and that's always been a rather liberal position, though of course it's gotten really messed up recently.  I'm just saying, liberals have brains too, even though you might disagree with them.
[right][snapback]849276[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Pretty vague statement. Liberals believe in "the dignity of women" while conservatives are opposed to women having dignity?
And I hardly recall any radical feminist statements from Jesus.

(And the way most liberals seem to support abortion on demand, sexual immorality, and the absolute "right" to produce and consume pornography hardly seems conducive to supporting "the dignity of women" in my book.)

Anyway, see my new "Jesus Christ: A Liberal??" Thread.

[Tata126]

Did you not read my qualifier, that feminism has gotten really messed up in recent history???

Jesus was a radical for his time with regards to the treatment of women. In Jewish culture at the time of Jesus, women had no rights, and were not considered to be human beings equal to men. That's why it was such a big deal for Jesus to talk to the woman at the well - not only was she a woman, but she was a Samaritan. Which brings up another interesting point about multiculturalism. Which political party is all for immigration, and which is not, hmm?

And you really ought to read some 19th century feminism and anti-feminism tracts if you want to be convinced that conservatives have not always considered women to have equal dignity with men.

That said, I AM NOT A LIBERAL. But I guess I'm more liberal than you, because I know that liberals have intelligence and have made some good things happen, even though they're also known for some pretty rotten stuff nowadays.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Tata126' date='Jan 8 2006, 04:19 PM']Did you not read my qualifier, that feminism has gotten really messed up in recent history???

Jesus was a radical for his time with regards to the treatment of women.  In Jewish culture at the time of Jesus, women had no rights, and were not considered to be human beings equal to men.  That's why it was such a big deal for Jesus to talk to the woman at the well - not only was she a woman, but she was a Samaritan.  Which brings up another interesting point about multiculturalism.  Which political party is all for immigration, and which is not, hmm?

And you really ought to read some 19th century feminism and anti-feminism tracts if you want to be convinced that conservatives have not always considered women to have equal dignity with men.

That said, I AM NOT A LIBERAL.  But I guess I'm more liberal than you, because I know that liberals have intelligence and have made some good things happen, even though they're also known for some pretty rotten stuff nowadays.
[right][snapback]849736[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Treating women with dignity is really not a liberal/conservative issue. Talking to the woman at the well was a far cry from political activism.

And your point about immigration and multiculturalism is a complete non-sequitor. I do not recall Jesus saying anything in Scripture regarding immigration policy.
Jesus may have treated the Samaritan with dignity, but this does not necessarily mean he would have called for a policy which would allow Samaritans to flood unchecked into Judea (or something similar).
It is a common misconception that calling for any limitation or checks on immigration is rooted entirely on xenophobia and hatred. There are other reasons for this, and it is an issue on which Catholics can legitimately disagree.
In fact, the most adament opponents of unrestricted immigration I have read are devout Catholics.
Pope John Paul II I believe has spoken against excessive immigration on general principles.

[Matty_boy]

Good to know that my point is obsolete. Have a good time.