Karl Marx: Opium of the People

[temporal1]

Hutterites and Bruderhof? Small c.

Maybe I am splitting hairs but the Hutterites and Bruderhofs are for me, in a very different category from Marxists/Communists.

I would tend to term their organizing/animating ideas as communalism/communitarianism.
Additionally, as far as I know, the West broadly speaking has never been engaged in a Cold War with the Hutterites.

This probably reads as a small thing in this discussion, but, i suspect this may be of the most destructive confusions and oversights currently causing big divisions.

Conflating VOLUNTARY CHOICE of lifestyle+private funding with government policy (definitely “forced by the sword”) which are funded “by force of the sword” / taxes.

i don’t recall any reports of Hutterites or other communal groups attempting to overthrow their neighbors or governments. If any criticism, it’s that they are independent/maybe reclusive.

These are 2 very different things, but, day+night, proponents of the latter use every word and means to force their way -
the way of the sword. Claiming humanity and the spirit of Christianity - by force of the sword. (not i!)

They aren’t claiming Christianity, they can’t. They’ve otherwise dismissed it.
This does not prevent them from guilting Christians with accusations of not being Christian - unless “force of the sword” is accepted, chosen, promoted.

Dog whistles don’t want facts and nuances. They want dogs to obey. NOW.

[HondurasKeiser]

Wasn't that the same year that peaceful Mr. Khrushchev sent Soviet tanks plowing through Hungary? Wasn't that the same Soviet Premier that trained his missiles on Miami? His doctrine of "Peaceful Coexistence" is a strange one indeed; eminently better than Stalinism but rather unlike something approaching peaceful.

During this same era the US instigated a military coup and overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala (1954), attempted a failed military coup in Indonesia in 1958, a successful military coup in South Vietnam in 1963, supported a military coup in Egypt in 1952 in which Nasser overthrew the existing monarchy, and supported the 1953 coup in Iran which brought the Shaw to power and overthrew a democratically elected government that was threatening to nationalize oil companies. And intervened in a bunch of other countries of which I'm forgetting.

As for missiles in Cuba pointed at Miami? The USSR claimed they were in response to US medium-range missiles installed in Turkey that were equally close to the USSR. Turkey shares a border with several former Soviet states (Armenia and Georgia) as well as Soviet-block Bulgaria.

I'm not defending the USSR at all. It was a brutal and autocratic regime. But it took two to tango during the cold war. And the US was every bit as much of a bad actor on the international stage as the USSR was.

I don't disagree with you in the slightest I am simply dubious that the Communists of the Cold War truly wanted something like a peaceful coexistence. Indeed their animating philosophy of dialectical materialism assumed a kind of rolling worker's revolution until all competing systems were subsumed. I agree that the West was by no means innocent in the events that unfolded in the 20th Century, and we might say that capitalism tends towards a commodification of everything which is an evil in a different direction. Nevertheless, and to Wade's original point, it seems to me that the Communists of the 20th Century were truly desirous of 'burying the West' in a far more serious and final way than visa versa. Perhaps I am wrong though.

[Josh]

It's like the people aren't even asking for Communism but rather are already sold into it. Praying for the scales to fall off many "Christians."

Wait, what? If I think Covid is real and people should be vaccinated, you think that means I am sold into Communism and that my Christianity is suspect?

I'm wondering how you define both Communism and Christianity. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God, as found in the Bible. Communism is a political theory that advocates class warfare, leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

I don't see any Marxists here. I do see Christians. And our Christianity really should be mostly about the things that Jesus was mostly about in the Bible.

A lot of people use the term "Communism" to mean "an authoritarian or totalitarian state", which is how people like Wade feel when basically all of their freedoms, including religious freedoms, have been taken away.

[Ken]

Wasn't that the same year that peaceful Mr. Khrushchev sent Soviet tanks plowing through Hungary? Wasn't that the same Soviet Premier that trained his missiles on Miami? His doctrine of "Peaceful Coexistence" is a strange one indeed; eminently better than Stalinism but rather unlike something approaching peaceful.

During this same era the US instigated a military coup and overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala (1954), attempted a failed military coup in Indonesia in 1958, a successful military coup in South Vietnam in 1963, supported a military coup in Egypt in 1952 in which Nasser overthrew the existing monarchy, and supported the 1953 coup in Iran which brought the Shaw to power and overthrew a democratically elected government that was threatening to nationalize oil companies. And intervened in a bunch of other countries of which I'm forgetting.

As for missiles in Cuba pointed at Miami? The USSR claimed they were in response to US medium-range missiles installed in Turkey that were equally close to the USSR. Turkey shares a border with several former Soviet states (Armenia and Georgia) as well as Soviet-block Bulgaria.

