Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?

2008-04-18T04:10:57Z

Reallyforeign: /* Big no-no */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The theory of "evolution through natural selection" is ''predicated'' upon an atheistic assumption. It is based on so-called [[methodological naturalism]], i.e., a refusal to consider supernatural causes. Right from the start it consciously and deliberately rules out God's creative and guiding power.

Legislation and especially court rulings in the United States enforce this atheistic doctrine. In public schools, during science class, teachers are authorized to ''squelch'' any challenge to this atheistic premise. Note that I do not mean that science classes simply say, let's ignore God. I mean that ''by choosing to ignore God'' they are supporting atheism and attacking religion.

The doctrine of [[unguided evolution]] is essential to atheism. No atheist can survive intellectually, without having a satisfactory answer to the question, "Where did human beings come from? How did life begin? Why is planet Earth so hospitable to life?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll have to call you on that, Ed - it's true that unguided evolution would be essential to an atheist worldview, but evolution doesn't necessarily deny the existence of God. It merely explains a world without God's active involvement at a biological level. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:22, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:The Bible says that God created life in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Any belief other than this is anti-Christian, and therefore atheistic. [[User:BornAgain|BornAgain]] 17:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, you are correct in saying that noone can survive intellectually without an answer to those questions. The thing is that us atheists do have satisfactory answers to those questions. And the planet Earth is so hospitable to life because ''life evolved to suit the Earth''. Regardless of what Earth actually turned out to be, life would have evolved to suit it.

::BornAgain, without meaning to be rude that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. What about Hindus? They are definately not atheists however they have a different creation story to you. It involves gods, so how is that an atheistic belief? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 9:52, 27 June 2007

*'''Yes'''. Amen to that, bro. Atheism and [[homicide]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)

==NO==
Ed Poor's argument is based on the assumption that humans can fathom the manner in which God created life. This is a faulty premise. The majority of scientists support the theory of evolution and the vast majority of scientists believe in God. They are able to have both of these beliefs because they realize that we cannot possibly understand the works of God. On the other hand, we can seek understanding of the world we live in by creating theories based on our observations. The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of God. It is simply a theory, based on certain observations, that creates certain predictions.

If evolution is undermining religion, it is doing so only because creationists posit that they know how God created life, and evolution is not how He created it. When evolution is supported, creationists feel like their beliefs are being undermined. Belief in evolution is an exercise in humility and perseverance - accepting the fact that we cannot understand God's works combined with an unceasing effort to understand what we can in our world.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:I feel I have to disillusion you over religious scientists. Out of the two academically highest fellowships of scientists in the USA and Great Britain only 7% are religious. Unfortunately as well, there is no way to really believe in god and science at the same time. Science proves that the bible is wrong on many counts, and to believe in science you must accept that the bible is wrong on so many things. How then can you accept that god exists considering that the only evidence for his existences is proven to be a mess of falsehoods and folklore? Simply, you cannot. The reason is because religion was created by humans as a way of explaining how they came to be and where they are going. Now science is better at explaining these things yet people insist that religion is true or that religion is more important then science. Until these people are disillusioned of religion then scientific progress will be hindered and humanity will stagnate. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:35, 8 June 2007

Bolly, you actually need to crack your Bible open, assuming have ever read it, and read what it says. For example, In Job, God mentions (or I think it was God) streams in the seas. Science did not even know that such things existed until recently. Evolution may be a way of explaining where you are going in this lifetime, but it is not a promising or comforting thought. Most of evolution is based on opinions, ideas, thoughts, etc. Look through any textbook. "We believe...", "perhaps", "scientists assume/think," etc. It is all hype. Watch any serious creation video, and they raise very interesting questions. For example (I am going to have to write something, this is getting exciting!)

1. The Big Bang can not have formed the universe, because mathematically it is impossible. If you add up the estimated masses of all planetary bodies, and compare it with earth's mass and gravity, the speed neccesary for particals to leave that small of a region would approach light-speed. Black holes are a example of this. How often do we see exploding black holes?

2. The chances that information can come from non-information to form life is astronomical. We all know and love the illustration about the airplane being assembled in a junkyard with the components therein. While I forget the exact the exact figure, one major scientist theorized that the chances that one E. Clori bacteria would form from soup was one chance in 10 with many BILLION zeros following it. That means that said bacteria would have to have several succesful mutations per year in order to evolve into a human.

I could keep on going here, but I will let others join in

In Christ
[[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:09, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:In reply I have to say ComputerWizard, you need to study the theory of the Big Bang, assuming you have ever read that. The Big Bang theory does not say that the entire mass of the universe started at one point in space and has spread out ever since. It says that ''space itself'' has expanded from that point. The particles in it did not move however they did move away from each other due to the expansion of space. One reasonably good metaphor is a balloon with dots on it. When the balloon is blown up the dots move away from each other, although they do not have any of their own velocity.

:Yes the airplane in the junkyard. That is in fact an argument ''against'' your position, not for it. How do you explain how God came to be? Surely the chance of nothing forming into one obviously complex creature impossible? On the other hand, it is possible for the primordial soup to form into proteins and highly simple forms of proto-life. Of course soup cannot form into E. Clori bacteria, because that bacteria is quite complex in comparison to what it has evolved from.

:Watching a very serious creationist video does raise some very interesting questions. "How much research have these people actually done on this subject?" "Where is their proof?" "Do they honestly believe such absolute garbage?" I feel exaclty this way after any kind of creationist video/book/talk. Yes the words "scientists thinkg/assume..." appear in textbooks. Yet why do they believe it? Because the evidence is strongly in favour of their position. They don't accept the Bible or the Koran as a source of evidence. In fact if someone did quote the Koran as a source of evidence then the christian community would be in uproar! But when it's the Bible, it is all "Yes it is very accurate and believable" when really it is just as bad as the Koran.

:Admittedly the theory of evolution is not as comforting or promising as the religious ideology however that doesn't make it any less true than it is. There are far more unpleasant truths that may be confronted in life and they are no less true just because they are distasteful. Personally I find it quite refreshing and stimulating to think that we are the result of a complex series of reactions, mutations, nuclear collisions and so on, as it means that we are indeed very special and unique and that we are perfect for what we evolved to do, not what a creator designed us to do. Although I highly doubt that I will change your mind, I do hope that you consider these points fairly and maybe I will. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:04, 14 June 2007

::I've been watching show after show preaching that the Evolutionary Theory is based on scientific fact without proceeding to show any. I ask myself if anyone honestly believes such absolute garbage? Why? Because their Humanist religion requires it. Judeo-Christians have archaeological, geological, as well as scientific studies and research that back up the historic record of the Christian Old and New Testaments. As well as prophetic events that have come to pass or are happening now. Yet people will still reject facts as they are presented to them and attribute these things in conformance to their own world view. So what? The Neo-Cains will continue to do whatever pleases themselves. It is their place in history to continually repeat it again, and again.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Roo, your whole paragraph could be taken as completely for evolution if you switched some words around. Replace evolutionary theory with creationism, humanist with christian, Judeo-Christians with scientists, 'back up' with disprove and then it makes perfect sense and is an accurate reference to todays situation. There is plenty of scientific facts that support evolution. Try reading "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. It isn't perfect but it is very convincing. Try all the books and scientific papers that have ever been published in support of the theory. How can such a theory be accepted by the vast majority of biologists if it was false or was not supported by evidence?

There are many many problems with the Old and New Testaments historical records. There are events described in there that either did not happen or happened at a different time altogether. The Sumerian civilisation invented the first writing and recording and that started at over 7000 years ago. How do you account for that in your young earth theory? As for the 'prophetic events', where are they? Please give me examples because I am yet to see any. People will reject facts because they don't conform to their world view, it happens all the time in the USA in creationist churches and homes and it saddens those of us who search for truth in these times. Please look at your facts before presenting the same tired old trojan horses. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 10:56, 20 June 2007

::Ditto for you. Thanks for making my point. This is why there is the argument to teach both points of view. Also, your problems understanding the historical records of the Old and New Testament isn't a valid one since it is politically biased along ideological lines. This also saddens those of us that seek the truth through His Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:55, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

1Living things vary
2Ofspring resemble their parents
3Not all ofspring survive
4Some variations increase the chance or amount of ofspring

Therefore living things will change in such a way as to have more ofspring.
If noone has explained this to you then you need better teachers. It is also known as evolution. -Sam
P.S. fix my description if it is wrong. I'm doing what I remember from bio class.

My answer is also '''NO'''. The theory of evolution explains the origin of species, but does not answer the question about the meaning of life or answer if God exists (no scientific theory can). God could create living organisms through evolution (natural selection, genetic drift, etc.). It is true that some supporters of evolutionary theory use this as an argument against the existence of God, but from methodological point of view they are wrong. Among the evolutionists there can be both theists, deists and atheists. The official statement of the [[Catholic Church]] and many Protestant Churches allows evolutionary theory. [[User:Jasra|Jasra]] 19:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

==Neither==
I don't think that the Theory of Evolution cares.[[User:Cthx]]
:Hahaha, good call. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:27, 11 November 2007 (EST)

The Theory of Evolution may or may not promote atheism.
One thing for Christians to consider though is that God could have started the evolutionary chain and used that to create rather than creating directly.
The important factor is that God put the first "spark", etc.
Look at the Wedding Feast at Cana...
He made 6 large 10 gallon pitchers of wine.
God is extravagant and awe-some in his creation. (Extravagant in the sense that he does things large and big; after all he did create a huge amount of galaxies and we're the only life discovered so far...)
He could easily use evolution, as a grandiose plan, which would be totally in his character.

-reporres
i definitely agree with you that god created the theory of evolution. i mean i believe in god i just don't think all of this appeared randomly i think he created us with the theory of evolution gradually

==Backwards==
Since atheism or non-theism existed long before the theory of evolution then it would have to be that atheism promotes the theory of evolution.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:39, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

No, it is scientists (see is gravity liberal or conservative). It leads to atheism because it provides a non-theistic explanation for design.

:Incorrect! The Theory of Evolution only states that over time, members of a population will change over time to be more suited to their environments/reproduction. One great example are the Eskimo people. Because Eskimos live in cold climates, they have evolved to grow large noses, so that air has more time to warm before reaching the lungs, thus making breathing easier. Creationists disagree with the ''Evolutionary Model'', which is based on this Theory, in addition to the fossil record, radiocarbon dating and genetic studies. The theory of Evolution therefore is NEUTRAL on this point. Don't get angry. Your anger only leads to the inevitible HEAT DEATH of the Universe happening sooner. Stop. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 22:07, 8 February 2008 (EST)

When Darwin published Origin of Species, nobody had a problem with it. When he later published Descent of Man, which said humans are animals too an are not excluded, then people got upset..--[[User:funnny|funnny]] 8:53, 15 March 2008 (EST)

==Big no-no==

Evolution proves god is SMART (and why shouldn't he be?). If he's too obvious, people become dependant and he becomes a fact. Remember that he lives on FAITH, not PROOF. When he does something, it should look like he did nothing at all. Enough to make us believe (if he does too little people lose faith), but not so much that he proves himself.

--[[User:Reallyforeign|Reallyforeign]] 00:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?

2008-04-18T04:10:22Z

Reallyforeign:

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2008-04-18T04:07:05Z

Reallyforeign:

{{debate}}

I think that religion is just a tool to make people feel safe and not alone in this world. However, many religious doctrines have been proven wrong by modern science. In the case of Christianity, science has disproved the biblical teaching that the world is flat. Science has shown us that the world cannot be 6,000 years old as the bible teaches through methods such as carbon dating with fossils. So now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago. All major religions (with the exception of buddhism which does not worship a higher being) were created to outline specific mores and give simple comprehendable explanations for things as complex as the creation of the universe. In today's world, religion can really only serve one of those two purposes effectively, that is to provide moral codes and societal rules. An ever increasing amount of "history" provided in the Bible has been proven to be false, and it seems unlikely that the entire universe was created by a being living in the third dimension and shaped like a human being (it also seems like an egocentrical thing to believe but that's beside the point). So religion's only real significant purpose today is to set up moral code. However, this is not to say that laws should be based on such moral codes. The moralities set up in each religion are different. Mores are not universally accepted or shared. Furthermore, many rules set up in the bible cause the infringement upon the rights of others (i.e. banning of gay marriage, bans on abortion etc.). If religion serves a purpose today than it is a considerably smaller one than it did a thousand years ago.
==Yes==
Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it.
Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding.
Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth. Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.

So many inaccuracies and assumptions in your statement that I can't address them all without turning what should be a forum into a dialogue. Anyway, if by religion you mean faith in God and reacting to your faith in a manner similar to many others, then yes, it is of critical and eternally lasting importance. If you mean the highly ritualized practices of organized religion such as in Roman Catholic or Anglican services, then I would say it's less important, as the decline of "religion" in Western Europe over the last 50 years has shown. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 18:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Douglas, you voice your opinion that believing in God and being influenced by this belief is important or relevant (please correct me if im wrong). For the purpose of debate, could you please back up your arguement with facts or at least explain why you believe your opinion is accurate?
--[[User:Anti-Facio [[Facio]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say that Religion has always been relevant (or important or destructive) or whatever you choose to say. In my own view, Religion has been, by far, the Most destructive of all weapons of mass destruction. Arguing that the killings of humans by other humans in the name of religion is by a few zealots/crazies is missing the point. Today, we look at the extremists of the Islamic world with horror, a few centuries ago, it was the Christians slaughtering the non-believers in the Crusades. I do not believe that any part of the world, any religion has been insulated from the killings in the name of THAT religion. To dismiss this as the acts of a few, to grab power/money or whatever is not sufficient. We ought to examine why men have historically used religion as a weapon and not as they claim it is supposed to be used - show the path to eternal truths using persuasion and words and not the sword.

Of course religion is and was relevant what does not mean that it should be relevant. Most people in the world believe in a religion. And many live their religion. They arrange their day arround religious habits. Not working on Friday or Sunday. No meat, no pork, no alcohol, limited sexuality, ... there are many restrictions that restrict people in their life and in the way they behave in socciety. Fanatic religious people as well as people who pretend to be (fanatic) religious to gain more power for worldly plans are one of the biggest threats today. In that point it does not matter WHAT religion one has. If a person is holding some written or told words for true in every case without using the own brain, it leads often to murder and hatered. As allready mentioned in statement above mine, there was slaughtering in many religions including christianity. The church was there when the native americans were slaughtered. The church was there when "whiches" were burned. The church was there, when the Nazis took Jews to concentration camps. And today the christian church es in Germany still receive the taxes that were introduced by Hitler. (What means they are possibly the only institution still profiting from WW2) But that does not mean that the catholic church or even religions in total are evil? I would say NO! They are not evil. But many people, who are religious are evil. And for those it is easy to find credulous believers. For sure religion is relevant. But I say this is not good as religion is a big danger.--[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

A widely published author once wrote something like this: When religion fails to inculcate a sense of morality into society then the whole of law and enforcement falls onto the shoulders of government. In broad, general terms, religion is a force for morality, for good. Though not every religion has 10 commandments exactly, traditional religions have a moral code its followers are encouraged to follow. Yes, religion has a place in society, no matter how freely a society communicates within and without its borders. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I would have to disagree with both you and that author. In a Canadian city, about 40 years ago, the police went on strike for a day. Shops and banks were robbed, cars stolen, vandalism, looting etc. The town pretty much went to the dogs for that day, and almost every shop along the main drag was robbed and massive amounts of damage occured. Now, the majority of the people in that city were christians, and fairly devout ones as well, yet despite having a "strong moral code" they still participated in the robberies and muggings because the police weren't there. This suggests that faith in God is not enough to stop people doing bad things, a lot of people need something more mundane and real. Bolly Ottihw 09:30, 22 April 2007

I was under the impression inoculating you with morality is the responsibility of your parents and the community. -Sam

==No==
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative. Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Response'''
The use of the concept of religion allows nonchristians to marginalize the truth and accept their falsehoods as alternative versions of the truth. [[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 17 March 2007

I am curious - does that mean that in your opinion, Christians do not use the concept of religion? Perhaps you meant, Christians use the word religion correctly (i.e. accept the truth of God and Jesus) while Non Christians do not accept THE truth? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 18 March 2007

Religion? No, lets make this quite clear: Not all religions are equal. Christianity should play a large role in modern society, as God intended, for it is the Truth. But the abomination of Islam should be wiped out, destroyed by force if nessicessary - both for its constantly earthly attrocities and oppressions, and for leading people from Christ and thus damning them eternally. To speak of 'religion' lumps all religions together. Christianity is good, everything else is bad, and any christian who doesn't realise this just hasn't yet realised that by the fundamental tennants of Christianity they are allowing people to literially go to hell in the name of freedom. - BornAgainBrit, from a town just outside of Londonistan.

::Just to point it out, Religion is [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion defined] as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". This could be God or God''s'', and doesn't make any reference to JC; there are thousands (maybe millions) of religions, and only one family encompasses JC and God. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:The thing about science is that it is flexible and open to change, using the latest evidence. Religion isn't as flexible. I mean, a few centuries ago, we still thought the earth was the center of the universe. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Riiiigghhttt... it was only 1998 when the Catholic Church announced that the world was not in fact, flat. Furthermore, Christian beliefs like the Earth being 6,000 years old have been long abandoned by most Christians after nearly irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary. As for believing the Earth is the center of the universe, those following an entirely literal interpretation of the Bible still follow this belief.

And, being flexible is a good thing. Science changes constantly because more and more evidence is found and more and more research is done. As these changes continue, as new information is discovered, scientific thought begins to move further and further from the history told in the Bible. Many Christians however, hold on to what little in the Bible hasnt been unquestionably proven inaccurate claiming the Bible as absolutely true. Science advances, Christianity is still living in the Dark Ages.

'''Response'''You sir are not much of conservative. If you want to use you biased relative arguments then get thee to Wikipedia. Here on Conserapedia bold clear and simple assertions carry more weight than Socratic diatribes and explicit analogies.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 24 March 2007
--Facio

Socrate's method was asking questions. Explicit analogies are by definition better then vague analogies. Biased relative arguements is the funniest statement I've heard in a while. The reson they don't say religion is evil is because it is a debate and discusion where you have to explain your position. -Sam

:Minor correction - in 1998, the Catholic Church did not admit the world was not flat. They never claimed that in the first place, it was a story made up to poke fun at them shortly after the continent of America was (re-)discovered. An easy mistake though - 1998 is the year in which they admitted that the earth is not the stationary center of the universe, and that not everything has to orbit around it. The RCC always knew the earth to be round, and even had a good idea of its size - both discoveries of Greek science. They did have some minor doctrine on the issue though: Church policy was that the other side of the earth was nothing but uninhabitable water, an assumption based on the idea that if there were another continent then they could not be exposed to the Second Coming of Christ, which the bible states will be witnessed by all people. - BornAgainBrit

oooookkk....so christianity has never done anything bad in its name over the past 2000 years, compared to islam? I think that to say that is in blatant ignorance of the facts of many atrocities commited in the name of the christian God and with the support of the church. The Crusades, the holocaust, the witch hunts, the spanish inquisition, the killing of doctors who carry out abortions, the list continues. To deny that the christian faith played no role in any of these is just plain stupidity. Bolly Ottihw 09:35, 22 April 2007

There are good morale people and there are bad inmorale people. There are good religous people and there are bad religous people. Religion does not make you a better or more morale person. Sometimes people use religion as guidlines or something that can scare them into doing the right thing. But people know the difference between right and wrong and if you need religion to tell you that and religion to scare you into being good then you're probably either an ignoramus (for not knowing the diff. between right and wrong) or a bad person in complete denial only behaving well to get your ticket into heaven and eternal bliss (as if you're personality is going to be somehow different in the afterlife). - DMiller

== Why Ask? ==

This seems to be a pointless question. Which religion are you refering to? Do you mean one in particular or just religiosity in general? If you say yes or no how far are you willing to go to bring about that outcome?

17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)[[User:Evanave|Evanave]] 17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

"Christianity should play a large role in modern society, as God intended, for it is the Truth." Right...because we know that this so called God said that Christianity was right and was the truth...Hey, why don't we all live like our savior Jesus...oh wait, Jesus was Jewish...If you want to follow his path, convert! Jesus was Jewish, get over it, this is a fact (as opposed to the existence of a god).

Also, I have trouble taking arguments seriously when I read:

"i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago." I'll let you slide on the I, but come on people...it is intelligent than, not intelligant then.

"destroyed by force if nessicessary - both for its constantly earthly attrocities and oppressions," nessicessary? attrocities? Try something like...necessary or atrocities.

Moving on...

There is no proof whatsoever of the existence of a supreme being. Not one single bit of information. There are approximately 6 billion people in this world, and if I'm not mistaken, over 80% of people are religious...That means 4-5 billion people waste their time praying to nothing (Assuming all of these people have prayed at some point or another)

What makes you believe in God? Somebody told you that God existed as a little child and you believed them. People also used to think that cigarettes weren't harmful to the body, but guess what, people were wrong!

Take a moment and think...what has God done for me? How would my life be different if I did not believe in God?

I have no answer, but then again, I'm atheist.

So, in response to the question, No, religion should not play ANY role in modern societies.

~Evan
:Lack of evidence does not speak ''against'' the truth/existence of anything, anybody with a basic knowledge of science should know that. And religion gives you a crutch, regardless of whether it is true or not; ''knowing'' (truly believing, knowing that you are undoubtedly correct) that there is a God who loves you can be the best drug ever. And don't take the politicized Christian Conservative views as the ''only'' kind of Christianity; There are plenty of forms which are much more Biblically accurate than evangelism (IMHO). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Humanist==
Exactly what the Humanist Manifesto says is being repeated here. Waisting your time praying to nothing... etc. You are a Humanist. That is a religion. You say you are an atheist? You are a Humanist. You are religious. Non-theistic religion. You obviously don't even now what constitutes a religion. When someone says religion, you think of Judeo-Christianity. Whatever your religious belief is, and whether it is theistic or non-theistic, get over it. It's all religion, and every single one of you believe in something. So instead of criticizing everybody elses why don't you all get a life and tell us all what is so great about what you, that's right you, believe in. If all you got is bashing everyone else then it only tells the rest of us you ain't got nothin.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:14, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

That isn't true. I believe reality exists. The truth is out there and then it whops us on the head. Damn truth.
I was under the impression that religion had to do with belief in God(s). Morality and ethical codes are not religion because they are based on reality (it's the other people stupid).
(We) bash you because it reminds (us) of wack a mole. It is rather fun, although it can be tedious. - Sam

==Maybe not==
Not that it's not relevant, its just, it shouldn't play a large role. Relgion is like your thoughts, its yours, you make it according to your own personal moral values and based on the teachings of those before you. Getting religions entangled with people is quite dangerous some times, or annoying at others. Religion is for you and those who believe with you and those who wish to believe, none others.

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2008-04-18T04:00:45Z

Reallyforeign:

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words as is explained more or less in various ways below. It's negation does not mean God is not omnipotent - it means that omnipotence is not properly tested as implied by this question. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:54, 28 December 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

::Did it ever occur to anyone that it might take time to create imperfection from perfection? JM ([[user:Meyje|Meyje]])
:::What "imperfection from perfection"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:As far as the rock is concerned, that has been answered below, I believe. God can do anything ''that can be done''. Creating a rock too big for Him to move is not something that can be done.
:You are incorrect in claiming that a "perfect, all-powerful god would have created [the universe] instantly". The correct statement would be that He ''could'' create it instantly, not that He ''would''.
:By claiming that He would not have taken longer because that would be less efficient is (a) not obviously true (sometimes it is more efficient to take longer), and (b) presumes that efficiency is the prime goal. Rather, it would appear from Exodus 20:11 that God chose to take six days in order to set the pattern for the week.
:Similarly, you misunderstand the reference to resting. The Bible doesn't say that God was tired and needed to recuperate. The Hebrew word translated "rest" simply means to take a break, to stop from working. Again, this would have been in order to set the pattern for the week: work six days and take the seventh day off.
:In summary, then, you have basically tried picking holes with the account by saying that if God was truly omnipotent, He would have done things the way that you think He would have done them, which overlooks that perhaps there are reasons that He ''chose'' to do them the way He did that you hadn't considered.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
God is almighty, it'll be dumb if He created a rock to the point where He Himself can not lift it. God created the Heavens and the Earth, God can lift any rock. Now if HE did created such a rock, He do have the powers to make it easier fro Him to lift it. Didn't anyone think of that? I like what Philip J. Rayment said there, it is true, He did make the patterns of the week. That's why every time God created something, the BIBLE said that it was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd day.

if god is perfect, then what reason would he have to bother with existence? Surely he would do anything he would ever need or want to do in an infinitely small time, and then simply pop out of existence. If he was all-knowing, he would know it was all he could ever want to do, and if he was capable of anything, he could stop existing.
(Rowan)
: That argument presupposes that God exists in time, which He doesn't, as "time" is part of His creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - God is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney

:I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

If we assume that God does exist, I'm gonna have to go with Thomas Aquinas on this one. In his ''Summa Theologica'', he wrote:
<blockquote>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>
That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not. So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid. {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}

:So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence? None! You don't believe He does—but that doesn't mean He doesn't—yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them. Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===
Not sure who, they didn't sign their post properly, but they made this statement. There is a problem here... that is not the premise that Christians make. The statement should go like this...
:'''Everything that ''begins to'' exist has a cause.'''
* Notice that I added "begins to". For example, when a baby is born, it has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. God is the exception to the rule. Since He is the highest/most supreme Being in existence, out of necessity He always exists.
*# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*# God does not have a beginning.
*# Therefore God does not have a cause.
* How do we know God doesn't have a beginning or ending? Psalm 90:2 "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)
* A side note... "outside of itself" is not necessary in the statement. It's obvious that something cannot be the cause of itself, if it does not exist. That would be illogical. So it can be safely assumed in the statement without saying it. At least I am assuming it.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh, I don't know. When you've got people believing that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason, perhaps some of these obvious things need to be spelt out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I don't think Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason. The theory states that we can trace the expansion of space back to a singularity, that is to say a point beyond which we cannot probe. The theory doesn't state that nothing existed prior to the singularity (indeed the singularity itself must have existed for an indeterminate time prior to its expansion into the universe we know and love). [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::: Discover magazine in 2002 described the views of Alan Guth, one of the originators of the inflation theory of the Big Bang thus: {{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507/]}} I think that supports what I said quite nicely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:::Then he created a terrible strawman for the Big Bang theory, it has since been refined by Hawking among others. Whilst paradoxes remain as they always will, they seem as equally paradoxical as God; although the implications of such a being in turn create yet more paradoxes. -Barnes
:::: I assume that you are referring to Alan Guth creating a strawman. A strawman argument is an argument that claims that ''someone else'' proposes something, which you then proceed to demolish. But Guth was not claiming that ''someone else'' proposed this: he is one of the Big Bang experts, and ''he'' was proposing this. So no, it's not a strawman argument at all. Further, this dates from six years ago; I'm not sure that you are correct that Hawking has "since" refined it. And what paradoxes are implied by the existence of God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Perhaps not a strawman, but regardless of his standing this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable. General relativity shows time not to be a passive background to events but a dynamic entity which is warped my matter and energy inside it. At a point of infinite energy density time does not progress, and thus whilst we are left with the paradox of why there was a bang we do not need to answer where the energy came from.

:::The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world. It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe (if this is even possible). Then of course there is the good old problem of evil, though of course his attributes are subjective interpretations derived from 'experience'. -Barnes
::::I see lots of pins and dancing angels. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable''": True, but then the whole idea of the Big Bang is laughable. Regardless of Guth's particular description, the Big Bang is basically "nothing exploded and became everything".
:::: Why don't we need to answer where the energy came from? I don't follow your explanation of that.
:::: "''The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world.''": Sorry, but that's not explaining the alleged paradox.
:::: "''It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe...''": No, your argument is a loaded one, presuming something that is not claimed, and not true. Part of God's creation (the space/time/matter universe) is ''time''. That means that God ''created time''. That means that God ''does not exist IN time''. Therefore, it is not true to argue that God "waited an infinite time", because "time" didn't exist.
:::: "''... (if this is even possible).''": Why would it not be possible for an all-powerful Creator to create the universe?
:::: "''Then of course there is the good old problem of evil...''": The "good old problem of evil" is the good old bibliosceptic argument that's been long answered over and over. It's old, but it's not good.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

The Big Bang does not say anything about nothing. That is a misconception not because of what carefully selected scientists have to say about the theory but because you are taking a Newtonian approach to time. 'Nothing' never existed, as i explained before because time is not merely a background to events but it is shaped by the density of matter and energy inside of it. If you have a point of infinite density then time will not progress, it will stay still. So whilst you can leave God to fill the paradox of what caused the expansion itself and therefore the progression of time, it would be wrong to think of something appearing out of nothing. Therefore, if the energy had always existed then it need not have come from anywhere.

The realm of God's existence is of course paradoxical, because the word supernatural is an oxymoron. Here is a little paste from an article about this paradox:

"Now that we have the definition of Nature and Supernatural we see a very conflicting view: One is the entirety of all the laws which govern existence as we know it, and the other is a term for those activities that can happen outside the laws of nature. That is an impossibility. If Nature is Everything, then Something cannot exist outside of Everything unless Everything is only a Something; in which case Nature therefore is incorrect in it's definition and cannot be called the laws which govern all of life, only a portion of laws that govern life. So either Nature is incorrect, or Supernatural is incorrect, they cannot be existing together logically."

Time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses. If time were stationary for God then nothing would progress for him or us; it is through chronological progression that causality can exist. If God is infinite in time, then how could he not have been waiting around for an infinite amount of time before the Big Bang? And if He is finite in time, then how was he created? If He is neither finite nor infinite, then He is exempt from time and therefore causality itself.

As for the problem of evil, it is only problematic if you assume the attribute of benevolence and the degree to which you hold him responsible for our situation and therefore the situation of others. I deny free will both on empirical, metaphysical and even divine grounds, therefore we cannot be held responsible for our actions or the suffering of others. -Barnes

:Which article? I would like to read the whole thing at some point. o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 19:00, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&groupID=100096596&page=0&EntryID=30321825

:That nothing existed before the Big Bang is not just based on a quote from one Big Bang expert. Paul Davies, for example, said "According to modern physics, the big bang represented the origin of space and time, as well as of matter and energy."
: If your scenario is correct, and time stood still because of infinite density, and assuming God didn't trigger the Big Bang, then why isn't time still standing still? What caused the Big Bang? Any change that triggered the Big Bang would require something to be happening in time.
: The quote from the article only works because it switches meanings. From the section (in your link) just before your quote, "Nature" is defined as referring the "the material world" and "the physical world", yet the writer then bases his argument on "nature" meaning "everything". No, according to the definitions he himself supplied, it does ''not'' mean "everything". And without that, the argument collapses: there is no paradox.
: You say that time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses, but this is something that you cannot know. What would be more accurate to say is that it is only through time that anything ''natural'' progresses, but as God is ''supernatural'', that doesn’t necessarily hold (and ''doesn't'' hold if God is the creator of time)
: If you have no free will, then even your thoughts are the unavoidable outcomes of chemical processes in your brain, which means that everything you said above you were in effect forced to say, rather than it having any basis in evidence, logic, or reason. So if you have no free will, I'm free (assuming I do have free will) to ignore everything you say. Of course, to be consistent, I have no free will either, which means that my cranial mental processes are nothing more than chemical reactions, which means that my unavoidable chemical reactions are arguing for something different than your unavoidable chemical reactions, which means that those chemical reactions do not produce consistent results, which means they are not to be trusted. Which again means that I've got no reason to take any notice of you or your arguments.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Im not arguing that the Big Bang theory is not prone to paradoxes, for the progression of time is undoubtedly a paradox. Though whether such a theory requires the untestable and highly complex hypothesis of a God to cause it who is himself paradoxical, im not so sure. Transcending time is a logical impossibility, or rather a copout. If something is beyond our realm of comprehension to the extent that it isnt even a speculative concept, then it is a dissatisfying 'cause' to the universe. It is just as paradoxical as the progression of time, although infinitely more complex and therefore not preferable.

The definitions lead me to believe that nature is everything we see around us. "The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature". Thus if God does interact with the world, it is only through the laws of nature that he could, and being only a something external to the empirical universe he would be not be everything but merely a something and thus limited. -[http://www.myspace.com/barnes_ Barnes]
: Most of your post was argument by incredulity and personal opinion. God is supposed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. but one characteristic ''not'' used of him is "everything". So He is not "everything", but that doesn't mean that He is therefore limited. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

==Logical fallacy==
It is illogical to apply physical attributes to a non-physical being. Also, it is illogical to question whether something can be created to be mightier than He who is Almighty. That God cannot create something more powerful than Himself does not mean God is not all-powerful. The definition of all-powerful is that there is nothing more powerful! Furthermore, this is pitting God against Himself; His abilities against His own abilities. That makes no sense! Look at it this way: can you defeat yourself at wrestling? Of course not.

Additionally, God cannot create square circles because squares are squares and circles are circles. It's like asking God to make 1 equal 0 or to make bthe color blue the color red. Of course, I suppose God could do some M.C. Escher thing and make square circles.

Anyway, the only thing questions like these prove is how intellectually bankrupt neo-atheists are. They so want God to not exist that they will ignore their own illogic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

: A good response to this type of question has just been posted on the Creation Ministries International website[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566]. It is consistent with other comments above, including Jinxmchue's comment (complete with an M. C. Escher picture!), but is explained very clearly, in my opinion.
: There are actually several answers:
:* 'A rock too heavy for a being who can lift anything' is a self-contradictory statement, and a self-contradictory statement is a ''nothing'', so "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" really amounts to "Can God create a nothing?", which is clearly absurd.
:* Can God create a square circle? An all-powerful being can do anything that takes ''power'' to do. How much power does it take to create a square circle? It's not ''power'' that is required (again, because it's an illogical impossibility), so that's no argument against God's omnipotence either.
:* Yes, God ''can'' create a rock too heavy for God to lift! That is, God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift—because God the Son (Jesus) voluntarily gave up some of His divine powers!
: The article also relates [[C. S. Lewis]]' thoughts on the matter.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::"God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift" lol! I like that one. I'll have to remember to use it next time I see this argument presented by someone who thinks they're the first person to ever present it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:40, 26 January 2008 (EST)

In addition, the Bible states that God is by nature good; as He cannot do anything contrary to His nature and because creating such an object would render logic illogic, one is inclined to conclude that this argument has no bearing on His undeniable existence. {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==I'VE SOLVED IT!==
Yes, God ''can'' make a rock so big that He can't lift it. But He can also shrink it again to a size small enough that he can lift it too again. Crisis averted, argument over. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 20:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
: <grin> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:The heaviest thing in the universe may only be one cubic millimetre. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 08:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::Hooray for incredibly dense objects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Your ''mom's'' an incredibly dense object. :D Seriously though, this is a linguistic paradox more than a philosophical one. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)

==Oh my==

God creates a rock he can't lift himself, but then the rock becomes liftable if he so wishes. He is so powerful he gets to chose his limitations.

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2008-04-18T03:57:35Z

Reallyforeign: /* Honestly, */

{{debate}}

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.

== "WTF?" ==
... would be the reply of Jesus. Seriously, the way Christianity has changed is sacrilegious. Basically all New Testament books are bunk. "St." Peter is pretty unChristly. The books of the Bible were written many years after the events and have been changed over the years. A little bit here and there creates a lot of change. I very much doubt that Jesus went around claiming some of the stuff he did in the later Gospels. How does this relate to politics? Not much, I was rambling...

I think Jesus would not care for what politics is now. He wouldn't align himself to any particular party. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Kirby; the very idea of left and right wing was non existant in those days. In fact, it is blasphemy for any group to claim him as their own. As a conscientious Christian, I find it nothing short of disgraceful when the Religious Right try to twist his word to legislate their own prejudices. There was no provision in the Bible for opposing slavery - this has been twisted by wingnuts in order to get a Christian endorsement of it. Some of the most extreme white supremacists in South Africa and America have used the Great Flood to demonstrate that Blacks come from one of the animals, as the only humans who travelled aboard the ship were clearly white, as their lineage can be traced to the caucasian King David.

Now, the Religious Right use Christianity in order to legislate against homosexuals. I believe that if Christ were around today, he would storm out of the houses of government in much the same way he stormed out of the Temple. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 20:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
He didn't use violets?!--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 10:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today, he'd read some of the posts here and rush to the nearest mosque to convert.-Neuro

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

----Erm, hello majority of verses here?----
Multiple thousands of verses on poverty can't simply be omitted because some one has a fascination with a few choice ones in Leviticus. Social, you can argue up and down all day, because he lived thousands of years ago, but economically, there's no debate: liberal.{{Unsigned|Applestooranges}}
:That's not all there is to it. Never once did Jesus say that the king ought to keep a royal welfare roll and pay for it out of the people's taxes. Taxes, in fact, exist to pay the full-time salaries of the police and the military. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=6-7|version=NASB}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In ancient Rome, there was a program called the ''annona''. This was an attempt by the Roman leaders to eliminate poverty in Rome and in part had the government give free grain to about 1/3 of the population of the city. The question of "is it the government's role or the church's role or the individual's role to do charity and take care of people" we see it is a combination of all three. In particular, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm George Bush] advocates transferring of tax money to religious and non-religious charities with no strings attached. It is unfortunate that in today's world many churches have forgotten their roots in charity and benefactors to the community[http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Winter/Seek-wc.htm] and instead spend their resources trying to convert people by speaking of damnation rather than showing them compassion and living the right way themselves. There is a difference between paying people who are able to work but don't to get away with laziness and helping those who cannot work for whatever reason (If you want Paul's take on this, read 2 Thessalonians 3:8-15). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's all very well. But would Jesus say that ''the government'' ought to involve itself in charity, or lay and collect taxes for that purpose? That is the distinction that conservatism makes. And it is a distinction that Paul would have made.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There is ''no way'' that Jesus would come out on the side of the [[abortion]]ists. He'd be pro-life for sure. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 02:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well you are certainly the model of Christian humility Terry.--[[User:Tehstone|Tehstone]] 17:01, 12 September 2007 (PST)
:::::I meet error by firm and swift correction. You're more than a little late replying to my point, anyway.
:::::The one thing that Jesus ''would not'' do is to task the civil government with enforcement of "being nice to people," or even suggest that that was any of the civil government's business.
:::::He ''would'' say that the civil government exists to restrain evil--and you do not restrain evil by letting it run amuck.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:22, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[user:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

Though I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't want to get involved in our ugly political system at this point in time, I would imagine that he would tilt left. I can't imagine him supporting the war; in Romans 12:19, he says:
<blockquote>
Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
</blockquote> Even more simply, one of the commandments is not to kill. There is no way he would support the way our conservative president has sanctioned both revenge and killing.

Also of the government, the Bible says:
<blockquote>
Isaiah 10:1-3 – "Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away?"

And of helping people in general:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 -- If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, "The seventh year, the year of remission, is near," and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”
</blockquote>
So Jesus would also agree with the notion that politicians should not marginalize the poor and that people should help the poor in general. Although no mention of government is made in the last verse I mentioned, government is not excluded from helping people. And that eliminates any argument that the government should not help the poor because they are lazy and don't deserve it.

So, without a doubt, I would say that Jesus, if he'd even vote, would be Liberal. --[[User:Arod|Arod]] 01:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

He'd have to be on the left -- all those stories about giving away all but the rags on your back and working for the poor. Though he would probably be anti-abortion, pornography and so on. It's quite possible, after all, to be a religious Left-winger with some or many conservative views. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was the original Bobby Kennedy. How could he support corruption, deceit, republicans? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor''' - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You need to publish this on the Talk page of the article on the Iraq War. Not that I agree entirely with your analysis, but it still needs to be where a lot of people can read it and comment on it. That's all I have time to say right now, but I wanted you to know that I had seen it--and that I appreciate your intellectual honesty.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.[http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/jesuswasacommunist.html]]

Politics are human. Jesus is devine.--[[User:Mister Bug|Mister Bug]] 19:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::According to Revelations 19 Jesus is Lord of lords and Kings of kings so if he were here he would be setting up his own kingdom. And this is what is taking place in Revelations 19. Jesus is coming to the earth and when he gets here he will establish his kingdom. This is what we see Jesus doing in the Gospels of the Bible; he is establishing his kingdom by shedding his blood for his followers. Jesus is a king. [BJE]
Jesus would be independent. he would not support the war, so he might vote liberaly to insure it's end[[User:Pastafarian2|Pastafarian2]] 22:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Anarchist ==
Jesus would realize that politics keep about 49% of the country unhappy with each decision. And what would Jesus want for his people other than to be happy? {{unsigned|Caboose84}}

== Socialist ==
Jesus was clearly embroiled in politics. Furthermore, Jesus was also set against the hierarchy of the time. Jesus was a radical, he may not have advocated violence, but he was certainly associated with leading Jewish "terrorists" of the time, even if it was to convince them to be pacifist.

Jesus main perogative was to address the failures of the market system established by Judaism, this does not mean Judaism was evil or anything of the sort. He simply developed the humanitarian aspect of the market. As such, Jesus was the first "socialist", or to a secularist, a leading left-wing thinker. there could be an arguement he simply reasserted aspects of Judaism, which he felt were not being upheld by the leaders of the faith.

From this perspective, a socialist would believe that if Jesus were here, he would be shocked at the idolisation of one person. That he was the cause of so many wars, and his work could be used against the people he sought to help. To Jesus, it would be the community that is most important. {{unsigned|JamesII}}

==Libertarian==
I get the definite feeling from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus would be in favor of [[free trade]] and yet I think he'd be a pretty hippy dippy supporter of [[peace and love]]. [[User:Babbit|Babbit]]

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Give Unto Caesar What Is Caesars, Give Unto God What Is Gods. Give Unto Republican & Democrats What Is Republicans & Democrats, Give Unto God What Is Gods.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Was Jesus a politician? No!! Would he be a politician today? Of course not!! All politics lays on a bed of corruption.... did Jesus say, "the Roman laws are bad, let's petition the Romans to change the law"? Of course not, the thought is absurd -- Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" because Jesus intended for his followers to work outside the corruption of any political system.... supporting a set of values and using the coercive power of the state to enforce those values on non-believers are two different things.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:50, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Political words of Jesus ==
This debate is pretty ridiculous. Here is the political position of Jesus:

:Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

:"Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to god what is gods"
:--[[User:Yellowlamp|Yellowlamp]] 18:48, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Ahem==
Do you people have any idea why there are atheists? It isnt because of a broken home, or gays or anything. It is because of conversations like this. Attempting to turn Jesus into a political figure is the reason Gandhi said "I like your Christ, not your Christians. Your christians are so unlike your christ." With this argument, you are turning Jesus into a glorification of yourself. You are saying, "I AM JESUS". This debate is completely outside of respect and common sense. You claim you are trying to be more like this Jesus fellow you always blab about, but you are actually trying to turn jesus into yourself. You are just like Huckabee. "Jesus would support the death penalty, get drunk, watch nascar, and shoot the homasexuals". You are all idiots. And it makes me sick that you ACTUALLY belive what you are saying is right. And makes me want to move to Canada.

Yours, in all ways.
--[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchist==

Hey, his official title '''is''' "King of Kings". --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:46, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Honestly,==

Personally, I see him as a liberal. Now, it's not to be rude or mean or going against the wind here, but seriously, I've always seen Jesus more as a friend than as my King. I respect him, but I don't fear him. God is love, and you cannot fear that.

Anyway, back to the controversy, I find him a liberal because according to what I've read he was a reasonably layed-back guy. He preached equallity, [[Hippie|peace and love]]. Not that Jesus was a hippie, I also see him as very moralistic and very conservative in that sense. I just see.. a liberal believing in democracy and absolute freedom (the only thing God gave only to man was the ability of choice, absolute freedom).

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2008-04-18T03:56:48Z

Reallyforeign:

{{debate}}

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.

== "WTF?" ==
... would be the reply of Jesus. Seriously, the way Christianity has changed is sacrilegious. Basically all New Testament books are bunk. "St." Peter is pretty unChristly. The books of the Bible were written many years after the events and have been changed over the years. A little bit here and there creates a lot of change. I very much doubt that Jesus went around claiming some of the stuff he did in the later Gospels. How does this relate to politics? Not much, I was rambling...

I think Jesus would not care for what politics is now. He wouldn't align himself to any particular party. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Kirby; the very idea of left and right wing was non existant in those days. In fact, it is blasphemy for any group to claim him as their own. As a conscientious Christian, I find it nothing short of disgraceful when the Religious Right try to twist his word to legislate their own prejudices. There was no provision in the Bible for opposing slavery - this has been twisted by wingnuts in order to get a Christian endorsement of it. Some of the most extreme white supremacists in South Africa and America have used the Great Flood to demonstrate that Blacks come from one of the animals, as the only humans who travelled aboard the ship were clearly white, as their lineage can be traced to the caucasian King David.

Now, the Religious Right use Christianity in order to legislate against homosexuals. I believe that if Christ were around today, he would storm out of the houses of government in much the same way he stormed out of the Temple. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 20:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
He didn't use violets?!--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 10:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today, he'd read some of the posts here and rush to the nearest mosque to convert.-Neuro

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

----Erm, hello majority of verses here?----
Multiple thousands of verses on poverty can't simply be omitted because some one has a fascination with a few choice ones in Leviticus. Social, you can argue up and down all day, because he lived thousands of years ago, but economically, there's no debate: liberal.{{Unsigned|Applestooranges}}
:That's not all there is to it. Never once did Jesus say that the king ought to keep a royal welfare roll and pay for it out of the people's taxes. Taxes, in fact, exist to pay the full-time salaries of the police and the military. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=6-7|version=NASB}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In ancient Rome, there was a program called the ''annona''. This was an attempt by the Roman leaders to eliminate poverty in Rome and in part had the government give free grain to about 1/3 of the population of the city. The question of "is it the government's role or the church's role or the individual's role to do charity and take care of people" we see it is a combination of all three. In particular, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm George Bush] advocates transferring of tax money to religious and non-religious charities with no strings attached. It is unfortunate that in today's world many churches have forgotten their roots in charity and benefactors to the community[http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Winter/Seek-wc.htm] and instead spend their resources trying to convert people by speaking of damnation rather than showing them compassion and living the right way themselves. There is a difference between paying people who are able to work but don't to get away with laziness and helping those who cannot work for whatever reason (If you want Paul's take on this, read 2 Thessalonians 3:8-15). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's all very well. But would Jesus say that ''the government'' ought to involve itself in charity, or lay and collect taxes for that purpose? That is the distinction that conservatism makes. And it is a distinction that Paul would have made.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There is ''no way'' that Jesus would come out on the side of the [[abortion]]ists. He'd be pro-life for sure. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 02:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well you are certainly the model of Christian humility Terry.--[[User:Tehstone|Tehstone]] 17:01, 12 September 2007 (PST)
:::::I meet error by firm and swift correction. You're more than a little late replying to my point, anyway.
:::::The one thing that Jesus ''would not'' do is to task the civil government with enforcement of "being nice to people," or even suggest that that was any of the civil government's business.
:::::He ''would'' say that the civil government exists to restrain evil--and you do not restrain evil by letting it run amuck.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:22, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[user:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

Though I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't want to get involved in our ugly political system at this point in time, I would imagine that he would tilt left. I can't imagine him supporting the war; in Romans 12:19, he says:
<blockquote>
Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
</blockquote> Even more simply, one of the commandments is not to kill. There is no way he would support the way our conservative president has sanctioned both revenge and killing.

Also of the government, the Bible says:
<blockquote>
Isaiah 10:1-3 – "Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away?"

And of helping people in general:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 -- If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, "The seventh year, the year of remission, is near," and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”
</blockquote>
So Jesus would also agree with the notion that politicians should not marginalize the poor and that people should help the poor in general. Although no mention of government is made in the last verse I mentioned, government is not excluded from helping people. And that eliminates any argument that the government should not help the poor because they are lazy and don't deserve it.

So, without a doubt, I would say that Jesus, if he'd even vote, would be Liberal. --[[User:Arod|Arod]] 01:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

He'd have to be on the left -- all those stories about giving away all but the rags on your back and working for the poor. Though he would probably be anti-abortion, pornography and so on. It's quite possible, after all, to be a religious Left-winger with some or many conservative views. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was the original Bobby Kennedy. How could he support corruption, deceit, republicans? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor''' - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You need to publish this on the Talk page of the article on the Iraq War. Not that I agree entirely with your analysis, but it still needs to be where a lot of people can read it and comment on it. That's all I have time to say right now, but I wanted you to know that I had seen it--and that I appreciate your intellectual honesty.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.[http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/jesuswasacommunist.html]]

Politics are human. Jesus is devine.--[[User:Mister Bug|Mister Bug]] 19:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::According to Revelations 19 Jesus is Lord of lords and Kings of kings so if he were here he would be setting up his own kingdom. And this is what is taking place in Revelations 19. Jesus is coming to the earth and when he gets here he will establish his kingdom. This is what we see Jesus doing in the Gospels of the Bible; he is establishing his kingdom by shedding his blood for his followers. Jesus is a king. [BJE]
Jesus would be independent. he would not support the war, so he might vote liberaly to insure it's end[[User:Pastafarian2|Pastafarian2]] 22:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Anarchist ==
Jesus would realize that politics keep about 49% of the country unhappy with each decision. And what would Jesus want for his people other than to be happy? {{unsigned|Caboose84}}

== Socialist ==
Jesus was clearly embroiled in politics. Furthermore, Jesus was also set against the hierarchy of the time. Jesus was a radical, he may not have advocated violence, but he was certainly associated with leading Jewish "terrorists" of the time, even if it was to convince them to be pacifist.

Jesus main perogative was to address the failures of the market system established by Judaism, this does not mean Judaism was evil or anything of the sort. He simply developed the humanitarian aspect of the market. As such, Jesus was the first "socialist", or to a secularist, a leading left-wing thinker. there could be an arguement he simply reasserted aspects of Judaism, which he felt were not being upheld by the leaders of the faith.

From this perspective, a socialist would believe that if Jesus were here, he would be shocked at the idolisation of one person. That he was the cause of so many wars, and his work could be used against the people he sought to help. To Jesus, it would be the community that is most important. {{unsigned|JamesII}}

==Libertarian==
I get the definite feeling from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus would be in favor of [[free trade]] and yet I think he'd be a pretty hippy dippy supporter of [[peace and love]]. [[User:Babbit|Babbit]]

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Give Unto Caesar What Is Caesars, Give Unto God What Is Gods. Give Unto Republican & Democrats What Is Republicans & Democrats, Give Unto God What Is Gods.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Was Jesus a politician? No!! Would he be a politician today? Of course not!! All politics lays on a bed of corruption.... did Jesus say, "the Roman laws are bad, let's petition the Romans to change the law"? Of course not, the thought is absurd -- Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" because Jesus intended for his followers to work outside the corruption of any political system.... supporting a set of values and using the coercive power of the state to enforce those values on non-believers are two different things.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:50, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Political words of Jesus ==
This debate is pretty ridiculous. Here is the political position of Jesus:

:Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

:"Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to god what is gods"
:--[[User:Yellowlamp|Yellowlamp]] 18:48, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Ahem==
Do you people have any idea why there are atheists? It isnt because of a broken home, or gays or anything. It is because of conversations like this. Attempting to turn Jesus into a political figure is the reason Gandhi said "I like your Christ, not your Christians. Your christians are so unlike your christ." With this argument, you are turning Jesus into a glorification of yourself. You are saying, "I AM JESUS". This debate is completely outside of respect and common sense. You claim you are trying to be more like this Jesus fellow you always blab about, but you are actually trying to turn jesus into yourself. You are just like Huckabee. "Jesus would support the death penalty, get drunk, watch nascar, and shoot the homasexuals". You are all idiots. And it makes me sick that you ACTUALLY belive what you are saying is right. And makes me want to move to Canada.

Yours, in all ways.
--[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchist==

Hey, his official title '''is''' "King of Kings". --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:46, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Honestly,==

Personally, I see him as a liberal. Now, it's not to be rude or mean or going against the wind here, but seriously, I've always seen Jesus more as a friend than as my King. I respect him, but I don't fear him. God is love, and you cannot fear that.

Anyway, back to the controversy, I find him a liberal because according to what I've read he was a reasonably layed-back guy. He preached equallity, [[peace and love|Hippie]]. Not that Jesus was a hippie, I also see him as very moralistic and very conservative in that sense. I just see.. a liberal believing in democracy and absolute freedom (the only thing God gave only to man was the ability of choice, absolute freedom).

== References ==
<references/>

Talk:Debate:Did God create evil?

2008-04-18T03:50:24Z

Reallyforeign: It's complex (so is everything else)

Ans. Isaiah 45:6&7 "-----I am the Lord and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create EVIL: I the Lord do all these things".
Reason: Romans 9:22&23 "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known,endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory".
It may be clearer if you read from ver. 10 to 24 of Romans Ch. 9.
I think such a God would want to create, and for a good purpose. Col.1:16 "All things were made by him and for him." Gen. 1:26 "Let US make man in OUR own image." John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word" (Christ) and, the word was with God, and the Word was God." It seems all was made for the glorification of Christ, and to exercize and exibit God's attributes.

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godevil.html [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:40, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

No he did not. He did not create darkness either. Darkness is merely the absence of light. He did not create cold, as cold is merely the absence of heat. And he did not create evil, as evil is only the absence of God. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]]

== According to you, he must have! ==

Did God create evil? He must have, since he created everything else! I believe that if this god does accualy exist, then he is of our own creation! The concept of good and evil is nothing more than our own attempt at rationalization. Isn't it so much more simple to pass the blame than it is to accept responsibility!?

== It's complex (so is everything else) ==

God didn't create evil. He created the choice and temptation and the idea of evil. On a clean slate, a blank mind, no thoughts whatsoever, no matter how empty ones mind is, murder (for example) is always wrong (in a lucid state of mind). See, God planted the idea of evil, and to stay away from it and then he planted the temptation of it. choice. because if God simply gave things away, we'd be dependant, and that's not the way He rolls.

After all, what is evil? Is mudering fellow man evil, no, that is a choice the man makes. He gave us choice.

Talk:Communism

2008-04-18T03:21:28Z

Reallyforeign: /* hang on a sec */

==totalitarian nightmare==

I think that the "Christian sharing" section is out of place here. It gives a false impression that Communism - i.e., [[Marxism-Leninism]] - is in any way related to the voluntary sharing of "[[Christian communism]]". The latter is a form of [[communitarianism]].

Communism is a totalitarian nightmare, as Orwell chillingly portrayed it in ''[[1984]]''. I've read books on Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese and North Korean life. I've met refugees from various communist countries and in 1992 personally visited 4 former Soviet SSR's. It's hell on earth.

Not that democracy is Heaven, but:
#The [[Iron Curtain]] was to keep people in (see also [[Berlin Wall]]).
#Refugees mainly want to come to America and Britain.

Am I biased on this? I have made up my mind, but it is based purely on the objective facts. Anyway, I do look forward to working cooperatively with other editors here. Just don't try any liberal tricks. This is a subject I know thoroughly. I have books and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely, and I urge you to improve this article as well.

It's funny that you bring this up because I just wrote the Berlin Wall stub this afternoon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we must distinguish between the concepts that communism supposedly follows, and the fascist regimes that call themselves "communist" (USSR, China, etc.) because there is quite an important distinction between the two. You can't really disagree with this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm with you 100%, been there, got the tee shirt (and the sweat shirt, and the gold-embossed mug), etc. I have personally met the author of ''Communism: Promise and Practice''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, this may be true, but the main point to be made is that even with total control of a nation's populous Communism (Marx & Engel's version) doesn't really work "outside of the laboratory". This may reflect an element of biological evolution wherein a person's genetic desire to be the "fittest" precludes an egalitarian and altruistic society; i.e. why should '''I''' help those who aren't of my genetic lineage by this "sharing" or pooling of resources. Sometimes it is a benefit to do so, and so we do to some extent, but a full fledged society goes against evolutionary forces. MOO --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 23:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::If God and Heaven did not exist, it would merely be an odd coincidence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:That stuff comes from early Marxist writings, and dedicated Marxists still cite it today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's a better quote from Toynbee,
:"According to the Communist prophet's intuition ...the class-war is bound to issue in a victorious proletarian revolution.... A time is to come when....the New Society of the Marxian Millennium will be able to cast away not only 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' but also every other institutional crutch, including the State itself; for in that Marxian earthly paradise to come 'they neither marry nor are given in marriage' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Sheesh! People as lab rats ... it doesn't even work *in* the lab ... all the poor rats keep trying to escape. Just think about 2 sets of borders: one, when you cross it you're a refugee or defector - the other, when you cross it you're a welcome immigrant.

Who ever heard of someone crossing the Gulf of Mexico in a raft to escape '''into''' Cuba? And don't get me started on Vietnam - I read ''Le Gulag Vietnamien'' and even met the author [[Doan Van Toai]] in Boston. Read about him [http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1986/october/Sa11490.htm here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

I don't think you need the hammer and sickle to spin... I'm replacing the picture. [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 14:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Communism in the history of political thought (Draft) ==

(I'm trying to come up with a concise chapter on the history of communism, but don't have time to complete it. This is part of the draft. Please feel free to edit as if this were part of the article. When it's done I'll copy and paste it in to the main text.)

Communism as an idea was born out of the Industrial Revolutions in Europe in the 19th century. At the beginning of the century, workers in industrial nations such as Britain began to organise themselves in to co-operative societies, for the purposes of providing members with a fair price for staple goods and for the support of members who were unable to work, either because of difficulties finding employment or sickness.

These societies were often formed as a reaction to predatory employers, who would pay workers solely in vouchers to be spent at the company store, making competition impossible and enabling the employer to fleece employees. Leaders of the co-operative movement, such as Robert Owen, abhorred such practice and wished to reorganise society along similar lines to their own movement. In 1826, Owen wrote "There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, — that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each." (cite ISBN when I dig out my copy)

:Communism is responsible for the [[democide]] of 100 million plus lives in very recent memory, and one quarter of the planet remains enslaved under it. Dressing it up as anything else border's on Holocuast denial. Let's stick to the facts on this sad chapter of human history, and not try to present it as anything other than what it is--a failed attempt by atheists and rationalists to dominate the human race and exterminate anyone who opposed them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, is that a chip on your shoulder, or a huge boulder? These are the facts. Regardless of what you think of communism, it is important that historical information be included in any article in an encyclopaedia. Should we perhaps not include the history of the British Empire because it killed so many people?

:: Communism is an important part of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, and is intertwined with the social and demographic trends of industrialisation. To ignore that history is to be doomed to repeat it. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::To ignore the real history of Communism, like ignoring the real history of Nazism, is to be doomed to repeat it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Robert Owens was a social reformer not a communist. His ideas come from the same roots as the British Labour Party. The reformers of Britain in the 19th Century and the Factory Acts which gave workers rights are based on Liberal ideas not Marxist. The Labour Party Nationalised transport, fossial fuel and created the National Health Service to provide free health care for all. Not because of Communism (they ejected communists from the party, would not support the General Strike of 1926) but because of Liberalism and Social equality. It is true that factory owners in the 19th Century were paying the workers in vouchers and docking wages at the drop of a hat so that workers owed the factory money. They even had inhouse dentists to ensure that workers didn't take unnecessary time off. However the Factory Acts (from 1833 onward) changed this and introduced free education for children as well as other measures to help workers and stop them from being exploited by the factory owners. We have to remember though that not all factory owners were the same and some did look after their workers very well. So please try not to mix social reform up with marxism and communism

== Communist could be good ==

Communism idealistically is a good system. Everyone makes the same amount of money so the rich can't exploit the poor.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Don't you think we should use it's logo as the image at top? Why was it removed? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 22:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:We are not here to promote, memorialize, or glorify a [[democidal]] subject. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Accepting your premise that Communism is evil, and putting its logo at the top glorifies it, then shouldn't we remove the picture at the top of [[Nazi]]? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 17:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Who put it there? It was probably placed by some scumbag troll anyway. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:01, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== very biased ==

This article, although it holds much truth, should be changed to be more neutral in order to give people a good idea as to what communism is about.
:Oh really? You don't think eyewitness testimony from the [[Gulag]]s can't give us a good idea as to what communism is about? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

This is one of the rare occasions where wikipedia has a better definition. This has no inofrmation about communism as opposed to Wikipedia's "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as "primitive communism" This article we are discussing just states the death's and how it has been abused not the actual concept an that is NOT an unbiased source. BTW for the wikipedia article notice how they use words like SEEKS instead of has because it hasn't thats its goal. [[User:thatgamerguy|thatgamerguy]]

:That speaks like present tense, "an ideology that seeks..."; we only deal with facts. Communism has had 150+ plus years to "seek" whatever it sought, and left a trail of corpses in its wake that made Hitler envious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== In bad shape ==

From the very beginning, this article is terrible. Below is my proposed lead (feel free to edit):
<blockquote>
'''Communism''' is a social and political ideology which advocates the establishment of a classless, stateless society, in which the population (the [[proletariat]]) has group ownership of the means of production. According to the communist ideology, once a communist utopia is achieved, political means such as [[government]], [[military]], and [[police]] will be archaic and unnecessary. While the theory of communism advocates fairness and equality, the modern practice of this ideology has been punctuated by censorship, violence, and oppression. the founders of modern communism were [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]]. Other famous communists include [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Iosef Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong]], and [[Leon Trotsky]].
</blockquote>
--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::I like this lead, but I think the article looks ok. Whats there should stay. Engels founded it to, no?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:51, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::So should the [[capitalism]] article begin "The imperialist swine are evil money-grubbers"? I mean, stereotypes are bad; starting an article off with statistics based on a flawed practice of the theory is no way to go. And Marx was the better known than his co-author Engels, no? It is not "Engelsism", but "Marxism".--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Quite true, he is better known. But credit should be given were credit is due. marxism includes the philosophy of Engels.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you misunderstood me. Your introduction should be incorporated. But the horrors of communism should not be discarded.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh, of course they are to be included; I am just concerned that this article on a very important ideology ''begins'' with the victim statistics. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Certainly, that should be changed. Your introduction is nice, my compliments. It should be put in[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Feel free to edit it, I feel like it is lacking eloquence. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, this page is not going to be used as a forum for (a) advocacy, or (b) apologetics, for a [[democidal]] ideology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:27, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:RobS, please attempt to distinguish between the theoretical ideals of communism and the flawed ways in which it has been practiced. We are not here to promote or frown upon anything; we are here to build an encyclopedia. It is not "apologetics" to ''state'' the ''basic beliefs'' of communists. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:04, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Hojimachong, Why don't you don't you go to the [[Nazi]] article and explain to us how they were misunderstood. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::RobS, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? The Nazis were not Communists, they were Socialists. A much more fair comparison would be to ask Hojimachong to go to the [[Christianity]] page and explain how modern 'Christians' have distorted the original message of Christ. Or perhaps one could go to the Nazi page and draw all of the valid comparisons between the Nazis and the current government of the United States (which is not meant to imply the government is run by Nazis, but there are valid comparisons). Or, in keeping with the bizarre theme of this silly page on Communism, one could begin the page about the United States by detailing all of the crimes committed by the US government. Things like the persecution of the Native Americans (unless 'Manifest Destiny' allows such [[democidal|democides]]), exploitation of industrial workers in the 1880s and 1890, exploitation of agricultural workers through today, internment camps, state-mandated and assisted apartheid, legalized abortion, etc. could be mentioned. However, they '''aren't'''! So why does the Communism page start in such a startling way?

::::Please, this is little more than Soviet & Communist holocaust denial, and discussion with such extremists should not be countenanced by CP Admins. They need to be blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Again I ask, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? How could one make it clear to you that the Soviets were most emphatically '''not''' Communists? Would you argue that it was Christians that were responsible for the slaughter of the pre-Columbian indigenous people of North and South America? You would probably claim that it was Conquistadors instead (unless you would deny ''that'' particular genocide). Just because the USSR was run by an organization calling themselves the 'Communist Party' doesn't mean they were Communists. Perhaps that's the point that ''needs'' to be made in an encyclopedia article. I'm not being an extremist; I'm taking perspective, attempting to view the circumstances outside of my bubble of personal ideology and life experiences. That's part of scholarship. If you are too confused or emotionally invested to understand that, I suggest that you are not fit to be editing this article.
:::::::I guess I'm just dense; is this like the debate "Does a ceramic yard toad belong in [[Catagory:Toads]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::No,it's not like that.

:Is this page to be used as advocacy for other causes, then? Like exploiting developing countries, attempting to overthrow valid democracies, etc.? Just because people don't write your gospel, RobS, doesn't mean that they are writing ridiculous things. Perhaps you should find an encyclopedia and read about Communism. It is not practiced anywhere in the world today. Communism is a STATELESS economic system, there are no totalitarian governments that could run gulags, etc. That's the point Hojimachong is trying to make. Communism does not advocate violent revolution; Marxism advocates violent revolution to achieve Communism. If you can't recognize the difference you really need to step back and find a much broader literature base. Indeed, by improving this article along the lines that Hojimachong suggests, other people would perhaps be able to better understand the difference by reading the Conservapedia! Isn't that what the point is: getting out unbiased, factual information to dispel the myths propagated by leftist, godless, non-Americans? Show people what ''real'' communism is in contrast to the socialist regimes implemented in North Korea, Cuba, et al.

:*I would say an encyclopedia is here to deal with facts. Since I do not know of a pure Marxist Communist state having ever existed, how does on craft an article about something that has never existed or been practiced? And wouldn't that kind of crap be in the article about Karl Marx, not here? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::I would hope that since communism is an ideology, that the ideology itself would be discussed here, alongside ways in which it has failed, which are many and varied. But not including the hammer and sickle - the most blatant and obvious symbol associated with communism - is verging on ridiculous. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:17, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::This is a joke, right? First, there's no such thing as a Communist '''state''' as Hojimachong points out in his proposed paragraph. Second, there ''have'' been Marxist Socialist states. Third, it's absurd to think that one is unable to write an article about an ideal. Has the Christian ideal ever been realized? But there are certainly articles about Christianity on the Conservapedia. Finally, it's irresponsible to call things you disagree with 'that kind of crap' since there are approximately 4 billion people on this Earth (a very large majority) that might say the same thing about Christianity. Perhaps it's a good thing we don't live in a global democracy.
:::Colloquially, "communism" refers to the condition by which in theory, the workers own the means of production. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::But your initial paragraph is good because it does ''not'' fall back on the colloquial usage; that, I believe, is important for an encyclopedia article.

Regarding Hoji's proposed definition, I'd recommend using only the first two sentences. While the third gives important information, it isn't really relevant to the meaning of the word, pe se. Also, substantively, I have some angst about whether the first couple of sentences are properly "Communism," or, rather, "Markism," which aren't necessarily the same thing. Which suggests that there might be a problem with the underlying assumption that there even is a single, unitary definition of the word "Communism." Like most definitions, I think you'll need multiple entries, reflecting the different senses in which the same word is sometimes used. I'd think there should be one entry for "Communism," the ecomomic/political theory, and a separate entry for "Communism," referring the class of governments that generally profess (or professed) to be Communist, with varying degrees of sincerity. Obviously, the core concept of Communism as a theory is the elimination of all private property rights (according to it's proponents, rendering private property rights obsolete, by creating a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them). Equally obviously, no society or state has ever actually done so; however, communist governments are called "Communist" because they at least profess to be working toward that end. Again, that seems sufficient information for a definition; the encyclopedia article should go on to discuss both the fact of these historical failures and the reasons for them--i.e., that the theory doesn't work in practice, for reasons we now understand pretty well. [[User:QBeam]] 2:28, 10 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

== Communism / China ==

Something needs to be added stating how completely discredited Communism is, and how today, although called "communism" what is in place in China, really isn't. It is more a revert to the Imperial Bureaucracy. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:But we don't have agendas....

TK, you are right, and I think Hoji misunderstood my comment several weeks ago about distinguishing between "promise and practice". Communism is much more than "an ideology with an ideal". It is an ideology which justifies the forcible overthrow of existing governments, '''on the grounds that''' it will be possible someday to make things much better.

My point is not that we should "love the ideal, hate the practioners". That is a grotesque distortion of the Christian dictum, "hate the sin, love the sinner". Rather, Communism begins with a fake ideal!

Communists claim that they are motivated by an ideal, but there is no evidence that they have ever tried to put this ideal into practice. So they are even worse than Nazis. This explains why Soviets and Red Chinese each murdered 10 times as many people as Hitler did. It's all a lie.

So we need to describe the difference between the ideal Communists '''say''' they are striving for and the things they actually '''do'''. They are not simply socialists "gone wrong". They started out wrong! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not much concerned with the body of the article, but rather the lead paragraph, which should adequately state what the theory ''aims to accomplish''. The failures should be documented at [[Leninism]], [[Stalinism]], [[Maoism]], and [[Trotskyism]]. And the image is staying. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:42, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism vs. Communism==
Every comparison made between any government that has existed and Communism is false. Communism cannot exist in a state framework. While the Soviets and Chinese governments are run by so-called communist parties, that's akin to calling Richard Cheney a Christian; we can label ourselves any way we want. We have a term in the English (or rather American) language to describe these socialist governments, so why don't we use it? Conservapedia could stand as the lone beacon trying to shine the light on the truth of the differences between Marxism and Communism!

:See may latest edit to the article, near the top. [[Dialectical materialism]] is the "ideology" or philosophy which is the basis of [[Marxism]]. I defy anyone to show me where it talks about how the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] will even "wither away" into a classless society.

:No progress or stability can come from struggle. What we need, on the contrary, is voluntary cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== About communism - is it possible to edit the article anyway? ==

I don't understand you folks. Came here to check the site out to get an alternative view on things as you say it is about in the NY. But bashing communism like you are is just sad. Illegal to own cars? And no fair wages?
The first one seemed like a minor error, something your propaganda has teached you. But the whole idea about communism is fair wages for everyone. And savings? ofcourse you can save the money you earn - even in banks.

Also you invest through taxes. The public as a whole are the onwers and investors of the companies. As a member of the party you suggest what should be built in your county and then everyone vote about it. Just as a big company congress.
That communism just as any other ideolgy has been miss-used is true. Horrible people have come to power while the nations citizens didn't bother standing up against them.

You also write in the article about socialism that: "without compensation to the builders of the capital,"
The problem in these articles in general is not that the points of views are wrong but that the "facts" those views build on are incorrect.

There is compensation to the builders of capital. The builders of capital in this case are the populus(the population) and they recive compensation for their efforts through public ownership of companies (and thus the output of the public stock) like under Titoism or through public spending, free vacations and things like this in the USSR. {{unsigned|Ondskan}}

:Oh, so we're just supposed to ignore, or deny, [[democide]], and apologize or explain how a mountain of corpses was just an experimental mistake, or misinterpretaion. Wow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::Just skimmed the above and found at least one mistake: what kind of country offers its citizens "free vacations" but labels as "[[defector]]s" anyone who tries to emigrate? And punishes successful defectors by taking retribution on any family members left behind.
::Sounds like you have a fantasy that idealizes something you know little about. Try researching the history of Russia and Cuba. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just back here looking for information on a few American writers and to reply on what has been written here.
Yes I belive so. I belive we should learn of what has happend through history and build improve the future with knowledge of what went bad and what went well in the past. Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags. Funny enough both countries were built upon revolution and both countries wouldn't exist if people didn't rise up to their masters. But as we know, new masters are formed from the ashes of the old and if power corrupts then the absolute power the leaders of the USA and USSR had back then corrupts absolutely. Thus much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed and instead added into the history of each country that had comited the crimes against humanity that are listed here.

One thing though I find completely ridicilous. Pol Pot was financed by the United States and the United States supported him in his war against Vietnam while it was the communist Vietnam that liberated the people of Cambodia from Pol Pot and his massmurder regime which killed anyone who had an education. If anything, what ever ideology the U.S. had at that time should be blamed and not communism. I'm eager to hear what you have to say on this, t'll then I'll remove Pol Pot. [[User:Ondskan|Ondskan]] 17:53, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags.''
::Interesting contrast, isn't it. Beating up people, etc. is akin to running them down with tanks, taking away all thier civil and human rights, and exterminating them through forced labor in gulags.
:''much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed...''
::<RobS is thinking to himself....."no...don't...why is my right hand inching toward the banhammer....maybe this user really ''does'' intend to engage in rational, intelligent disucssion...no, be patient one moretime...."> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Pol Pot was financed by the United States''
::(a) Show cites, (b) even w/cites it still doesn't mean the US paid him to exterminate people (there is such a thing as free will, you know; God gave Cain life, and he was a murderer. Does that mean God is responsible for Cain murdering Abel?). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::For the record [http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/bj21.jpg][http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/wmr1a.jpg] here is Communism in today's world. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:06, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Taking away rights? The United States took away the rights of people seen as communists just like the USSR took away rights from people seen as Liberals/Conservatives during McCarter period. '''They were prosecuted for what they belived in'''.
:Name one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Rights were taken away from people during the 1920's when members/leaders of Worker unions were beaten up by police that was financed by bribes from big companies and they were also fired and it was made hard for these to find new jobs.
:How is that akin to being run over with a tank? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Today hundreds if not thoulsands of people are being tortued in Guantanamo and other places in the world.
:Hundreds of thousands at Guantanamo? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

At the same time the only valid reason for Invading Iraq left is that Sadam was a tyrant who tortured people to extract information.
:Ah yes, the good old days. If Saddam was only around to keep the peace....ah yes, the good ol days.

The people that Sadam tortured were those who were belived to be Kurdish seperatists IE terrorists in his mind.
:Right. They had it coming. Anyone who challenges totalitartian dictatorship deserves extermination. At least you are being consistent with many [[socialist]] dreams and goals. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Are we to blame the constitution, the ideology of the United States and it's people for these mistakes?
If that is the way to go then the Republican party has killed far more people through it's wars and sanctions than most realise. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1997/srirq997.htm reports that at least 500 000 children have in only 5 years died of UN sanctions imposed by the US against Iraq.
:Hmmmm, [[Ramsey Clark]] said one million children died in Iraq during Mr. & Mrs. Clintons's term of office. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

2,5 millions died in the Vietnam War. etc...etc...
:Vietnam was a Republican war?

How come in your oppinion these things don't count as crimes against humanity comited by a conservative ideology/party compared to what you belive Communism is responsible for.
:If you question made any sesne, I'd try to answer it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

And how can you even dare to draw god and his creation into a comparison with the United States cowardly financing of a murder regime (Pol Pot) to in a desperate attempt stop the winning Vietnam Forces?
:When was that? Was during Kennedy/Johnson, or during President Carter, when Carter said [[human rights]] was America's number [[foreign policy]]. Oh, BTW, when was the [[Killing Fields]].....hmmmmm.....let's see.....during which President's term of office....hmmmm lemme see.....think think think.....1977.....

You should be ashamed of yourself.
:Thank you. I am. Why I even bother reading this trash or trying to respond to it frankly makes me disgusted with myself. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:51, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== US embargo on Cuba is not over Communism ! ==

Falsely stated above:"... Cuba, is still kept under economic repression by the USA due to its communist beliefs..."

The embargo on trade with Cuba is to punish Cuba for having expropriated ( with compensation offered but refused )and subsequently nationalized american companies that paid slave wages without benefits to its workers. If you disapprove of Cuban expropriation look up american 'eminent domain' !

One of these companies owned by the Fanjul family now located in Florida operates sugar cane fields in the Dominican Republic using actual slave workers. This is how glorious "opportunity-for-all Capitalism" worked in pre-Castro Cuba. {{unsigned|RickyTemple}}

:Excellent point. And the quote in the article looks like commie prop anyway. Please make the change! Thanks! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, such talk is typical Liberal [[deceit]]. Paying workers the normal prevailing wage in their country is not "slave wages" it is the normal prevailing wage. It is highly illogical to compare wages in a third world country with the wages in the United States, or UK, and then call them "slave wages". U.S. companies paid the going rate. Exactly what they do in the United States. The cost of living in Cuba, pre-1963, and Dominican Republic today, is like 1/100th of that in the U.S. Apples and Oranges comparison, and typical Liberal double-talk. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:46, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
:*Actually, I think your talk is typical "conservative" bias. You have no problem with the Dominican Republic paying such wages to workers, because DR fits your political/economic standard, but yet if Cuba is paying the same wages you would probably call it 'slave wages' because you don't like Cuba or its economic system. For some reason Cuba is held to a higher standard than Dominican Republic because of its economic and political system. Neither DR or Cuba can be compared to the USA or any first-world country. [[User:Shola|Shola]]

::Shola, if you honestly think living in communist Cuba is so great, fly down there and live for a while. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::*Hmm, typical selective reading from a "conservative"... I never said Cuba was great... just that you lot are holding it to a higher standard than other Carribean nations, which is unfair. [[User:Shola|Shola]]
:::::Has the Dominican Republic promoted, funded, trained and equiped commie insurgent movements to overthrow governments outside its borders? This is the standard. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Actually RobS i am not sure about the Dominican Republic but America sure has! That's right our nation under god has overthrown governments all the time, check out our involvement w/ Guatemala and The United Fruit company (chiquita) u might be surprised. --[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:06, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:Glad you reminded me. I have to do something with [[Rex Tugwell]] and United Fruit company soon. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:43, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The most amazing thing about this arguement is, he's got it half right. Cuba is experiencing economic troubles because of trade restrictions in the US, as another editor has pointed out. Now many with the same POV that criticize US trade restrictions on Cuba will turn around and criticize [[NAFTA]], arguing against [[free trade]]. As you say, typical double-speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Of course the embargo isn't over communism - it's over the Cuban Missile Crisis. If it was just communism - then we wouldn't be trading with Vietnam or China (side note on China: maybe we shouldn't be trading with it ...).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:39, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:The Cuban embargo began about 1959, when Castro came to power, siezed prive property, and repudiated [[foreign debt]]; the missile blockade was three years later. Let's not confuse a trade embargo between the US & Cuba, with a military action disrupting transfer of weapons between two other sovereign powers. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::I think you have your sources wrong - to my knowledge (and to apparently the knowledge of other per a google search) - the embargo began in 1962 - however - regardless we can both agree that the current embargo isn't over communism - as otherwise we wouldn't be trading with China.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:41, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::We're confusing "embargo," a bilateral trade restriction, with "blockade," a military intervention restricting importation of weapons from one foreign power to another foreign power. While the blockade disrupted Cuba's foreign trade with the Soviet Union, i.e. arms trade, the transfer of the types of weapons violated multilateral agreements.

:::While the military blockade is nolonger in force (at least to the extent that it was during the Missile Crisis) the bilateral trade embargo between the US & Cuba remains in force. IOW, we are speaking about two distinctly different events & circumstances. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::::Again, my sources seem to indicate that the embargo (meaning no trade) was in '62 - but regardless, same goes as above--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::I'm embarassed to say, I'm looking at WP right now. It says, "....the US began to impose gradual trade restrictions on the island. On September 4 1959, Ambassador Bonsal met with Cuban Premier Fidel Castro to express “serious concern at the treatment being given to American private interests in Cuba both agriculture and utilities.”[15]" It links to some good primary sources,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba-United_States_relations#Post_revolution_relations] but doesn't support the "gradual trade restrictions" statement stemming from 1959. But this is what happened. It was not a total break in 1959, but leverage was used, and evidentally by 1962 either by Congressional action of Executive action, a total embargo was imposed.
:::::Embargos work by degrees; import quotas are embargos, though the same nations still carry on trade and there may not be quotas on different commodities. A total break in relations usually results in a total break in ''legal'' trade between nations. The "gradual" reference is called applying "leverage." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:37, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Bottomline: Castro wanted to play the big hero and repudiated the foreign debt, using [[Lenin]] as his model. Leftists cheered, "Hoorah! for the underdog, standing up to the big bully!" Only it was the Cuban people who now suffered, cause leftist & commie idiots do not understand people need each other, that is what trade is, everybody profits, everybody benefits, its a win-win situation.
:::::Now Castro wants to play the victim, "the big bad United States won't trade with me" and the people of Cuba eat rats. The problem is, he's too proud to admit he screwed up, big time. And libs & commies share the moral responsibiltiy for the Cuban people's sufferring. Just you wait and see, when he's dead, his name is dirt, the Cuban people will scream "Never Again!" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:I agree with you - however, the gradual start of the embargo, in my mind at least - was not the real begging - as a lot was still allowed, just to clarify--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:54, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::That's right. It wasn't an immediate break, so the idea the US was hard-nosed & inflexible simply isnt't true. The break came over a protracted period because of Castro's inflexibility, and has remained so for the same reasons. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 8 November 2007 (EST)

== Get your facts straight! ==

When I began reading this article I thought it was a parody, upon further examination I (humorously)found that this page claims to be fact. Most of this is opinion with small bits of fact that are obviously used to support your opinion, while ignoring other facts that are extremely important in understanding what Communism is. What I found the most ridiculous, however, was that "Nazism" was under the "see also" column. Communism just happens to the polar opposite of Nazism, because Communism is on the far left of the political spectrum, while Nazism is on the far right. This obviously shows, that once again, this is purely bias, despite the claim that you are less biased than wikipedia. Its almost funny that you can claim this as fact, but I suppose its actually a bit sad, because I'm sure some idiot believes it to be as factual as you can get. {{Unsigned|ThePantsMobile}}

:Wow. You sound like an extreme POV pusher. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Unbelievably Hypocritical ==

I am completely dumbstruck by this article. It reeks of so much bias that I thought I must have been looking at Unclyclopedia - a parody site, like someone else said. If Conservapedia wishes to claim a higher standard than Wikipedia, such atrocities as this need to be fixed as soon as possible. I would help myself, but I think this is practically at the point where the entire thing needs to be done over. And yes, this article is an atrocity. Despite the horrible crimes against humanity committed by governments claiming to be communist, communism is only an idea, and really, true communism has never existed on a large scale. In it's purest form of material equality, it has only lasted in situations like with Jesus and his disciples.

I would plead with the creator of this article to start from scratch and define communism only as an idea and ideal. Please go ahead and describe to great extent how this concept has been abused and has gone wrong, but just set yourself straight with this issue.

-Xenophon
:On one level I'd be inclined to agree with you. The [[Political spectrum]] is only an idea. [[Conservativism]] is only an idea. "[[Right-wing]]" is only an idea. The atrocities conservatives and "right-wingers" have suffered however, at the hands of Communists, is having ideas ascribed to them that they do not hold.

:So, what we indeed are discussing is [[doctrine]]. Communist doctrine, the historical record not proves (a) is a platform for [[deceit]], and (b) has both advocated and practiced [[democide]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

P.S. My last account got banned or something for absolutely no reason, other than perhaps what my username was, so do I need to try to be more conservative to continue to contribute to this site?
:And what account was that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::This is one of the standard justifications for Communism: the pretense that it is "only an idea", as if that excuses all the damage it has done. Communism includes an [[ideology]] and a plan for action. Carrying out the plan caused untold harm. Pretending that this harm is unrelated to the plan or the ideology is unbelievably foolish at best, and if done intentionally is inexcusably wicked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==

I don't think that "liberal falsehoods" is an appropriate category for this article. We can argue about whether communism is a left wing or right wing ideology, but the simple matter of fact is that the word "liberal" isn't even stated in the article, and the ideology is not currently being proposed by liberals. Could a sysop please remove this category, and possibly add an Economics category to complement the Politics one that is on there? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
:No, economics is not the proper category for communism anymore than anthropology is the proper category for national socialism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:51, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a load of crap ==

A load of crap. Total, total crap. It sounds like the people who made this article have been hiding out under a rock since the Red Scare and have just now reentered modern society. In addition, it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. "Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights"? What the hell is that drivel? Clean it up. NOW. {{unsigned|Nickalexwb}}
:Rasch da, rasch! 
:Dann rührt euch von hin, 
:das du mir schafft! 
:Fort in die Schacht! 
:Weh euch, find ich euch faul! 
:Auf dein Fersen folge ich euch nach!{{unsigned|RobS}}

::Actually to some extent I agree - I mean communism is an economic theory - economic theories can't enslave or kill.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:05, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Really? Let's figure 100,000,000 x averge weight of 130 pounds = 130,000,000,000 lbs. divide by 2000 = 65,000,000 tons of dead, rotting stinking flesh. You think communist scumm today are going to hide that? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:14, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Before we think about math let's just start thinking about logic. Communism is an economic theory. Saying it kills people is like saying intelligent design kills people.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::bla bla bla bla [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Ahh another intellectual jewel from the famous RobSmith--[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Why don't we change the first sentence to something more along the lines of "Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]." --[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:41, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:What would be the purpose of giving this murderous doctrine any sort of intellectual credibility? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:44, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::Logic and accuracy. It's not giving the doctrine intellectual credibility - it's giving the article intelligence.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:45, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::It is ''not'' an economic theory. It is a murderous doctrine which has only brought misery, sufferring, and death (except to ''some'' of its advocates & apologists). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]]
::::Rob - it's not a murderous doctrine - that doesn't even make sense. I agree with you that it has brought misery, thus the second sentence, but to call it something it's not is over the top--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:50, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::I realize dead people don't talk, so you are saying the Memorial to the Victims of Communism is just a scam and tourist attraction? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:17, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::RobS again - I'm not saying that when communism is the system of government deaths don't occur - and you would realize that if you read my second sentence. Please stop trying to twist my words and also try to remain civil (comments like "bla bla bla" aren't necessary)--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Iduan, if you want to debate this, please suggest a page to add to our [[Debate topics]]. This is going nowhere; and it's not helping to make the article better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:I don't post at debate because it's not a debate - it's about the article's first sentence. No one disputes that communism is a theory by Karl Marx.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

===Section Break===
*Perhaps, somewhere in the first or second paragraph, it would be wise for us to have a text-book explanation of exactly what Communism is. I am not talking about practice, or what it became. Just a simple explanation of what Marx said it was. Then we can, and have shown what a liar/dreamer/schemer he was. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:25, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would say that the mix is there in the paragraph I provided. I mean both sentences currently in the opening paragraph are included in the paragraph I provided - but I also say what communism is, text book wise.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:27, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disastrous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>

:::This block of text confuses two different meanings of ''communism'':
:::#The ideal stage of economy when (as Marx theorized) [[socialism]] "withered away"; and,
:::#The actual system of [[totalitarian]] government which overthrows [[Capitalism]] and institutes [[Socialism]] by force. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:46, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Communism has one meaning - there is not a second definition. Communism is the theory by Karl Marx, but in practice - it has been disastrous - leading to more than 100 million deaths. The paragraph states that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I wonder, by RobS line of thinking, should the article entitled "Guns" lead off with the number of people killed by guns? Funnily, I didn't come across that statistic anywhere in the article, despite the fact that it is FAR greater than those killed by communists. Ideologies, like guns, do not kill people. Evil people kill people. If this site has a reasonably educated base, you ought to be able to present the facts in an ENCYCLOPEDIC fashion without having to worry that the article is converting people to communism. [[User:Vinceipierce|Vinceipierce]] 21:34, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:While your guns argument is a good point in the changing of this article's intro - you've dragged it out excessively - please attempt to present your comments in a calm fashion.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS - while Vinceipierce did it in a bad fashion - he is the fourth editor to say the intro needs changing. I again show you the proposed paragraph which, again, states all the information of the current paragraph but provides what communism is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>Vinceipierce said,
::''Evil people kill people''
Now we're getting closer to the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Exactly Robs - however communism is not a person. Nor is it a device, or any solid thing. It is an idea - and you're refusal to accept that is hurting this article. Everyone here except you has said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::Our page on [[National Socialism]] does not begin, "Nazism was a social theory...", and it will not read as such either. It states the record. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Now you're really reaching - it doesn't say "Nazism killed" this many people either. It says "Nazis is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)." That's not "record" - that's fact. Just as the proposed intro is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]
</blockquote>
:I unprotected [[Nazism]], why don't you go fix it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:This analysis is half true, but it uses Communist & Socialists idioms to impose a communist & socialist view of the world. Using the statement, "the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]", is misleading because Communism itself ''is'' capitalist. It could not function otherwise. The question resolves around ownership rights (or "title", to use the legal term). In the communist/socialist/marxist and somtimes "liberal" scheme, a worker does not own title to his labor, and communist party bosses, such as still exist in China, Cuba, and North Korea, own ''both'' the "means of production", and the title to the workers labor. So I will vigorously protest using marxist terminolgy in any definitive scheme. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----
And an Administrative note: cutting and pasting redundant arguments, such as [[User:Iduan]] does above to make redundant points, will be regarded as trolling, a blockable offense. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----

I wasn't making a point on nazism - you were. You keep trying to change the subject or be incomprehensible in your effort to avoid the fact that the intro needs to be changed - and when you aren't those you're making ridiculous attempts to justify the intro- as you did with [[Nazism]]. Everyone has agreed that the intro needs to be changed - you're the lone wolf that disagrees. TK said the intro should be changed, I have said it, Nickalexwb said it and Vinceipierce also said it. You're completely outnumbered.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:It would be good somewhere in the [[Gun]]s article to say how many people were killed by them. However, a gun is neutral; it can be used for aggression or for self-defense. Guns can save lives (by preventing attack). We need an article explaining [[John Lott]]'s analysis of this in ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', but surely you are aware that disarming the citizenry allows a dictatorship to consolidate its power and commit mass murder - precisely what Stalin and Mao did.

:We should mention the number of civilians murdered by followers of Nazism: it is around 11 million; see [[Holocaust]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything.
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything. You started out with German, then with the "bla bla bla" thing - and then with a math equation and response that actually wasn't responding to anything - it was more of a comment, and then you did say that communism shouldn't be "intellectual credibility" - and then you had you're whole Nazi thing ... which was off base to say the least. Is there anything you actually disagree with in the paragraph?--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:We do no one a service referring to communism as some sort of theory, intellectual, social, or economic doctrine. Communism is the name upon which 10s of millions of lives have been destroyed. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:Communism was a criminal enterprise from its inception which destroyed the lives of scores of millions of innocent people. The manner in which the Soviet Union collapsed, despite the fact that it held diplomatic recognition from the United States, Great Britain, and held seats in the UN, demonstrated the Communist party never held legitimate power in the Soviet Union.
:We do not allow wide sections of [[Nazi]] related content to be used to put forward the theories of Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Josef Goebbels, and Julies Striecher, expounding how theories expressed in Mien Kampf were misunderstood or misinterpreted, or what they really mean.
:Now, if you persist in communist apologetics, attempting to characterize it as anything other than the misery and death it has wrought upon the human race, and continue this trolling with this extremist point of view, you are looking at a permaban. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communist apologetics and reality. There's actually a difference. In one the paragraph would start out "Communism is the best thing in the world - capitalism, its rival, sucks". In the other, my paragraph - which states how many people communism killed and also that its an economic doctrine - and your accusation of trolling is merely you being a troll - for even TK said we should say what communism actually is in the intro - unless your calling TK a troll too. We do people a service because we're actually giving them information. From this essay I can see someone saying "Communism killed 100 million people." "But do you know what communism is?" "It killed 100 million people" "But what is it" "It's a monster duh". I mean in the whole article we don't really even say who created it - Marx (we do say that Marx created Marxism - but this was the first form of communism, and that's not noted).--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 10:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Exaggeration in the Introduction==

Cut:

:It does not allow for savings and investment, the ownership of private property, such as homes or cars, or even fair payment of wages and labor. Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights.

This is a mixture of truth and fiction:
*savings - false: no one makes you spend all your money
*investment - true: you can't buy stock in a company, or create a partnership in a privately owned business like a factory
*homes - uncertain: but apartment buildings are only state-owned
*cars - false: Soviet citizens could own cars
*wages - unclear: depends on what "fair" means; certainly the idea of paying everyone the same, regardless of productivity can be demoralizing; see [[incentive pay]]
*citizenship rights - misleading: Communist countries grant citizenship rights

In general, nothing should be in the intro unless it refers to something explained in greater depth later on in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:All of this can be supported by evidence; particularly citizenship rights, which are only granted to party members. And concepts such as "wages", and "money", are bourgeois. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communism and socialism, among other things. No Communist regime, if I recall correctly, has ever claimed that it had implemented communism (although the Chinese Communist Party came close to doing so during the Great Leap Forward era and the creation of People's Communes). Rather, they claimed to be in a socialist phase of development which precedes communism. No Soviet-type communist government abolished wages or money.

It is also important to have a description and discussion of communist ideologies. Just to go 'commies - evil' over and over again is counter-productive, and does the conservative cause no good whatsoever. "Know thine enemy" involves having an understanding of him/her; encouraging ignorance of your enemy is to aid him/her.

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Re-write Opening Sentence==
"In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed more than 100 million lives. Today, it continues to enslave one-fifth of the world's people."

That may be true, but shouldn't the introductory sentence actually tell us something? Shouldn't it say who created the concepts of Communism? Shouldn't it at least mention Marx? --[[User:Goldstein|Goldstein]] 23:29, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:see two sections above- so far 5 people (including you) say that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:59, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
::Your buddy above just got an infinite block as denier of Communist genocide. Care to push your luck some more, too? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Do you typically threaten people when every else disagrees with you? Again, TK, that guy, and four other people above including myself have said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
::::And frankly rob - aside from that comment being way out of line - I'm starting to question your ability to read. I say in the paragraph that communism killed 100 million. Why don't you actually start making legitimate points -unless you want to bring up random subjects like Nazism again.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:15, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Take some time and reflect on if you really want to be here. Leave the biting personal remarks out, as well as stating what others, including me, think. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:21, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd just like to point out that Marx has been misquoted. It's a small, frequent mistake, but it was actually "The Opiate of the people", not "the Opium of the people." {{unsigned|Illuminated}}

*Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out, Illuminated. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:49, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== The need to condemn communist crimes and hypocrisy ==

In something less than 90years, communist regimes and left wing guerrilas eliminated more than 100 million people combined, not to mention they deprived the right to live with dignity to many more, maybe in the hundrends of millions.

My point is that since communism has killed more people than nazism, why should we not condemn their crimes, and leave aside all deniers and apologists.

Now, concerning this page, i suggest we include the common features of all communist regimes such as the implementation of the same disastrous agricultural and collectivization policy which resulted in millions of deads. First USSR forced mass collectivization under a group of pseudo-scientists (Lysenko etc) which occured simultaneously with severe anti-ukraine policies and violent purges against the intelligensia and the church. PRC, DPRK and "Democratic Campuchea" adopted and further incorporated "marxist" ideas. Communist world followed a specific pattern, which was firstly introduced by Lenin and Stalin.

What is more, i beleive that we should also refer to dictatorship-nostalgic communist parties and other controversial issues so that their example acts as a deterrent.
Such groups include left wing groups in both EU and US. {{Unsigned|User:Gmoros}}
:Have at it (it's unlocked). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== we need to have a definition of communism start the article. ==

I am no fan of communism but we need to have a definition of communism start the article. Right now the article starts off poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'd object to trying to give it any sort of scholarly basis whatsoever, trying to label it as "an economic theory', or a "social theory". Even referring to as a "social system" or "economic system' is problematic, in that it gives it some sort of legitimacy. "Cult" is the best I can come up with, but I'm open to suggestions. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
::Legitimacy? Communism has legitimacy just as Nazism use to have legitimacy. I mean, the second most powerful country in the world employs it (well, says it does). I mean it's not like this is just some wacky idea that came out of teletubbies. I agree with conservative - and I would stand by the introduction i stated above.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:56, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The point you make is correct, "legitimacy" in the past tense. The fact that nearly one quarter of the planet is enslaved in no way should be passed off by Conservapedia as legitimate. This is precisely the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:37, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Again - that doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that terms like "genocide" shouldn't have any legitimacy - sure there might be some going on, but that doesn't mean we should recognize them and give them "legitimacy".--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 13:43, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
<--

Our definition intertwines communism with genocide; the record of the CCP certainly is genocidal. ''The Epoch Times'' as recently as 2004 has said this (some excerpts, I'd recommend reading all 9 Commenrtaries):

:"Let’s take a close look at...what was imposed on China, after over 160 years, nearly 100 million unnatural deaths, and the destruction of nearly all Chinese traditional culture and civilization."

:"Communist regimes clearly represent a huge step backward in human civilization. Unfortunately, the Communist Party has been '''seen as progressive''' by those who believe that violence is an essential

:"The Communist Party completely overthrows the universal standards for human nature, and builds itself on principles that oppose human nature."

:"training starts in preschools and kindergartens, where party-sanctioned answers to questions are rewarded, answers that do not comply with common sense or a child’s human nature. Students receive political education when they attend primary school, middle school and all the way to college, and they learn to follow party-sanctioned standard answers"

:"According to modern political science, power comes from three main sources: force, wealth, and knowledge. The Communist Party has never hesitated to use monopoly control and force to rob people of their property. More importantly, it has deprived people of their freedoms of speech and of the press. It has raped people’s spirit and will in order to maintain its absolute control of power. From this aspect, the CCP’s evil possession controls society so tightly that it can hardly be compared to any other regime in the world.

[http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-9/24672.html On What the Communist Party Is] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:: There are small groups of people who live in communes which internally follow communism. While these people are indeed participating in the larger capitalist economy, the ideal and economic philosophy that they participate in is communism. As the group is purely voluntary there is no enslavement, nor is there any genocide. While implentations of communism elsewhere may have poor records on human rights and atrocities, this should not factor into the underlying economic philosophy. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:25, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::"One of the theories the communists employ is social Darwinism. The Communist Party applies Darwin’s inter-species competition to human relationships and human history, maintaining that class struggle is the only driving force for societal development. Struggle, therefore, became the primary “belief” of the Communist party, a tool in gaining and maintaining political control. "

:::"Non-communist societies generally consider humanity’s dual nature of good and evil and they rely on fixed social contracts to maintain a balance in society. In communist societies, however, the very concept of human nature is denied, and neither good nor evil is acknowledged. Eliminating the concepts of good and evil, according to Marx, serves to completely overthrow the superstructure of the old society."

:::"placed above human nature and feelings is the Party nature, which, according to the requirements of the Communist Party, transcends humanity. Thus, humanity becomes relative and changeable, while Party nature becomes absolute, beyond any doubt or challenge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
RobS - everyone knows that it's a bad theory - but obviously there are some that believe it is a good theory - in large part proven by it's application to past (USSR) and present (China) world powers. You act as though we want the article to have a communist-slant, but no one does - we just want the article to say the truth rather than hide it. Not saying what communism is - is censorship - sure it'd be good-intentioned censorship - but still censorship nonetheless, and it's the exact same censorship that communism uses.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 00:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Those quotes are indeed examples of The Communist Party and its application of communism. However, The Communist Party is an implementation of communism and is no more communism than democracy is the Democratic Party. The philosophy and the political implementation are separate things and should be written as such. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:13, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
In particular, I would like to ask the question is a self sufficient [[kibbutz]] as part of a voluntary commune implementing communism (the philosophical ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") and is this as inherently evil as it is made out to be in the above quotes? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:56, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:What is the role of the opiate of the masses in a Kibbutz? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:40, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== 65- 100 million people killed ==

I posted the following: "In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed between 65 million and 100 million lives.[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html][http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm][http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm][http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I think the starvation part is the most controversial. I don't pretend to be an expert but it seems to me as if the communists probably did not keep good records on their attrocities and incompetence. Why would you want to keep good records of such a thing? I would think you would want to sweep it under the rug if anything. I am open to any reasonable suggestions on why I my revision to the article improved on the article or detracted from the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:R.J. Rummel, who coined the term "[[democide]]", is the expert we should consult. [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM] Rummel puts the figure at roughly 110 million [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF]. We can test Rummel's figures and methodology with our own entry [[Communist Genocide, Democide and Mass Homicide]]. Notice, for example this citation, [http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp] which on [[Operation Keelhaul]], the author refers to as the "Allied holocaust," says this :
::"Roosevelt and Churchill would force the Russian anticommunists into Stalin's hands. The communists would take over from there and do the actual killing. ...How many were turned over to the Russians by American and British forces? Two million individuals . Yes, two million Russian people sent back to the communists where they were either immediately executed or sent to die in the Gulag."

:I am not certain if these 2 million are included in Rummel's figures, and it certainly needs investigation. This is a forgotten democide, unreported in the West, and this figure of two million needs to be verified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't think we should be overly reliant on one expert but at the same time my figure of 65 million is merely based on what two scholars stated (65 -93 million).[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I suspect we could do better in respect to the figures given, however, I do think that we should give a range. Ideally we would cite what the liberal scholars ranges are and then state if and why they are errant. At this point, I cannot say what the likelihood the liberal scholars are errant because I am not well informed on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Employment ==

Conservative, you should back away from your statement there isn't private employment in China. It is unsupportable. And to argue that officially there isn't is a [[logical fallacy]] and typical of people using so-called "facts" to support the POV they wish an article to take. One doesn't need that kind of intellectual dishonesty to show how horrible Communism is, or what an economic sham it is in practice. The fact is, there is private employment in China, and people do employ others, therefore all statements to the contrary are false. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:32, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== So called "Communist Regimes" were not communist ==

Communism, as defined by Marx, did not have a state. The very fact that the USSR and China have/did have strong dictatorships makes them not-communist. These atrocities commited by "communists", were in fact committed by people claiming to be communists. If I claimed to be a Christian and went and killed a million people, would that make Christianity evil? No, it wouldn't.--[[User:DirtyCommie|DirtyCommie]] 08:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:We had this same discussion at [[Talk:Socialism]], were Socialists claimed the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics were not Socialists, they were Communists. Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, ''et al'' are not Communist. They are Socialist.

:Gotta love discussing this garbage with Commies, Socialists, Libs, Progressives, Pinkos, Reds, Lefists, Radicals, etc.; never was the Word of God spoken more truthful and clearly :
{{Cquote|henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and '''''carried about with every wind of doctrine''''', by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, '''''whereby they lie in wait to [[deceit|deceive]]''''' [http://biblebrowser.com/ephesians/4-14.htm]}}
: [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: ''Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, et al are not Communist. They are Socialist.'' You are confusing two stages of how 'scientific' Marxism saw society as developing. Stalin, the CCP, the CPSU aspired towards fully-fledged communism, but recognised that they were at present in the socialist phase of revolution. they were communists, but did not claim that the states they ruled were communist. Hence the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. True communism, according to their belief, would not come about until the dictatorship of the proletariat had vanquished counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendencies. Mao refined this view to see the Party itself becoming spiritually bourgeois and foresaw repeated revolutions of the people against an embourgeoisified party - of which the Cultural Revolution was the first.

To lump the British Labour Party in with the others is plain silly.[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 14:49, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:I've confused nothing. ''The Epoch Times'' reports,

::"The Communist Party’s evolving principles have largely contradicted one another. From the idea of a global integration transcending the nation-state to today’s extreme nationalism, from eliminating all private ownership and all exploitative classes to today’s notion of promoting capitalists to join the party, yesterday’s principles have become reversed in today’s politics, with further change expected tomorrow. No matter how often the CCP changes its principles, the goal remains clear: gaining and maintaining power, and sustaining absolute control of the society."

::Again, blown about with "every wind of doctrine."

:I'm firmly grounded, rooted, and established, unlike all the various ever-changing socialist doctrines, which includes [[National Socialism]]. We do not need graphics deliniations as to what pornography is to be able to explain it to our readers; all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
"...all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different."
</blockquote>

*Exactly so. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:00, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You are confusing the notions of 'a communist state' and 'a state run by communists'. The two are not neccessarily synonymous, and the former has never existed in terms of Marxist-Leninist theory. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:22, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Who gives a rip. This is getting close to trolling now. Everyone has been warned several times. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:58, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

::: ''Everyone has been warned several times.''When and by whom? I thought this was a mature debate (until I read 'who gives a rip', that is). [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

== Does this article need a section discussing the theoretical advantages of private property? ==

Of course, the problem with theoretical economics is that it can wander far from the real world. Hense, the invention of experimental economics was one of the sharpest of blows to communism/socialism as political movements. On the other hand, merely observing that communism and socialism have a bad historical track record isn't really a satisfying treatment of the question. If it's true that free markets are systematically more efficient (and I think it is), then it should be possible to offer a theoretical defense of them more satisfying than Churchill's formula regarding democracy.

Alternatively, perhaps what is needed is a good article on private property and free market microeconomic theory, which can be linked.

Off the top of my head, the key points that ought to be addressed are: (1) the improved efficiency that comes from the reduction in rent seeking when assets are privately owned; (2) the improved efficiency that results from the internalization of externalities that results when assets are privately owned; and (3) the tremendous advantage in computational power of distributed decisionmaking systems over central processing systems, as specifically applied to to the economic decisionmaking systems of a democratic free market, on the one hand, and the central planning body in a command economy, on the other.

Does anyone have any thoughts on what would be the most helpful approach?
:Interesting question; sort of like, "Which would you prefer, shooting or hanging?" Given a choice, I'd take shooting, I suppose. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:59, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

::What a peculiar response. Do you mean to suggest that an article discussing the shortcomings of Communism should not bother to consider its theoretical shortcomings, or are you simply suggesting that it doesn't have any?

:::I'm merely suggesting your longwinded apologies like this, "a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them...no society or state has ever actually done so" does not get away from '''''the fact''''' that this perverted, sick, warped, ideology is responsible for the systematic [[murder]] of 135,000,000 [[human being]]s in recent memory. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Nor is it supposed to "get away" from that fact. It's simply another aspect of Communism that deserves to be addressed. Personally, I think it's far more important to do so, because it has more relevance to the economic policy debate today in our country. "We should not enact Communist policies because past Communists were evil people" is not really a rational argument. "We should not enact Communist policies because they are predicated on false assumptions, and Communist economic systems are inherently less capable of meeting the material needs and desires of the public" is a rational argument.
::::*(a) ''not really a rational argument''
::::*(b) confusing "communism" with "communists"
:::::Comment: this is commie trolling. I feel the banhammer calling my right hand....[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:10, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
(re-indent) I'm not sure what "commie trolling" means, but if the suggestion is that I'm acting as an apologist for communism, then I'm shocked at the suggestion. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say that the problem, as I see it, is that the article fails to address the most fundamental failure of Communism--namely, that the underlying theory is simply wrong. I understand that some apologists have tried to preserve the reputation of communism-the-theory by distinguishing it from the putative communism actually implemented, but we should not draw the fallacious conclusion that everyone who points out this distinction is a communist apologist. Personally, I think it's important to understand why it is that self-described communist regimes did not, in fact, implement "real" communism precisely because it illustrates the futility of attempting to implement communist policies: Even regimes whole-heartedly committed to bringing about a communist utopia could not do so! They had to settle for various half-measures they hoped would bring about the communist utopia incrementally (such as socialism, in which, supposedly, resources are distributed "from each, according to his work, to each according to his need"). Those half measures failed, and the international revolution of the proletariat never materialized. In the end, the communist block lost the Cold War because, contrary to the claims of communist theorists, in practice, communist countries simply could not keep up with the material wealth produced by private property. That would have been true even if communist countries had been run by an unbroken chain of saints. [[User:QBeam]] 4:46 EDT, 11 Oct. 2007
:So "real" communism, or communism in practice (I don't see the difference) does not belong on the ash heap of history? If not, why are we having this discussion? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::No, I'd say exactly the opposite. Both "real" communism and the various attempts to implement it very much belong on the ash heap of history, because the theory is just plain wrong. Because the theory is wrong, no effort to implement it can ever work. Consider an analogy to perpetual motion machines. At some point, it makes sense to become suspicious of someone's claim to have made one, purely from the fact that everyone who's ever claimed to make one has turned out to be wrong. However, by itself, no matter how many frauds and failures you see, that can never prove that no one will ever figure out how to make one. (Maybe it's just like breaking the sound barrier--hard, but possible.) But once you understand the underlying theoretical problem with them--they violate the Law of Conservation of Energy--then you can stop saying they're "probably" a fool's errand, and say "We know they're a fool's errand." My point is that there is an underlying theory that explains why private property produces wealth, and why the absence of private property rights produces shorages and misery. We don't have to settle for "communism is probably wrong"--it can be demonstrated to be wrong from first principles. Therefore, any comprehensive article discussing communism should do so, in my opinion. [[User:QBeam]]
:::P.S. The distinction between "real" communism and "communism-in-practice," for want of a better term, is straitforward. "Real" communism refers to to communist ideology, or theory. "Real" is perhaps an inapt term for something characterized by its existence only in some people's minds. But why quibble? "Communism-in-practice," on the other hand, is meant to refer to the systems that actually existed behind the Iron Curtain. They differ from one another profoundly. In "real" communism, there is no private property of any kind--it has been made obsolete, because, as a result of making the means of production publicly held, productivity has been increased to the point where the supply of everything exceeds the demand. In a world where everything you might want is free (even in the strict economic sense), you don't need private property. Obviously, no communist regime ever tried to completely abolish private property, though they took a variety of steps in that direction. Even more obviously, no communist country ever managed to improve its productively beyond that of free market economies in which private property rights are respected. The distinctions between "real" communism and communism-as-actually-practiced go on, but these are, in my opinion, the most crucial distinctions. [[User:QBeam]]

::So we agree [[private property]] is a fundemental [[human rights|human right]]. This leaves aside the question that Communism, in good faith, ever sought to abolish this fundemental human right for some greater good. It rather seems to be more of the spiritual wickedness in high places we wrestle against, i.e. the [[envy]] and [[hate]] that possessed Cain to [[murder]] his brother. In the final analysis, the gospel of Communism did not then, nor does it now, nor many of its subsidiary offshoots and progeny, amount to anything more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd think any real conservative would be tired of attempts by liberals to shut down rational objections to their cause-du-jour by labeling them "human rights," so I'll presume that wasn't your intent. Private property is a valuable instrumental right, because it produces good results (namely greater material prosperity and social harmony), but that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right. It is at least theoretically possible to organize a society without the concept of private property that provides even better results. So far, we've yet to discover one, though Communism purports to be one. A thorough, rational response to Communism should specifally address the mechanisms by which private property works to improve prosperity and harmony, because the loss of those mechanisms is part of the opportunity costs of any Communist system, however sincere or well-meaning its organizers and rulers. (Furthermore, I think it helps to explain why persistent efforts to implement Communism tend to result in mass murder and misery. Once it becomes apparent that human nature, contrary to Communist prophesies, does not naturally bring about a Communist utopia, they begin to resort to attempts to alter human nature to make it compatible to their Communist vision, as with Stalin's deliberate starvation of Ukrainian farmers to implement collective farming.) Which brings me back to my original point: does it make more sense for them to be addressed in section on private property, or in a separate article on private property to which this one can refer?{{unsigned|QBeam}}
*''Private property is a valuable instrumental right...but '''''that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right'''.
:*Warning: You, personally, are advocating [[slavery]]. I feel the [[User:RobSmith|banhammer]] coming down very quickly if you wish to continue with this line of discussion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:41, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Firstly, I most certainly do not advocate slavery, and I object to your slanderous accusation. If what you meant to say is that one might think it possible to justify slavery from what I've said, then you ought to explain how you believe that is so (so that I will understand your error, and be able to explain it to you). Secondly, this is twice now that you've threatened the "banhammer," and on both occassions based on a grotesque misunderstanding of my position.{{unsigned|QBeam}}
:::Please begin signing your comments. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:45, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Wilco. [[User:QBeam]] 2:54, 25 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

*QBeam: [[Image:deadhorse.gif]] 
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:14, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

::As amusing as I found the "dead horse" icon, I have to say I found it confusing, as well. Generally, whipping a dead horse is understood to mean arguing an issue in circles or without the prospect of making progress. I don't see how that's applicable either to me or to RobSmith, since the discussion to this point has involved several misapprehensions on his part which I've cleared up. Surely that's fair progress?

::On the other hand, what I haven't seen yet is any helpful advice on how the additional content I'm suggesting would be best implemented. After reviewing the sliver of an article on the subject of property, I've decided to try to write an article on private property which includes this material. I've been trying, without success, to determine how new articles are submitted for review, so any hints would be appreciated. [[User:QBeam]] 11:04pm 28 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

==Capital Letters==
I think that communism shouldn't be have capital letters as it hasn't earned that right yet, being the worst form of government ever thought of. {{unsigned|jesusbushcheney}}
:Capitalization is not "earned," it is dictated by the rules of grammar. If you have to earn the right to capitalization then all babies would have lower case names, no? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Let's nominate this Talk page for Featured article==
I'd like to nominate this Talk page for Featured article status. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:28, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:lol.gif]]
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:32, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:The only talk page I've seen to rival this one in User:Essjay's after the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay scandal]] broke. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:40, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*LOL! Rob, Rob, Rob.....this page is like living in a mental institution! I have put it on watch, because it is obvious to me it is full or parodists. Or escapee's from mental institutions. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:29, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:*I'm trying to capture Community reaction to the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay Scandal]] right now; it can be a real challenge trying not to depart from sense and flavor of the written record. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#There.27s_a_special_circle_of_Hell_reserved_for_duplicitous_sacks_of_shit_like_you.] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Am I, y'know… ==

…''allowed'' to edit this page? --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 12:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== I think the wikipedians are better in this case. ==

Well, you have to dig through pages of criticism, and it doesn't even tell you what Communism aims for. Could someone edit this article?
[[User:Bias|Bias]] 16:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Discuss on talk page? ==

I don't see why I must discuss changes on the talk page before making them when no one else does. However, in accordance with the directive, I hereby propose that I revert to my version, which is much superior, IMHO. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:I'll take that as a "yes". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 13:57, 16 February 2008 (EST)
MakeTomorrow I would suggest you avoid editing this page due to a COI. All I see in your edits are an attempt to make Communism look better; maybe the one valuable thing I see is that you added Che Guevara to the notable communist.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:22, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Hang on a sec ==

Now, I'm not saying Communism has ever functioned, but still this page is slightly biased. I believe if this is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" that I've been looking, then maybe it should keep a sterile perspective of things.
--[[User:Reallyforeign|Reallyforeign]] 23:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Communism

2008-04-18T03:20:11Z

Reallyforeign: hang on a sec

==totalitarian nightmare==

I think that the "Christian sharing" section is out of place here. It gives a false impression that Communism - i.e., [[Marxism-Leninism]] - is in any way related to the voluntary sharing of "[[Christian communism]]". The latter is a form of [[communitarianism]].

Communism is a totalitarian nightmare, as Orwell chillingly portrayed it in ''[[1984]]''. I've read books on Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese and North Korean life. I've met refugees from various communist countries and in 1992 personally visited 4 former Soviet SSR's. It's hell on earth.

Not that democracy is Heaven, but:
#The [[Iron Curtain]] was to keep people in (see also [[Berlin Wall]]).
#Refugees mainly want to come to America and Britain.

Am I biased on this? I have made up my mind, but it is based purely on the objective facts. Anyway, I do look forward to working cooperatively with other editors here. Just don't try any liberal tricks. This is a subject I know thoroughly. I have books and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely, and I urge you to improve this article as well.

It's funny that you bring this up because I just wrote the Berlin Wall stub this afternoon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we must distinguish between the concepts that communism supposedly follows, and the fascist regimes that call themselves "communist" (USSR, China, etc.) because there is quite an important distinction between the two. You can't really disagree with this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm with you 100%, been there, got the tee shirt (and the sweat shirt, and the gold-embossed mug), etc. I have personally met the author of ''Communism: Promise and Practice''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, this may be true, but the main point to be made is that even with total control of a nation's populous Communism (Marx & Engel's version) doesn't really work "outside of the laboratory". This may reflect an element of biological evolution wherein a person's genetic desire to be the "fittest" precludes an egalitarian and altruistic society; i.e. why should '''I''' help those who aren't of my genetic lineage by this "sharing" or pooling of resources. Sometimes it is a benefit to do so, and so we do to some extent, but a full fledged society goes against evolutionary forces. MOO --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 23:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::If God and Heaven did not exist, it would merely be an odd coincidence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:That stuff comes from early Marxist writings, and dedicated Marxists still cite it today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's a better quote from Toynbee,
:"According to the Communist prophet's intuition ...the class-war is bound to issue in a victorious proletarian revolution.... A time is to come when....the New Society of the Marxian Millennium will be able to cast away not only 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' but also every other institutional crutch, including the State itself; for in that Marxian earthly paradise to come 'they neither marry nor are given in marriage' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Sheesh! People as lab rats ... it doesn't even work *in* the lab ... all the poor rats keep trying to escape. Just think about 2 sets of borders: one, when you cross it you're a refugee or defector - the other, when you cross it you're a welcome immigrant.

Who ever heard of someone crossing the Gulf of Mexico in a raft to escape '''into''' Cuba? And don't get me started on Vietnam - I read ''Le Gulag Vietnamien'' and even met the author [[Doan Van Toai]] in Boston. Read about him [http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1986/october/Sa11490.htm here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

I don't think you need the hammer and sickle to spin... I'm replacing the picture. [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 14:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Communism in the history of political thought (Draft) ==

(I'm trying to come up with a concise chapter on the history of communism, but don't have time to complete it. This is part of the draft. Please feel free to edit as if this were part of the article. When it's done I'll copy and paste it in to the main text.)

Communism as an idea was born out of the Industrial Revolutions in Europe in the 19th century. At the beginning of the century, workers in industrial nations such as Britain began to organise themselves in to co-operative societies, for the purposes of providing members with a fair price for staple goods and for the support of members who were unable to work, either because of difficulties finding employment or sickness.

These societies were often formed as a reaction to predatory employers, who would pay workers solely in vouchers to be spent at the company store, making competition impossible and enabling the employer to fleece employees. Leaders of the co-operative movement, such as Robert Owen, abhorred such practice and wished to reorganise society along similar lines to their own movement. In 1826, Owen wrote "There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, — that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each." (cite ISBN when I dig out my copy)

:Communism is responsible for the [[democide]] of 100 million plus lives in very recent memory, and one quarter of the planet remains enslaved under it. Dressing it up as anything else border's on Holocuast denial. Let's stick to the facts on this sad chapter of human history, and not try to present it as anything other than what it is--a failed attempt by atheists and rationalists to dominate the human race and exterminate anyone who opposed them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, is that a chip on your shoulder, or a huge boulder? These are the facts. Regardless of what you think of communism, it is important that historical information be included in any article in an encyclopaedia. Should we perhaps not include the history of the British Empire because it killed so many people?

:: Communism is an important part of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, and is intertwined with the social and demographic trends of industrialisation. To ignore that history is to be doomed to repeat it. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::To ignore the real history of Communism, like ignoring the real history of Nazism, is to be doomed to repeat it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Robert Owens was a social reformer not a communist. His ideas come from the same roots as the British Labour Party. The reformers of Britain in the 19th Century and the Factory Acts which gave workers rights are based on Liberal ideas not Marxist. The Labour Party Nationalised transport, fossial fuel and created the National Health Service to provide free health care for all. Not because of Communism (they ejected communists from the party, would not support the General Strike of 1926) but because of Liberalism and Social equality. It is true that factory owners in the 19th Century were paying the workers in vouchers and docking wages at the drop of a hat so that workers owed the factory money. They even had inhouse dentists to ensure that workers didn't take unnecessary time off. However the Factory Acts (from 1833 onward) changed this and introduced free education for children as well as other measures to help workers and stop them from being exploited by the factory owners. We have to remember though that not all factory owners were the same and some did look after their workers very well. So please try not to mix social reform up with marxism and communism

== Communist could be good ==

Communism idealistically is a good system. Everyone makes the same amount of money so the rich can't exploit the poor.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Don't you think we should use it's logo as the image at top? Why was it removed? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 22:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:We are not here to promote, memorialize, or glorify a [[democidal]] subject. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Accepting your premise that Communism is evil, and putting its logo at the top glorifies it, then shouldn't we remove the picture at the top of [[Nazi]]? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 17:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Who put it there? It was probably placed by some scumbag troll anyway. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:01, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== very biased ==

This article, although it holds much truth, should be changed to be more neutral in order to give people a good idea as to what communism is about.
:Oh really? You don't think eyewitness testimony from the [[Gulag]]s can't give us a good idea as to what communism is about? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

This is one of the rare occasions where wikipedia has a better definition. This has no inofrmation about communism as opposed to Wikipedia's "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as "primitive communism" This article we are discussing just states the death's and how it has been abused not the actual concept an that is NOT an unbiased source. BTW for the wikipedia article notice how they use words like SEEKS instead of has because it hasn't thats its goal. [[User:thatgamerguy|thatgamerguy]]

:That speaks like present tense, "an ideology that seeks..."; we only deal with facts. Communism has had 150+ plus years to "seek" whatever it sought, and left a trail of corpses in its wake that made Hitler envious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== In bad shape ==

From the very beginning, this article is terrible. Below is my proposed lead (feel free to edit):
<blockquote>
'''Communism''' is a social and political ideology which advocates the establishment of a classless, stateless society, in which the population (the [[proletariat]]) has group ownership of the means of production. According to the communist ideology, once a communist utopia is achieved, political means such as [[government]], [[military]], and [[police]] will be archaic and unnecessary. While the theory of communism advocates fairness and equality, the modern practice of this ideology has been punctuated by censorship, violence, and oppression. the founders of modern communism were [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]]. Other famous communists include [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Iosef Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong]], and [[Leon Trotsky]].
</blockquote>
--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::I like this lead, but I think the article looks ok. Whats there should stay. Engels founded it to, no?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:51, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::So should the [[capitalism]] article begin "The imperialist swine are evil money-grubbers"? I mean, stereotypes are bad; starting an article off with statistics based on a flawed practice of the theory is no way to go. And Marx was the better known than his co-author Engels, no? It is not "Engelsism", but "Marxism".--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Quite true, he is better known. But credit should be given were credit is due. marxism includes the philosophy of Engels.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you misunderstood me. Your introduction should be incorporated. But the horrors of communism should not be discarded.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh, of course they are to be included; I am just concerned that this article on a very important ideology ''begins'' with the victim statistics. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Certainly, that should be changed. Your introduction is nice, my compliments. It should be put in[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Feel free to edit it, I feel like it is lacking eloquence. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, this page is not going to be used as a forum for (a) advocacy, or (b) apologetics, for a [[democidal]] ideology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:27, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:RobS, please attempt to distinguish between the theoretical ideals of communism and the flawed ways in which it has been practiced. We are not here to promote or frown upon anything; we are here to build an encyclopedia. It is not "apologetics" to ''state'' the ''basic beliefs'' of communists. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:04, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Hojimachong, Why don't you don't you go to the [[Nazi]] article and explain to us how they were misunderstood. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::RobS, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? The Nazis were not Communists, they were Socialists. A much more fair comparison would be to ask Hojimachong to go to the [[Christianity]] page and explain how modern 'Christians' have distorted the original message of Christ. Or perhaps one could go to the Nazi page and draw all of the valid comparisons between the Nazis and the current government of the United States (which is not meant to imply the government is run by Nazis, but there are valid comparisons). Or, in keeping with the bizarre theme of this silly page on Communism, one could begin the page about the United States by detailing all of the crimes committed by the US government. Things like the persecution of the Native Americans (unless 'Manifest Destiny' allows such [[democidal|democides]]), exploitation of industrial workers in the 1880s and 1890, exploitation of agricultural workers through today, internment camps, state-mandated and assisted apartheid, legalized abortion, etc. could be mentioned. However, they '''aren't'''! So why does the Communism page start in such a startling way?

::::Please, this is little more than Soviet & Communist holocaust denial, and discussion with such extremists should not be countenanced by CP Admins. They need to be blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Again I ask, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? How could one make it clear to you that the Soviets were most emphatically '''not''' Communists? Would you argue that it was Christians that were responsible for the slaughter of the pre-Columbian indigenous people of North and South America? You would probably claim that it was Conquistadors instead (unless you would deny ''that'' particular genocide). Just because the USSR was run by an organization calling themselves the 'Communist Party' doesn't mean they were Communists. Perhaps that's the point that ''needs'' to be made in an encyclopedia article. I'm not being an extremist; I'm taking perspective, attempting to view the circumstances outside of my bubble of personal ideology and life experiences. That's part of scholarship. If you are too confused or emotionally invested to understand that, I suggest that you are not fit to be editing this article.
:::::::I guess I'm just dense; is this like the debate "Does a ceramic yard toad belong in [[Catagory:Toads]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::No,it's not like that.

