Gary Thompson Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Communism does not have to be oppresive at all. Communism would bring us closer to evolutionary perfection. I suggest someone read about Paul Robeson, he saw the Soviet Union really was not what our propaganda made it out to be. The majority of people that live under communism, like it. Its the fact that communism only works for those that except it. Oppresive communism always stems from those that would not except the ideas. I know how to make communism work in America, if anyone would like to know I will feel free to post it.peace, BC Look, no offense dude, but you don't know about communism because you haven't lived in a communist country, haven't been to an ex-communist country, nor have you spoken to someone who has lived in a communist country. Again, I'm not trying to be a dick, but don't display your ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 I think it's important to separate the concept of communism, which is an economic theory, from the purges that took place. The purges were a result of a totalitarian government. Similar events have taken place throughout history in non communist countries as well. That said, communism just didn't work. It was supported on the back of Russia selling it's resources (oil and gold primarily). It colapsed when the price of oil dropped below where Russia could extract it for a profit (Russian oil is more expensive to extract than Saudi and other oil). The truth about Russia's history is not pretty, but the US propaganda from the 50s-80s did not paint an accurate picture of soviet society either. After Stalin died, most people were living ordinary lives just like we were - with the occasional bread line as an annoyance. My father in law was a boss of a collective farm and he and the rest of my Russian family have fond memories of the Krushev-Gorby years. Not altogether different than the fond memories my father has of the Ike-Ronny years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Thompson Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 I think it's important to separate the concept of communism, which is an economic theory, from the purges that took place. The purges were a result of a totalitarian government. AKA Stalinism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobo Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 This is a common misconception among Americans: atheism need not equal communism. For example, the Swedes, Finns and Norwegians are doing a very nice job with free and democratic yet predominantly atheist governments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 you missed out 'with predominantly atheist people' and Communist countries have always tended to be cult of the personality... Cuba, North Korea et seq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 As to raw communisim... I don't think anyone has tried it outside of isolated villages... certainly not at a national level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 My understanding of Sweeden is that they put a lot of emphasis on children. They tend to be a very child centered culture. As a result, they have low crime, low numbers of institutionalized persons, and are a better society as a result. I have heard Sweeden's problems now have to due with the large Muslim immigrations. Where is HanSolo? He could give us a better understanding of Sweeden. I'm here! And it's really Sweden, and not Sweeden. (snicker, snicker...) Or like it would sound with my accent: sveeden. Anyway, I moved out from Sweden '96 so I'm sure many things have changed. But even back then I could tell one thing, you can't make a society with only one ideology, and in a society where all ideologies are tolerated and accepted there is always a change that a "vulture/wolf" style ideology will manipulate its way into a larger population. We see that happen here in US now, evangelical and hardcore Christians are gaining popularity, and I'd say that religious freedom is to blame. And at the same time where you have a society with only one ideology, it will eventually crumble anyway because some kind of "virus" style ideology will infiltrate and eventually cause havoc. Ideology, religion and politics works in similar fashion as life, viruses, mutations and selection etc. So to answer your original question about how a society would be with only atheists and religion only somewhat tolerated, I think it would only work for a while and then it would be destroyed from within by some new mutation of beliefs. Just look at Raelians (I love pointing finger at them) they claim to be Atheists, but they also believe Evolution is false, and they are definitely a religion in my opinion. A majority of people need to live the delusion of religion, so my answer to creating a stable society is to introduce a new religion that has safeguards against fundamentalism, extremists and violence. And have a society that only allow a person to either believe this religion or be a non-theist. All other religions outlawed. It's kind of a compromise system, but if the pseudo-religion is done right, a majority of people will be content, and we could stop violent religions to be introduced, and yet people that come to realization of reality and truth have the option to stop believing. ... something like that. Sweden is not really an atheist society. Religion is accepted and tolerated just as much there as here in US. A majority of the citizens are agnostic/atheists, even though they belong to the state church. But I used to belong to a extreme cult church and we were working on infiltration of government and society in higher positions to change the country to become "Christian" again. And we could see progress. Even if the government were a big hurdle and did what they could to stop us, we could still manipulate our way to eventually get the changes we needed to do what we wanted. And now, when I'm an Atheist, it scares me how fragile society is. We can't assume a country with beautiful dreams of freedom and fairness to survive. They fall, usually on some stupid and simple weak links in the system. History repeats itself and we get chaos, and new structures that claim to be better than the ones before, and they grow, progress and eventually they break too. True democracy and freedom only goes as far as the intelligence, understanding and knowledge the citizens have. In US and many other Western countries people are becoming stupified. I don't blame TV or movies or games or computers, or even the schools, but overall it is the comfort that gets us. When things go too well, and we have enough food and freedom, we become lazy and stop learning and evolving our understanding of life and society, and eventually a majority is too stupid to support the stability of the system and it crumbles. So the answer to save US and the western world, is to wake people up from the slumber of stupefaction and start thinking again. We can never have one society with one ideology, but we can have one with multiple ones and make sure we don't fall into the traps of stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 Add me to the "it would be tolerated but laughed at" list. There would just be another issue, like politics, racism, or classism that would divide people. But there wouldn't be stupid religious headlines in the news all the time and those annoying "ZOMG Xyz tragedy happened but John and Jane Doe kept their faith!!11! We MUST praise gawd!!1!" type stories. We had those things happening to our church in Sweden, and it doesn't really change anything. The religious zealots gets their fuel from it and think that they're on the right track. The Bible after all say that they should expect mockery from the persecutors. So they see it as a sign of being right instead. Our church was part of the faith movement, so we "believed" even when a person was dying of cancer in hospital, we would "believe" and after someone died it would be even more "faith" etc... it's just desn't work to make fun of the religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubilant Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 I'd tolerate but not laugh at the religious, after all, I once believed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 I'd tolerate but not laugh at the religious, after all, I once believed. Come now... one small Nelson Muntz must be a temptation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubilant Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 I'd tolerate but not laugh at the religious, after all, I once believed. Come now... one small Nelson Muntz must be a temptation... LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 I'd tolerate but not laugh at the religious, after all, I once believed. Come now... one small Nelson Muntz must be a temptation... Absolutely. We can laugh at them, not with them, but it won't change them a thing, but it at least feels better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts