The Communist Left

[??????????]

To counter the Religious right thread.

[A18]

not me

[David S]

Socialism is a system in which individual rights and property can be sacrificed in the name of the collective good. Communism is socialism with a bad attitude.  Someone once said a socialist is someone who wants to bring about a collectivist economic system through peaceful means and a communist is someone who wants the same thing but is willing to kill people to bring it about.
I'll take capitalism any day.

[The Dowager Mod]

I would be the Socialist left.

[elcorazon]

Did I mention how much I really despise statesrights?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Do I identify with the Communist Left?

Yes! Yes I do!

Communism in its original form would be great for America. Communism only became bad when it started to be hijacked by repressive regimes.

[??????????]

Did I mention how much I really despise statesrights?

Oh so you guys can bash the right all you want but when someone on the right posts something about the left then it is a terrible insult. Get over yourself.

[AuH2O]

Democrats tend not to be religious because Jesus hated hypocrites more than the gravest sinners.

[migrendel]

Are we talking about actual communists here, or is this written from the conservative perspective that seems to include Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer under that label? I do think that communist is one of the better terms to describe my views, though I don't think I'm a stereotypical example of one.

[A18]

Communism was already tried in America.

[elcorazon]

Did I mention how much I really despise statesrights?

Oh so you guys can bash the right all you want but when someone on the right posts something about the left then it is a terrible insult. Get over yourself.

I read the other thread that inspired this one.  It was a legitimate thread, attempting to see how many of those around here identify with the religious right.  It was completely non partisan.  Your thread was trollish, at best.

[David S]

Sorry guys but I don't get it. The communists, whether they were in the U.S.S.R. or China, or North Korea, all had horrible records of human rights abuses. Murdering their own people or sending them to forced labor camps was common. Also none on them came close to providing the level of prosperity that our capitalist system provides for us.
Someone please explain to me the attraction to communism.  

[A18]

I think a better example would be Jamestown, which wouldn't have survived if not for the triumph of freedom over communism.

[??????????]

Did I mention how much I really despise statesrights?

Oh so you guys can bash the right all you want but when someone on the right posts something about the left then it is a terrible insult. Get over yourself.

I read the other thread that inspired this one.  It was a legitimate thread, attempting to see how many of those around here identify with the religious right.  It was completely non partisan.  Your thread was trollish, at best.

What the  is your problem with me? I resent the term 'religious right' because it has a negative conotation to it since most lefties hate the fact that religion has any part in government.

[elcorazon]

The term religious right was originated by the religious right, not by the left.

[??????????]

The term religious right was originated by the religious right, not by the left.

Even so, most democrats believe in seperation of church and state as well as teaching children in schools that Christianity is a fantasy. The schools are the worst offenders in terms of brainwashing children. They lie to them about American History and they lie to them about US Government History. MTV is just as bad as the schools.

[Lunar]

The term religious right was originated by the religious right, not by the left.

Even so, most democrats believe in seperation of church and state as well as teaching children in schools that Christianity is a fantasy. The schools are the worst offenders in terms of brainwashing children. They lie to them about American History and they lie to them about US Government History. MTV is just as bad as the schools.

Hah, I hope you're not still mad that other textbooks don't refer to it as the "War of Northern Agression."  

[??????????]

The term religious right was originated by the religious right, not by the left.

Even so, most democrats believe in seperation of church and state as well as teaching children in schools that Christianity is a fantasy. The schools are the worst offenders in terms of brainwashing children. They lie to them about American History and they lie to them about US Government History. MTV is just as bad as the schools.

Hah, I hope you're not still mad that other textbooks don't refer to it as the "War of Northern Agression."  

"War of Independence"

[Gabu]

Yes, I identify 100% with the communist left.  When Kerry comes to power in a landslide from our rigged and fixed elections you will all be enslaved and forced to turn over all of your money and possessions to us in the name of Soviet American glory.  Then we will force all women to have abortions.  If they're not already pregnant, we'll make them pregnant, and then make them have an abortion.  Religion will be banned and all who practice it will be shot and atheism will be made into the national anti-religion.  Marijuana use will be mandatory and other impoverished countries will be required to send us as many illegal immigrants as possible so we can fill up the nation and have them steal all of your jobs.  Cutting down trees will be punishable by death as will be doing basically anything that doesn't involve sitting around a campfire singing songs of love and happiness.  Actually, campfires will be banned too because they require trees to be killed.  We don't want you to work because we we hate the working class, even though we're also communists who hate big business and rich people.  We hate everyone, especially America and the members of its military.

Did I leave anything out?

[Giant Saguaro]

I usually get a chuckle out of how leftists and others talk about the religious right and those they typically like to "implicate." Joe Pesci's line from JFK comes to mind: "Like it's a remote experience in ancient history..."

To me, that religious convictions aid one in hammering out a political philosophy is entirely and completely valid. It's an experience like any other. The left may like to severely alienate these people, but their views are justified, i think. It's certainly no more invalid, shall we say, than someone allowing disproven and archcaic theories, such as those propsed by Marx, to influence their views (Atheist Left for the hardcore Marxist types, maybe?). It may not be organized, but Marxism is easily a religion, and I think someone may have alluded to this on one of the threads.

[Nym90]

I usually get a chuckle out of how leftists and others talk about the religious right and those they typically like to "implicate." Joe Pesci's line from JFK comes to mind: "Like it's a remote experience in ancient history..."

To me, that religious convictions aid one in hammering out a political philosophy is entirely and completely valid. It's an experience like any other. The left may like to severely alienate these people, but their views are justified, i think. It's certainly no more invalid, shall we say, than someone allowing disproven and archcaic theories, such as those propsed by Marx, to influence their views (Atheist Left for the hardcore Marxist types, maybe?). It may not be organized, but Marxism is easily a religion, and I think someone may have alluded to this on one of the threads.

I have no problem with people using their religious views and values to guide them in policy matters; I use mine, too. But no one has any right to force their views on someone else.

I believe that a public policy should be justified by more than just one's religious views in order for it to be adopted.

[PBrunsel]

I in no way am like a Communist. I oppose Communism because I feel it is evil.

[ilikeverin]

Sorry guys but I don't get it. The communists, whether they were in the U.S.S.R. or China, or North Korea, all had horrible records of human rights abuses. Murdering their own people or sending them to forced labor camps was common. Also none on them came close to providing the level of prosperity that our capitalist system provides for us.
Someone please explain to me the attraction to communism.  

True communism to me would involve everyone doing what's best for the community according to what they can do best.

Much better than the libertarian paradise of everyone doing whatever they want.

[Giant Saguaro]

I usually get a chuckle out of how leftists and others talk about the religious right and those they typically like to "implicate." Joe Pesci's line from JFK comes to mind: "Like it's a remote experience in ancient history..."

To me, that religious convictions aid one in hammering out a political philosophy is entirely and completely valid. It's an experience like any other. The left may like to severely alienate these people, but their views are justified, i think. It's certainly no more invalid, shall we say, than someone allowing disproven and archcaic theories, such as those propsed by Marx, to influence their views (Atheist Left for the hardcore Marxist types, maybe?). It may not be organized, but Marxism is easily a religion, and I think someone may have alluded to this on one of the threads.

I have no problem with people using their religious views and values to guide them in policy matters; I use mine, too. But no one has any right to force their views on someone else.

I believe that a public policy should be justified by more than just one's religious views in order for it to be adopted.

I tend to agree - I don't know very many people, to be honest, who would propose an outright theocracy. I wouldn't for lots of reasons, among them legalism.

But take the abortion issue, for example. You mentioned no one has the right to impose their beliefs on anyone and generally that's something I and we all agree on, but it gets murky because there isn't a fixed meaning for imposing one's views on another. My pro life stance is dictated by two things: my religious views as well as my belief that the baby, in a rather harsh and horrible way, is being imposed upon. It can't even argue back (for its worth, I suppose, or that it could be adopted or that it could become a valuable member of sociey), let alone fight back (especially in the case of partial birth abortions). Now someone of a liberal persuasion would say no, a pro life stance imposes on the right of a woman to choose. Choose to do what, many would say, kill?

I guess there's no end to it because there are so many points of view. And one could probably argue (rhetorically or theoretically, at least) that any time a public policy is adopted someone's views are being imposed upon.

[Gabu]

I usually get a chuckle out of how leftists and others talk about the religious right and those they typically like to "implicate." Joe Pesci's line from JFK comes to mind: "Like it's a remote experience in ancient history..."

To me, that religious convictions aid one in hammering out a political philosophy is entirely and completely valid. It's an experience like any other. The left may like to severely alienate these people, but their views are justified, i think. It's certainly no more invalid, shall we say, than someone allowing disproven and archcaic theories, such as those propsed by Marx, to influence their views (Atheist Left for the hardcore Marxist types, maybe?). It may not be organized, but Marxism is easily a religion, and I think someone may have alluded to this on one of the threads.

I have no problem with people using their religious views and values to guide them in policy matters; I use mine, too. But no one has any right to force their views on someone else.

I believe that a public policy should be justified by more than just one's religious views in order for it to be adopted.

I tend to agree - I don't know very many people, to be honest, who would propose an outright theocracy. I wouldn't for lots of reasons, among them legalism.

But take the abortion issue, for example. You mentioned no one has the right to impose their beliefs on anyone and generally that's something I and we all agree on, but it gets murky because there isn't a fixed meaning for imposing one's views on another. My pro life stance is dictated by two things: my religious views as well as my belief that the baby, in a rather harsh and horrible way, is being imposed upon. It can't even argue back (for its worth, I suppose, or that it could be adopted or that it could become a valuable member of sociey), let alone fight back (especially in the case of partial birth abortions). Now someone of a liberal persuasion would say no, a pro life stance imposes on the right of a woman to choose. Choose to do what, many would say, kill?

I guess there's no end to it because there are so many points of view. And one could probably argue (rhetorically or theoretically, at least) that any time a public policy is adapted someone's views are being imposed upon.

I don't have a problem with people being pro-life, just as long as they can give a logical reason for why they're that way.  What I think that Nym was saying was that he just doesn't want people to point to, say, a Bible verse as their sole reason for advocating or opposing something.  He wants them to be able to logically explain their position.  There's room for disagreement; we just want it to be logical disagreement, not "brick wall" disagreement.

As long as your opinions are your own and you can explain them in your own words, I can respect that.