:Is this page to be used as advocacy for other causes, then? Like exploiting developing countries, attempting to overthrow valid democracies, etc.? Just because people don't write your gospel, RobS, doesn't mean that they are writing ridiculous things. Perhaps you should find an encyclopedia and read about Communism. It is not practiced anywhere in the world today. Communism is a STATELESS economic system, there are no totalitarian governments that could run gulags, etc. That's the point Hojimachong is trying to make. Communism does not advocate violent revolution; Marxism advocates violent revolution to achieve Communism. If you can't recognize the difference you really need to step back and find a much broader literature base. Indeed, by improving this article along the lines that Hojimachong suggests, other people would perhaps be able to better understand the difference by reading the Conservapedia! Isn't that what the point is: getting out unbiased, factual information to dispel the myths propagated by leftist, godless, non-Americans? Show people what ''real'' communism is in contrast to the socialist regimes implemented in North Korea, Cuba, et al.

:*I would say an encyclopedia is here to deal with facts. Since I do not know of a pure Marxist Communist state having ever existed, how does on craft an article about something that has never existed or been practiced? And wouldn't that kind of crap be in the article about Karl Marx, not here? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::I would hope that since communism is an ideology, that the ideology itself would be discussed here, alongside ways in which it has failed, which are many and varied. But not including the hammer and sickle - the most blatant and obvious symbol associated with communism - is verging on ridiculous. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:17, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::This is a joke, right? First, there's no such thing as a Communist '''state''' as Hojimachong points out in his proposed paragraph. Second, there ''have'' been Marxist Socialist states. Third, it's absurd to think that one is unable to write an article about an ideal. Has the Christian ideal ever been realized? But there are certainly articles about Christianity on the Conservapedia. Finally, it's irresponsible to call things you disagree with 'that kind of crap' since there are approximately 4 billion people on this Earth (a very large majority) that might say the same thing about Christianity. Perhaps it's a good thing we don't live in a global democracy.
:::Colloquially, "communism" refers to the condition by which in theory, the workers own the means of production. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::But your initial paragraph is good because it does ''not'' fall back on the colloquial usage; that, I believe, is important for an encyclopedia article.

Regarding Hoji's proposed definition, I'd recommend using only the first two sentences. While the third gives important information, it isn't really relevant to the meaning of the word, pe se. Also, substantively, I have some angst about whether the first couple of sentences are properly "Communism," or, rather, "Markism," which aren't necessarily the same thing. Which suggests that there might be a problem with the underlying assumption that there even is a single, unitary definition of the word "Communism." Like most definitions, I think you'll need multiple entries, reflecting the different senses in which the same word is sometimes used. I'd think there should be one entry for "Communism," the ecomomic/political theory, and a separate entry for "Communism," referring the class of governments that generally profess (or professed) to be Communist, with varying degrees of sincerity. Obviously, the core concept of Communism as a theory is the elimination of all private property rights (according to it's proponents, rendering private property rights obsolete, by creating a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them). Equally obviously, no society or state has ever actually done so; however, communist governments are called "Communist" because they at least profess to be working toward that end. Again, that seems sufficient information for a definition; the encyclopedia article should go on to discuss both the fact of these historical failures and the reasons for them--i.e., that the theory doesn't work in practice, for reasons we now understand pretty well. [[User:QBeam]] 2:28, 10 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

== Communism / China ==

Something needs to be added stating how completely discredited Communism is, and how today, although called "communism" what is in place in China, really isn't. It is more a revert to the Imperial Bureaucracy. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:But we don't have agendas....

TK, you are right, and I think Hoji misunderstood my comment several weeks ago about distinguishing between "promise and practice". Communism is much more than "an ideology with an ideal". It is an ideology which justifies the forcible overthrow of existing governments, '''on the grounds that''' it will be possible someday to make things much better.

My point is not that we should "love the ideal, hate the practioners". That is a grotesque distortion of the Christian dictum, "hate the sin, love the sinner". Rather, Communism begins with a fake ideal!

Communists claim that they are motivated by an ideal, but there is no evidence that they have ever tried to put this ideal into practice. So they are even worse than Nazis. This explains why Soviets and Red Chinese each murdered 10 times as many people as Hitler did. It's all a lie.

So we need to describe the difference between the ideal Communists '''say''' they are striving for and the things they actually '''do'''. They are not simply socialists "gone wrong". They started out wrong! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not much concerned with the body of the article, but rather the lead paragraph, which should adequately state what the theory ''aims to accomplish''. The failures should be documented at [[Leninism]], [[Stalinism]], [[Maoism]], and [[Trotskyism]]. And the image is staying. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:42, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism vs. Communism==
Every comparison made between any government that has existed and Communism is false. Communism cannot exist in a state framework. While the Soviets and Chinese governments are run by so-called communist parties, that's akin to calling Richard Cheney a Christian; we can label ourselves any way we want. We have a term in the English (or rather American) language to describe these socialist governments, so why don't we use it? Conservapedia could stand as the lone beacon trying to shine the light on the truth of the differences between Marxism and Communism!

:See may latest edit to the article, near the top. [[Dialectical materialism]] is the "ideology" or philosophy which is the basis of [[Marxism]]. I defy anyone to show me where it talks about how the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] will even "wither away" into a classless society.

:No progress or stability can come from struggle. What we need, on the contrary, is voluntary cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== About communism - is it possible to edit the article anyway? ==

I don't understand you folks. Came here to check the site out to get an alternative view on things as you say it is about in the NY. But bashing communism like you are is just sad. Illegal to own cars? And no fair wages?
The first one seemed like a minor error, something your propaganda has teached you. But the whole idea about communism is fair wages for everyone. And savings? ofcourse you can save the money you earn - even in banks.

Also you invest through taxes. The public as a whole are the onwers and investors of the companies. As a member of the party you suggest what should be built in your county and then everyone vote about it. Just as a big company congress.
That communism just as any other ideolgy has been miss-used is true. Horrible people have come to power while the nations citizens didn't bother standing up against them.

You also write in the article about socialism that: "without compensation to the builders of the capital,"
The problem in these articles in general is not that the points of views are wrong but that the "facts" those views build on are incorrect.

There is compensation to the builders of capital. The builders of capital in this case are the populus(the population) and they recive compensation for their efforts through public ownership of companies (and thus the output of the public stock) like under Titoism or through public spending, free vacations and things like this in the USSR. {{unsigned|Ondskan}}

:Oh, so we're just supposed to ignore, or deny, [[democide]], and apologize or explain how a mountain of corpses was just an experimental mistake, or misinterpretaion. Wow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::Just skimmed the above and found at least one mistake: what kind of country offers its citizens "free vacations" but labels as "[[defector]]s" anyone who tries to emigrate? And punishes successful defectors by taking retribution on any family members left behind.
::Sounds like you have a fantasy that idealizes something you know little about. Try researching the history of Russia and Cuba. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just back here looking for information on a few American writers and to reply on what has been written here.
Yes I belive so. I belive we should learn of what has happend through history and build improve the future with knowledge of what went bad and what went well in the past. Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags. Funny enough both countries were built upon revolution and both countries wouldn't exist if people didn't rise up to their masters. But as we know, new masters are formed from the ashes of the old and if power corrupts then the absolute power the leaders of the USA and USSR had back then corrupts absolutely. Thus much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed and instead added into the history of each country that had comited the crimes against humanity that are listed here.

One thing though I find completely ridicilous. Pol Pot was financed by the United States and the United States supported him in his war against Vietnam while it was the communist Vietnam that liberated the people of Cambodia from Pol Pot and his massmurder regime which killed anyone who had an education. If anything, what ever ideology the U.S. had at that time should be blamed and not communism. I'm eager to hear what you have to say on this, t'll then I'll remove Pol Pot. [[User:Ondskan|Ondskan]] 17:53, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags.''
::Interesting contrast, isn't it. Beating up people, etc. is akin to running them down with tanks, taking away all thier civil and human rights, and exterminating them through forced labor in gulags.
:''much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed...''
::<RobS is thinking to himself....."no...don't...why is my right hand inching toward the banhammer....maybe this user really ''does'' intend to engage in rational, intelligent disucssion...no, be patient one moretime...."> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Pol Pot was financed by the United States''
::(a) Show cites, (b) even w/cites it still doesn't mean the US paid him to exterminate people (there is such a thing as free will, you know; God gave Cain life, and he was a murderer. Does that mean God is responsible for Cain murdering Abel?). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::For the record [http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/bj21.jpg][http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/wmr1a.jpg] here is Communism in today's world. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:06, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Taking away rights? The United States took away the rights of people seen as communists just like the USSR took away rights from people seen as Liberals/Conservatives during McCarter period. '''They were prosecuted for what they belived in'''.
:Name one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Rights were taken away from people during the 1920's when members/leaders of Worker unions were beaten up by police that was financed by bribes from big companies and they were also fired and it was made hard for these to find new jobs.
:How is that akin to being run over with a tank? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Today hundreds if not thoulsands of people are being tortued in Guantanamo and other places in the world.
:Hundreds of thousands at Guantanamo? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

At the same time the only valid reason for Invading Iraq left is that Sadam was a tyrant who tortured people to extract information.
:Ah yes, the good old days. If Saddam was only around to keep the peace....ah yes, the good ol days.

The people that Sadam tortured were those who were belived to be Kurdish seperatists IE terrorists in his mind.
:Right. They had it coming. Anyone who challenges totalitartian dictatorship deserves extermination. At least you are being consistent with many [[socialist]] dreams and goals. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Are we to blame the constitution, the ideology of the United States and it's people for these mistakes?
If that is the way to go then the Republican party has killed far more people through it's wars and sanctions than most realise. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1997/srirq997.htm reports that at least 500 000 children have in only 5 years died of UN sanctions imposed by the US against Iraq.
:Hmmmm, [[Ramsey Clark]] said one million children died in Iraq during Mr. & Mrs. Clintons's term of office. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

2,5 millions died in the Vietnam War. etc...etc...
:Vietnam was a Republican war?

How come in your oppinion these things don't count as crimes against humanity comited by a conservative ideology/party compared to what you belive Communism is responsible for.
:If you question made any sesne, I'd try to answer it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

And how can you even dare to draw god and his creation into a comparison with the United States cowardly financing of a murder regime (Pol Pot) to in a desperate attempt stop the winning Vietnam Forces?
:When was that? Was during Kennedy/Johnson, or during President Carter, when Carter said [[human rights]] was America's number [[foreign policy]]. Oh, BTW, when was the [[Killing Fields]].....hmmmmm.....let's see.....during which President's term of office....hmmmm lemme see.....think think think.....1977.....

You should be ashamed of yourself.
:Thank you. I am. Why I even bother reading this trash or trying to respond to it frankly makes me disgusted with myself. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:51, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== US embargo on Cuba is not over Communism ! ==

Falsely stated above:"... Cuba, is still kept under economic repression by the USA due to its communist beliefs..."

The embargo on trade with Cuba is to punish Cuba for having expropriated ( with compensation offered but refused )and subsequently nationalized american companies that paid slave wages without benefits to its workers. If you disapprove of Cuban expropriation look up american 'eminent domain' !

One of these companies owned by the Fanjul family now located in Florida operates sugar cane fields in the Dominican Republic using actual slave workers. This is how glorious "opportunity-for-all Capitalism" worked in pre-Castro Cuba. {{unsigned|RickyTemple}}

:Excellent point. And the quote in the article looks like commie prop anyway. Please make the change! Thanks! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, such talk is typical Liberal [[deceit]]. Paying workers the normal prevailing wage in their country is not "slave wages" it is the normal prevailing wage. It is highly illogical to compare wages in a third world country with the wages in the United States, or UK, and then call them "slave wages". U.S. companies paid the going rate. Exactly what they do in the United States. The cost of living in Cuba, pre-1963, and Dominican Republic today, is like 1/100th of that in the U.S. Apples and Oranges comparison, and typical Liberal double-talk. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:46, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
:*Actually, I think your talk is typical "conservative" bias. You have no problem with the Dominican Republic paying such wages to workers, because DR fits your political/economic standard, but yet if Cuba is paying the same wages you would probably call it 'slave wages' because you don't like Cuba or its economic system. For some reason Cuba is held to a higher standard than Dominican Republic because of its economic and political system. Neither DR or Cuba can be compared to the USA or any first-world country. [[User:Shola|Shola]]

::Shola, if you honestly think living in communist Cuba is so great, fly down there and live for a while. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::*Hmm, typical selective reading from a "conservative"... I never said Cuba was great... just that you lot are holding it to a higher standard than other Carribean nations, which is unfair. [[User:Shola|Shola]]
:::::Has the Dominican Republic promoted, funded, trained and equiped commie insurgent movements to overthrow governments outside its borders? This is the standard. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Actually RobS i am not sure about the Dominican Republic but America sure has! That's right our nation under god has overthrown governments all the time, check out our involvement w/ Guatemala and The United Fruit company (chiquita) u might be surprised. --[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:06, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:Glad you reminded me. I have to do something with [[Rex Tugwell]] and United Fruit company soon. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:43, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The most amazing thing about this arguement is, he's got it half right. Cuba is experiencing economic troubles because of trade restrictions in the US, as another editor has pointed out. Now many with the same POV that criticize US trade restrictions on Cuba will turn around and criticize [[NAFTA]], arguing against [[free trade]]. As you say, typical double-speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Of course the embargo isn't over communism - it's over the Cuban Missile Crisis. If it was just communism - then we wouldn't be trading with Vietnam or China (side note on China: maybe we shouldn't be trading with it ...).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:39, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:The Cuban embargo began about 1959, when Castro came to power, siezed prive property, and repudiated [[foreign debt]]; the missile blockade was three years later. Let's not confuse a trade embargo between the US & Cuba, with a military action disrupting transfer of weapons between two other sovereign powers. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::I think you have your sources wrong - to my knowledge (and to apparently the knowledge of other per a google search) - the embargo began in 1962 - however - regardless we can both agree that the current embargo isn't over communism - as otherwise we wouldn't be trading with China.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:41, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::We're confusing "embargo," a bilateral trade restriction, with "blockade," a military intervention restricting importation of weapons from one foreign power to another foreign power. While the blockade disrupted Cuba's foreign trade with the Soviet Union, i.e. arms trade, the transfer of the types of weapons violated multilateral agreements.

:::While the military blockade is nolonger in force (at least to the extent that it was during the Missile Crisis) the bilateral trade embargo between the US & Cuba remains in force. IOW, we are speaking about two distinctly different events & circumstances. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::::Again, my sources seem to indicate that the embargo (meaning no trade) was in '62 - but regardless, same goes as above--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::I'm embarassed to say, I'm looking at WP right now. It says, "....the US began to impose gradual trade restrictions on the island. On September 4 1959, Ambassador Bonsal met with Cuban Premier Fidel Castro to express “serious concern at the treatment being given to American private interests in Cuba both agriculture and utilities.”[15]" It links to some good primary sources,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba-United_States_relations#Post_revolution_relations] but doesn't support the "gradual trade restrictions" statement stemming from 1959. But this is what happened. It was not a total break in 1959, but leverage was used, and evidentally by 1962 either by Congressional action of Executive action, a total embargo was imposed.
:::::Embargos work by degrees; import quotas are embargos, though the same nations still carry on trade and there may not be quotas on different commodities. A total break in relations usually results in a total break in ''legal'' trade between nations. The "gradual" reference is called applying "leverage." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:37, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Bottomline: Castro wanted to play the big hero and repudiated the foreign debt, using [[Lenin]] as his model. Leftists cheered, "Hoorah! for the underdog, standing up to the big bully!" Only it was the Cuban people who now suffered, cause leftist & commie idiots do not understand people need each other, that is what trade is, everybody profits, everybody benefits, its a win-win situation.
:::::Now Castro wants to play the victim, "the big bad United States won't trade with me" and the people of Cuba eat rats. The problem is, he's too proud to admit he screwed up, big time. And libs & commies share the moral responsibiltiy for the Cuban people's sufferring. Just you wait and see, when he's dead, his name is dirt, the Cuban people will scream "Never Again!" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:I agree with you - however, the gradual start of the embargo, in my mind at least - was not the real begging - as a lot was still allowed, just to clarify--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:54, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::That's right. It wasn't an immediate break, so the idea the US was hard-nosed & inflexible simply isnt't true. The break came over a protracted period because of Castro's inflexibility, and has remained so for the same reasons. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 8 November 2007 (EST)

== Get your facts straight! ==

When I began reading this article I thought it was a parody, upon further examination I (humorously)found that this page claims to be fact. Most of this is opinion with small bits of fact that are obviously used to support your opinion, while ignoring other facts that are extremely important in understanding what Communism is. What I found the most ridiculous, however, was that "Nazism" was under the "see also" column. Communism just happens to the polar opposite of Nazism, because Communism is on the far left of the political spectrum, while Nazism is on the far right. This obviously shows, that once again, this is purely bias, despite the claim that you are less biased than wikipedia. Its almost funny that you can claim this as fact, but I suppose its actually a bit sad, because I'm sure some idiot believes it to be as factual as you can get. {{Unsigned|ThePantsMobile}}

:Wow. You sound like an extreme POV pusher. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Unbelievably Hypocritical ==

I am completely dumbstruck by this article. It reeks of so much bias that I thought I must have been looking at Unclyclopedia - a parody site, like someone else said. If Conservapedia wishes to claim a higher standard than Wikipedia, such atrocities as this need to be fixed as soon as possible. I would help myself, but I think this is practically at the point where the entire thing needs to be done over. And yes, this article is an atrocity. Despite the horrible crimes against humanity committed by governments claiming to be communist, communism is only an idea, and really, true communism has never existed on a large scale. In it's purest form of material equality, it has only lasted in situations like with Jesus and his disciples.

I would plead with the creator of this article to start from scratch and define communism only as an idea and ideal. Please go ahead and describe to great extent how this concept has been abused and has gone wrong, but just set yourself straight with this issue.

-Xenophon
:On one level I'd be inclined to agree with you. The [[Political spectrum]] is only an idea. [[Conservativism]] is only an idea. "[[Right-wing]]" is only an idea. The atrocities conservatives and "right-wingers" have suffered however, at the hands of Communists, is having ideas ascribed to them that they do not hold.