I'm not defending the USSR at all. It was a brutal and autocratic regime. But it took two to tango during the cold war. And the US was every bit as much of a bad actor on the international stage as the USSR was.

I don't disagree with you in the slightest I am simply dubious that the Communists of the Cold War truly wanted something like a peaceful coexistence. Indeed their animating philosophy of dialectical materialism assumed a kind of rolling worker's revolution until all competing systems were subsumed. I agree that the West was by no means innocent in the events that unfolded in the 20th Century, and we might say that capitalism tends towards a commodification of everything which is an evil in a different direction. Nevertheless, and to Wade's original point, it seems to me that the Communists of the 20th Century were truly desirous of 'burying the West' in a far more serious and final way than visa versa. Perhaps I am wrong though.

Oh, I agree. It wasn't me that made that claim. I don't think they wanted outright war with the west as WW2 was burned into the minds and memories of every Russian at that time. And it was the most horrific war in history there on the eastern front. But it was an expansionist ideology and both Russia and China are expansionist countries. So I think they were seeking every economic and social advantage and foothold they could get short of outright war. And honestly, all those endless international peace conferences were a very convenient way to sow division within the west, just like they are dong today with social media and meddling in elections.

I think we can be cynical about their motives without leaping to the conclusion that they wanted outright nuclear or conventional war with the west. No one wanted that. I don't see any evidence that they were more militaristic and warlike then we were during the cold war. More oppressive and authoritarian, yes. But that is a different issue.

[Josh]

I would generally say that the West had a rather strong interest in drawing the "Cold War" out as long as possible, to the great benefit of the military-industrial complex. JFK had a different approach, but he ended up assassinated. Oops.

Conflicts like the Vietnam War were profitable for bankers, oil companies, weapons manufacturers, and everyone else involved in the business of war - and war is very much about business.

If one wonders how the USSR even ended up in possession of nuclear weapons, one need look no further than the Western intelligentsia and elite, who decided to go become spies and deliver as much material to the USSR as possible. Such an activity rather conveniently dragged out these conflicts for a very long time. When Russia finally got itself out from under the thumb of a failed German philosopher's bad ideas, it has found itself yet again on the defensive from the West who accuses of it everything from trying to subvert U.S. elections to stealing "Ukraine" to supporting evil bad terrorists in Syria. Whether capitalist or Communist, Russia just can't win - they must always be the eternal enemy we are at war with.

[PetrChelcicky]

I agree with Ken that the Soviets didn't want a new world war, but that they were "expansionist" from having an ideology which claimed absolute value and wanted to "save" all mankind, if necessary against their will.
I don't share his opinion that "both Russia and China are expansionist countries". What exactly is a "country" and how can it be expansionist? We can at best say that there may be "deep state" elites with an expansionist approach to politics who (being "deep staters") can survive changes of government. This may, for instance, have been the case for Britain over a long time.

Firstly, the situation in Russia and China is rather different. The Chinese government is a declared continuation of the Maoist past, even if it has dropped the Maoist ideas about economy. Notwithstanding the Chinese have no plan to save people against their will and are often seen as a powerful foreign economy which is more helpful and less doctrinary/missionary than present Western as well as past Communist states.
Putin works within the frames of a strong democracy, under continuous competition of a Communist and a Nationalist opposition party. He gains by a skilful manoeuvering between the extremes of both parties, and he gets the public vote by preventing a Western exploitation of Russia as it has happened during the Yeltsin era in which the United States "meddled" much more in Russia than Russians did in the U.S.at any time. Accidentally (?) this period of open American "meddling" was a period of extreme poverty and financial insecurity for the Russian people, so Russian distrust of the United States and their friends in border states like Georgia or Ukraine seems not unfounded,

I rgret to say that in this case I am even to the left of Ken who seems to be completely unaware about American activities in Russia which makes him an easy prey for cheap propaganda stirring up national sentiments in the U.S.

[Bootstrap]

Wait, what? If I think Covid is real and people should be vaccinated, you think that means I am sold into Communism and that my Christianity is suspect?

I'm wondering how you define both Communism and Christianity. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God, as found in the Bible. Communism is a political theory that advocates class warfare, leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

I don't see any Marxists here. I do see Christians. And our Christianity really should be mostly about the things that Jesus was mostly about in the Bible.

A lot of people use the term "Communism" to mean "an authoritarian or totalitarian state", which is how people like Wade feel when basically all of their freedoms, including religious freedoms, have been taken away.

I agree, that's how you are using the term. I think that's misleading. I mean, why not use the term "Nazis" or "Tsarists"? Nazis were totalitarian, Tsarists were authoritarian. I'm not particularly afraid of a Tsarist revolution or a Marxist revolution or a Nazi revolution in the United States.

I am concerned about authoritarianism. No politician should be above the law. We need a free press. We need the balance of powers among the branches o government. We need fair trials and investigations. We need to be able to hold elections and agree on the outcome. These mechanisms protect democracy. If they fall apart, democracy is in danger.

[Sudsy]

To me, the foundation of religion is that God exists, he is indeed God, he is worthy of praise and thanksgiving and obedience, and he has called us to be his people, giving up everything for his sake. Karl Marx says this: "Man makes religion, religion does not make man." Actually, God made man, religion did not. A lot of religion is man-made. Some of it is wrong-headed. I want the pure teaching of the Bible. I want to follow Jesus, to do what he said and did, to seek first the Kingdom of God.

But I think that Marx's criticism of religion was rooted in the fact that religion was often used to tell people to shut up and accept oppression, often in very deep suffering. He wanted people to take control of their own destiny, to band together and overthrow their oppressors by revolution. For Christians, violent revolution is not acceptable. But acknowledging real oppression and real suffering is. Jesus cared a LOT about the poor and marginalized. Suffering is real, but God is real, Jesus is real, and we can trust him deeply with our lives. We can also build Christian communities that live out his love together. We do not need to overthrow the government to do that.

It's not about religion, it's about God. If God were not real, religion would be insane. We need to be the Kingdom of God, not some right-wing or left-wing fantasy world. And that makes us strangers and aliens here. Marx says this: "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness". As Christians, there is no real happiness except in God. Marx wants us to "give up a condition that requires illusions". As Christians, we know that God is more real than the world we experience around us, and certainly more real than the groupthink narratives of the world we live in.

Religion actually CAN be exercised in just the way Marx describes. But God is our real relief when we face real suffering. And he often sends us out to minister to those who are suffering.

This was your second post in this thread so I'm curious to why we should have concerns about how man is handling this world ? Do you believe He is in control to keep His finger on things and at the same time allow man to do what man does ? If God allows man to take our freedoms away as He works out His plans, should we be concerned ? As you say we are 'strangers and aliens here' and go on to talk about that He sends us out to minister to the suffering. He doesn't say to follow Him if our current freedoms are retained or lost. Scripture says where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more. Perhaps God's plan involves us losing our freedoms to bring about more Christ like followers.

I don't believe I need to fear whatever man can do to me as I pass through this world. For we live by faith and not by sight.

[Josh]

Wait, what? If I think Covid is real and people should be vaccinated, you think that means I am sold into Communism and that my Christianity is suspect?

I'm wondering how you define both Communism and Christianity. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God, as found in the Bible. Communism is a political theory that advocates class warfare, leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

I don't see any Marxists here. I do see Christians. And our Christianity really should be mostly about the things that Jesus was mostly about in the Bible.

A lot of people use the term "Communism" to mean "an authoritarian or totalitarian state", which is how people like Wade feel when basically all of their freedoms, including religious freedoms, have been taken away.

I agree, that's how you are using the term. I think that's misleading. I mean, why not use the term "Nazis" or "Tsarists"? Nazis were totalitarian, Tsarists were authoritarian. I'm not particularly afraid of a Tsarist revolution or a Marxist revolution or a Nazi revolution in the United States.

I am concerned about authoritarianism. No politician should be above the law. We need a free press. We need the balance of powers among the branches o government. We need fair trials and investigations. We need to be able to hold elections and agree on the outcome. These mechanisms protect democracy. If they fall apart, democracy is in danger.

I’m just explaining to you how to communicate with people like Wade better.

Giving a defence of communism is not the way to communicate better. Instead, I would agree that authoritarianism and totalitarianism are bad, and I would affirm that Wade thinks such things are bad too. There is nothing wrong with using “communism” as a synonym for those things.

[Ken]

A lot of people use the term "Communism" to mean "an authoritarian or totalitarian state", which is how people like Wade feel when basically all of their freedoms, including religious freedoms, have been taken away.

I agree, that's how you are using the term. I think that's misleading. I mean, why not use the term "Nazis" or "Tsarists"? Nazis were totalitarian, Tsarists were authoritarian. I'm not particularly afraid of a Tsarist revolution or a Marxist revolution or a Nazi revolution in the United States.

I am concerned about authoritarianism. No politician should be above the law. We need a free press. We need the balance of powers among the branches o government. We need fair trials and investigations. We need to be able to hold elections and agree on the outcome. These mechanisms protect democracy. If they fall apart, democracy is in danger.

I’m just explaining to you how to communicate with people like Wade better.

Giving a defence of communism is not the way to communicate better. Instead, I would agree that authoritarianism and totalitarianism are bad, and I would affirm that Wade thinks such things are bad too. There is nothing wrong with using “communism” as a synonym for those things.

Other than the fact that it is simply wrong. Words have meanings. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia are brutal authoritarian regimes. Neither of them are remotely communist in any way.