:So, what we indeed are discussing is [[doctrine]]. Communist doctrine, the historical record not proves (a) is a platform for [[deceit]], and (b) has both advocated and practiced [[democide]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

P.S. My last account got banned or something for absolutely no reason, other than perhaps what my username was, so do I need to try to be more conservative to continue to contribute to this site?
:And what account was that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::This is one of the standard justifications for Communism: the pretense that it is "only an idea", as if that excuses all the damage it has done. Communism includes an [[ideology]] and a plan for action. Carrying out the plan caused untold harm. Pretending that this harm is unrelated to the plan or the ideology is unbelievably foolish at best, and if done intentionally is inexcusably wicked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==

I don't think that "liberal falsehoods" is an appropriate category for this article. We can argue about whether communism is a left wing or right wing ideology, but the simple matter of fact is that the word "liberal" isn't even stated in the article, and the ideology is not currently being proposed by liberals. Could a sysop please remove this category, and possibly add an Economics category to complement the Politics one that is on there? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
:No, economics is not the proper category for communism anymore than anthropology is the proper category for national socialism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:51, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a load of crap ==

A load of crap. Total, total crap. It sounds like the people who made this article have been hiding out under a rock since the Red Scare and have just now reentered modern society. In addition, it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. "Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights"? What the hell is that drivel? Clean it up. NOW. {{unsigned|Nickalexwb}}
:Rasch da, rasch! 
:Dann rührt euch von hin, 
:das du mir schafft! 
:Fort in die Schacht! 
:Weh euch, find ich euch faul! 
:Auf dein Fersen folge ich euch nach!{{unsigned|RobS}}

::Actually to some extent I agree - I mean communism is an economic theory - economic theories can't enslave or kill.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:05, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Really? Let's figure 100,000,000 x averge weight of 130 pounds = 130,000,000,000 lbs. divide by 2000 = 65,000,000 tons of dead, rotting stinking flesh. You think communist scumm today are going to hide that? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:14, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Before we think about math let's just start thinking about logic. Communism is an economic theory. Saying it kills people is like saying intelligent design kills people.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::bla bla bla bla [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Ahh another intellectual jewel from the famous RobSmith--[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Why don't we change the first sentence to something more along the lines of "Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]." --[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:41, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:What would be the purpose of giving this murderous doctrine any sort of intellectual credibility? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:44, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::Logic and accuracy. It's not giving the doctrine intellectual credibility - it's giving the article intelligence.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:45, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::It is ''not'' an economic theory. It is a murderous doctrine which has only brought misery, sufferring, and death (except to ''some'' of its advocates & apologists). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]]
::::Rob - it's not a murderous doctrine - that doesn't even make sense. I agree with you that it has brought misery, thus the second sentence, but to call it something it's not is over the top--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:50, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::I realize dead people don't talk, so you are saying the Memorial to the Victims of Communism is just a scam and tourist attraction? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:17, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::RobS again - I'm not saying that when communism is the system of government deaths don't occur - and you would realize that if you read my second sentence. Please stop trying to twist my words and also try to remain civil (comments like "bla bla bla" aren't necessary)--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Iduan, if you want to debate this, please suggest a page to add to our [[Debate topics]]. This is going nowhere; and it's not helping to make the article better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:I don't post at debate because it's not a debate - it's about the article's first sentence. No one disputes that communism is a theory by Karl Marx.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

===Section Break===
*Perhaps, somewhere in the first or second paragraph, it would be wise for us to have a text-book explanation of exactly what Communism is. I am not talking about practice, or what it became. Just a simple explanation of what Marx said it was. Then we can, and have shown what a liar/dreamer/schemer he was. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:25, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would say that the mix is there in the paragraph I provided. I mean both sentences currently in the opening paragraph are included in the paragraph I provided - but I also say what communism is, text book wise.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:27, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disastrous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>

:::This block of text confuses two different meanings of ''communism'':
:::#The ideal stage of economy when (as Marx theorized) [[socialism]] "withered away"; and,
:::#The actual system of [[totalitarian]] government which overthrows [[Capitalism]] and institutes [[Socialism]] by force. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:46, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Communism has one meaning - there is not a second definition. Communism is the theory by Karl Marx, but in practice - it has been disastrous - leading to more than 100 million deaths. The paragraph states that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I wonder, by RobS line of thinking, should the article entitled "Guns" lead off with the number of people killed by guns? Funnily, I didn't come across that statistic anywhere in the article, despite the fact that it is FAR greater than those killed by communists. Ideologies, like guns, do not kill people. Evil people kill people. If this site has a reasonably educated base, you ought to be able to present the facts in an ENCYCLOPEDIC fashion without having to worry that the article is converting people to communism. [[User:Vinceipierce|Vinceipierce]] 21:34, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:While your guns argument is a good point in the changing of this article's intro - you've dragged it out excessively - please attempt to present your comments in a calm fashion.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS - while Vinceipierce did it in a bad fashion - he is the fourth editor to say the intro needs changing. I again show you the proposed paragraph which, again, states all the information of the current paragraph but provides what communism is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>Vinceipierce said,
::''Evil people kill people''
Now we're getting closer to the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Exactly Robs - however communism is not a person. Nor is it a device, or any solid thing. It is an idea - and you're refusal to accept that is hurting this article. Everyone here except you has said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::Our page on [[National Socialism]] does not begin, "Nazism was a social theory...", and it will not read as such either. It states the record. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Now you're really reaching - it doesn't say "Nazism killed" this many people either. It says "Nazis is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)." That's not "record" - that's fact. Just as the proposed intro is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]
</blockquote>
:I unprotected [[Nazism]], why don't you go fix it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:This analysis is half true, but it uses Communist & Socialists idioms to impose a communist & socialist view of the world. Using the statement, "the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]", is misleading because Communism itself ''is'' capitalist. It could not function otherwise. The question resolves around ownership rights (or "title", to use the legal term). In the communist/socialist/marxist and somtimes "liberal" scheme, a worker does not own title to his labor, and communist party bosses, such as still exist in China, Cuba, and North Korea, own ''both'' the "means of production", and the title to the workers labor. So I will vigorously protest using marxist terminolgy in any definitive scheme. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----
And an Administrative note: cutting and pasting redundant arguments, such as [[User:Iduan]] does above to make redundant points, will be regarded as trolling, a blockable offense. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----

I wasn't making a point on nazism - you were. You keep trying to change the subject or be incomprehensible in your effort to avoid the fact that the intro needs to be changed - and when you aren't those you're making ridiculous attempts to justify the intro- as you did with [[Nazism]]. Everyone has agreed that the intro needs to be changed - you're the lone wolf that disagrees. TK said the intro should be changed, I have said it, Nickalexwb said it and Vinceipierce also said it. You're completely outnumbered.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:It would be good somewhere in the [[Gun]]s article to say how many people were killed by them. However, a gun is neutral; it can be used for aggression or for self-defense. Guns can save lives (by preventing attack). We need an article explaining [[John Lott]]'s analysis of this in ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', but surely you are aware that disarming the citizenry allows a dictatorship to consolidate its power and commit mass murder - precisely what Stalin and Mao did.

:We should mention the number of civilians murdered by followers of Nazism: it is around 11 million; see [[Holocaust]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything.
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything. You started out with German, then with the "bla bla bla" thing - and then with a math equation and response that actually wasn't responding to anything - it was more of a comment, and then you did say that communism shouldn't be "intellectual credibility" - and then you had you're whole Nazi thing ... which was off base to say the least. Is there anything you actually disagree with in the paragraph?--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:We do no one a service referring to communism as some sort of theory, intellectual, social, or economic doctrine. Communism is the name upon which 10s of millions of lives have been destroyed. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:Communism was a criminal enterprise from its inception which destroyed the lives of scores of millions of innocent people. The manner in which the Soviet Union collapsed, despite the fact that it held diplomatic recognition from the United States, Great Britain, and held seats in the UN, demonstrated the Communist party never held legitimate power in the Soviet Union.
:We do not allow wide sections of [[Nazi]] related content to be used to put forward the theories of Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Josef Goebbels, and Julies Striecher, expounding how theories expressed in Mien Kampf were misunderstood or misinterpreted, or what they really mean.
:Now, if you persist in communist apologetics, attempting to characterize it as anything other than the misery and death it has wrought upon the human race, and continue this trolling with this extremist point of view, you are looking at a permaban. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communist apologetics and reality. There's actually a difference. In one the paragraph would start out "Communism is the best thing in the world - capitalism, its rival, sucks". In the other, my paragraph - which states how many people communism killed and also that its an economic doctrine - and your accusation of trolling is merely you being a troll - for even TK said we should say what communism actually is in the intro - unless your calling TK a troll too. We do people a service because we're actually giving them information. From this essay I can see someone saying "Communism killed 100 million people." "But do you know what communism is?" "It killed 100 million people" "But what is it" "It's a monster duh". I mean in the whole article we don't really even say who created it - Marx (we do say that Marx created Marxism - but this was the first form of communism, and that's not noted).--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 10:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Exaggeration in the Introduction==

Cut:

:It does not allow for savings and investment, the ownership of private property, such as homes or cars, or even fair payment of wages and labor. Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights.

This is a mixture of truth and fiction:
*savings - false: no one makes you spend all your money
*investment - true: you can't buy stock in a company, or create a partnership in a privately owned business like a factory
*homes - uncertain: but apartment buildings are only state-owned
*cars - false: Soviet citizens could own cars
*wages - unclear: depends on what "fair" means; certainly the idea of paying everyone the same, regardless of productivity can be demoralizing; see [[incentive pay]]
*citizenship rights - misleading: Communist countries grant citizenship rights

In general, nothing should be in the intro unless it refers to something explained in greater depth later on in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:All of this can be supported by evidence; particularly citizenship rights, which are only granted to party members. And concepts such as "wages", and "money", are bourgeois. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communism and socialism, among other things. No Communist regime, if I recall correctly, has ever claimed that it had implemented communism (although the Chinese Communist Party came close to doing so during the Great Leap Forward era and the creation of People's Communes). Rather, they claimed to be in a socialist phase of development which precedes communism. No Soviet-type communist government abolished wages or money.

It is also important to have a description and discussion of communist ideologies. Just to go 'commies - evil' over and over again is counter-productive, and does the conservative cause no good whatsoever. "Know thine enemy" involves having an understanding of him/her; encouraging ignorance of your enemy is to aid him/her.

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Re-write Opening Sentence==
"In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed more than 100 million lives. Today, it continues to enslave one-fifth of the world's people."

That may be true, but shouldn't the introductory sentence actually tell us something? Shouldn't it say who created the concepts of Communism? Shouldn't it at least mention Marx? --[[User:Goldstein|Goldstein]] 23:29, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:see two sections above- so far 5 people (including you) say that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:59, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
::Your buddy above just got an infinite block as denier of Communist genocide. Care to push your luck some more, too? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Do you typically threaten people when every else disagrees with you? Again, TK, that guy, and four other people above including myself have said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
::::And frankly rob - aside from that comment being way out of line - I'm starting to question your ability to read. I say in the paragraph that communism killed 100 million. Why don't you actually start making legitimate points -unless you want to bring up random subjects like Nazism again.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:15, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Take some time and reflect on if you really want to be here. Leave the biting personal remarks out, as well as stating what others, including me, think. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:21, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd just like to point out that Marx has been misquoted. It's a small, frequent mistake, but it was actually "The Opiate of the people", not "the Opium of the people." {{unsigned|Illuminated}}

*Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out, Illuminated. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:49, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== The need to condemn communist crimes and hypocrisy ==

In something less than 90years, communist regimes and left wing guerrilas eliminated more than 100 million people combined, not to mention they deprived the right to live with dignity to many more, maybe in the hundrends of millions.

My point is that since communism has killed more people than nazism, why should we not condemn their crimes, and leave aside all deniers and apologists.

Now, concerning this page, i suggest we include the common features of all communist regimes such as the implementation of the same disastrous agricultural and collectivization policy which resulted in millions of deads. First USSR forced mass collectivization under a group of pseudo-scientists (Lysenko etc) which occured simultaneously with severe anti-ukraine policies and violent purges against the intelligensia and the church. PRC, DPRK and "Democratic Campuchea" adopted and further incorporated "marxist" ideas. Communist world followed a specific pattern, which was firstly introduced by Lenin and Stalin.

What is more, i beleive that we should also refer to dictatorship-nostalgic communist parties and other controversial issues so that their example acts as a deterrent.
Such groups include left wing groups in both EU and US. {{Unsigned|User:Gmoros}}
:Have at it (it's unlocked). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== we need to have a definition of communism start the article. ==

I am no fan of communism but we need to have a definition of communism start the article. Right now the article starts off poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'd object to trying to give it any sort of scholarly basis whatsoever, trying to label it as "an economic theory', or a "social theory". Even referring to as a "social system" or "economic system' is problematic, in that it gives it some sort of legitimacy. "Cult" is the best I can come up with, but I'm open to suggestions. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
::Legitimacy? Communism has legitimacy just as Nazism use to have legitimacy. I mean, the second most powerful country in the world employs it (well, says it does). I mean it's not like this is just some wacky idea that came out of teletubbies. I agree with conservative - and I would stand by the introduction i stated above.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:56, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The point you make is correct, "legitimacy" in the past tense. The fact that nearly one quarter of the planet is enslaved in no way should be passed off by Conservapedia as legitimate. This is precisely the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:37, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Again - that doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that terms like "genocide" shouldn't have any legitimacy - sure there might be some going on, but that doesn't mean we should recognize them and give them "legitimacy".--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 13:43, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
<--

Our definition intertwines communism with genocide; the record of the CCP certainly is genocidal. ''The Epoch Times'' as recently as 2004 has said this (some excerpts, I'd recommend reading all 9 Commenrtaries):

:"Let’s take a close look at...what was imposed on China, after over 160 years, nearly 100 million unnatural deaths, and the destruction of nearly all Chinese traditional culture and civilization."

:"Communist regimes clearly represent a huge step backward in human civilization. Unfortunately, the Communist Party has been '''seen as progressive''' by those who believe that violence is an essential

:"The Communist Party completely overthrows the universal standards for human nature, and builds itself on principles that oppose human nature."

:"training starts in preschools and kindergartens, where party-sanctioned answers to questions are rewarded, answers that do not comply with common sense or a child’s human nature. Students receive political education when they attend primary school, middle school and all the way to college, and they learn to follow party-sanctioned standard answers"

:"According to modern political science, power comes from three main sources: force, wealth, and knowledge. The Communist Party has never hesitated to use monopoly control and force to rob people of their property. More importantly, it has deprived people of their freedoms of speech and of the press. It has raped people’s spirit and will in order to maintain its absolute control of power. From this aspect, the CCP’s evil possession controls society so tightly that it can hardly be compared to any other regime in the world.

[http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-9/24672.html On What the Communist Party Is] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:: There are small groups of people who live in communes which internally follow communism. While these people are indeed participating in the larger capitalist economy, the ideal and economic philosophy that they participate in is communism. As the group is purely voluntary there is no enslavement, nor is there any genocide. While implentations of communism elsewhere may have poor records on human rights and atrocities, this should not factor into the underlying economic philosophy. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:25, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::"One of the theories the communists employ is social Darwinism. The Communist Party applies Darwin’s inter-species competition to human relationships and human history, maintaining that class struggle is the only driving force for societal development. Struggle, therefore, became the primary “belief” of the Communist party, a tool in gaining and maintaining political control. "

:::"Non-communist societies generally consider humanity’s dual nature of good and evil and they rely on fixed social contracts to maintain a balance in society. In communist societies, however, the very concept of human nature is denied, and neither good nor evil is acknowledged. Eliminating the concepts of good and evil, according to Marx, serves to completely overthrow the superstructure of the old society."

:::"placed above human nature and feelings is the Party nature, which, according to the requirements of the Communist Party, transcends humanity. Thus, humanity becomes relative and changeable, while Party nature becomes absolute, beyond any doubt or challenge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
RobS - everyone knows that it's a bad theory - but obviously there are some that believe it is a good theory - in large part proven by it's application to past (USSR) and present (China) world powers. You act as though we want the article to have a communist-slant, but no one does - we just want the article to say the truth rather than hide it. Not saying what communism is - is censorship - sure it'd be good-intentioned censorship - but still censorship nonetheless, and it's the exact same censorship that communism uses.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 00:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Those quotes are indeed examples of The Communist Party and its application of communism. However, The Communist Party is an implementation of communism and is no more communism than democracy is the Democratic Party. The philosophy and the political implementation are separate things and should be written as such. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:13, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
In particular, I would like to ask the question is a self sufficient [[kibbutz]] as part of a voluntary commune implementing communism (the philosophical ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") and is this as inherently evil as it is made out to be in the above quotes? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:56, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:What is the role of the opiate of the masses in a Kibbutz? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:40, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== 65- 100 million people killed ==

I posted the following: "In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed between 65 million and 100 million lives.[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html][http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm][http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm][http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I think the starvation part is the most controversial. I don't pretend to be an expert but it seems to me as if the communists probably did not keep good records on their attrocities and incompetence. Why would you want to keep good records of such a thing? I would think you would want to sweep it under the rug if anything. I am open to any reasonable suggestions on why I my revision to the article improved on the article or detracted from the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:R.J. Rummel, who coined the term "[[democide]]", is the expert we should consult. [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM] Rummel puts the figure at roughly 110 million [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF]. We can test Rummel's figures and methodology with our own entry [[Communist Genocide, Democide and Mass Homicide]]. Notice, for example this citation, [http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp] which on [[Operation Keelhaul]], the author refers to as the "Allied holocaust," says this :
::"Roosevelt and Churchill would force the Russian anticommunists into Stalin's hands. The communists would take over from there and do the actual killing. ...How many were turned over to the Russians by American and British forces? Two million individuals . Yes, two million Russian people sent back to the communists where they were either immediately executed or sent to die in the Gulag."

:I am not certain if these 2 million are included in Rummel's figures, and it certainly needs investigation. This is a forgotten democide, unreported in the West, and this figure of two million needs to be verified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't think we should be overly reliant on one expert but at the same time my figure of 65 million is merely based on what two scholars stated (65 -93 million).[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I suspect we could do better in respect to the figures given, however, I do think that we should give a range. Ideally we would cite what the liberal scholars ranges are and then state if and why they are errant. At this point, I cannot say what the likelihood the liberal scholars are errant because I am not well informed on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Employment ==

Conservative, you should back away from your statement there isn't private employment in China. It is unsupportable. And to argue that officially there isn't is a [[logical fallacy]] and typical of people using so-called "facts" to support the POV they wish an article to take. One doesn't need that kind of intellectual dishonesty to show how horrible Communism is, or what an economic sham it is in practice. The fact is, there is private employment in China, and people do employ others, therefore all statements to the contrary are false. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:32, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== So called "Communist Regimes" were not communist ==

Communism, as defined by Marx, did not have a state. The very fact that the USSR and China have/did have strong dictatorships makes them not-communist. These atrocities commited by "communists", were in fact committed by people claiming to be communists. If I claimed to be a Christian and went and killed a million people, would that make Christianity evil? No, it wouldn't.--[[User:DirtyCommie|DirtyCommie]] 08:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:We had this same discussion at [[Talk:Socialism]], were Socialists claimed the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics were not Socialists, they were Communists. Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, ''et al'' are not Communist. They are Socialist.

:Gotta love discussing this garbage with Commies, Socialists, Libs, Progressives, Pinkos, Reds, Lefists, Radicals, etc.; never was the Word of God spoken more truthful and clearly :
{{Cquote|henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and '''''carried about with every wind of doctrine''''', by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, '''''whereby they lie in wait to [[deceit|deceive]]''''' [http://biblebrowser.com/ephesians/4-14.htm]}}
: [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: ''Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, et al are not Communist. They are Socialist.'' You are confusing two stages of how 'scientific' Marxism saw society as developing. Stalin, the CCP, the CPSU aspired towards fully-fledged communism, but recognised that they were at present in the socialist phase of revolution. they were communists, but did not claim that the states they ruled were communist. Hence the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. True communism, according to their belief, would not come about until the dictatorship of the proletariat had vanquished counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendencies. Mao refined this view to see the Party itself becoming spiritually bourgeois and foresaw repeated revolutions of the people against an embourgeoisified party - of which the Cultural Revolution was the first.

To lump the British Labour Party in with the others is plain silly.[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 14:49, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:I've confused nothing. ''The Epoch Times'' reports,

::"The Communist Party’s evolving principles have largely contradicted one another. From the idea of a global integration transcending the nation-state to today’s extreme nationalism, from eliminating all private ownership and all exploitative classes to today’s notion of promoting capitalists to join the party, yesterday’s principles have become reversed in today’s politics, with further change expected tomorrow. No matter how often the CCP changes its principles, the goal remains clear: gaining and maintaining power, and sustaining absolute control of the society."

::Again, blown about with "every wind of doctrine."

:I'm firmly grounded, rooted, and established, unlike all the various ever-changing socialist doctrines, which includes [[National Socialism]]. We do not need graphics deliniations as to what pornography is to be able to explain it to our readers; all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
"...all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different."
</blockquote>

*Exactly so. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:00, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You are confusing the notions of 'a communist state' and 'a state run by communists'. The two are not neccessarily synonymous, and the former has never existed in terms of Marxist-Leninist theory. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:22, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Who gives a rip. This is getting close to trolling now. Everyone has been warned several times. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:58, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

::: ''Everyone has been warned several times.''When and by whom? I thought this was a mature debate (until I read 'who gives a rip', that is). [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

== Does this article need a section discussing the theoretical advantages of private property? ==

Of course, the problem with theoretical economics is that it can wander far from the real world. Hense, the invention of experimental economics was one of the sharpest of blows to communism/socialism as political movements. On the other hand, merely observing that communism and socialism have a bad historical track record isn't really a satisfying treatment of the question. If it's true that free markets are systematically more efficient (and I think it is), then it should be possible to offer a theoretical defense of them more satisfying than Churchill's formula regarding democracy.

Alternatively, perhaps what is needed is a good article on private property and free market microeconomic theory, which can be linked.

Off the top of my head, the key points that ought to be addressed are: (1) the improved efficiency that comes from the reduction in rent seeking when assets are privately owned; (2) the improved efficiency that results from the internalization of externalities that results when assets are privately owned; and (3) the tremendous advantage in computational power of distributed decisionmaking systems over central processing systems, as specifically applied to to the economic decisionmaking systems of a democratic free market, on the one hand, and the central planning body in a command economy, on the other.

Does anyone have any thoughts on what would be the most helpful approach?
:Interesting question; sort of like, "Which would you prefer, shooting or hanging?" Given a choice, I'd take shooting, I suppose. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:59, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

::What a peculiar response. Do you mean to suggest that an article discussing the shortcomings of Communism should not bother to consider its theoretical shortcomings, or are you simply suggesting that it doesn't have any?

:::I'm merely suggesting your longwinded apologies like this, "a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them...no society or state has ever actually done so" does not get away from '''''the fact''''' that this perverted, sick, warped, ideology is responsible for the systematic [[murder]] of 135,000,000 [[human being]]s in recent memory. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Nor is it supposed to "get away" from that fact. It's simply another aspect of Communism that deserves to be addressed. Personally, I think it's far more important to do so, because it has more relevance to the economic policy debate today in our country. "We should not enact Communist policies because past Communists were evil people" is not really a rational argument. "We should not enact Communist policies because they are predicated on false assumptions, and Communist economic systems are inherently less capable of meeting the material needs and desires of the public" is a rational argument.
::::*(a) ''not really a rational argument''
::::*(b) confusing "communism" with "communists"
:::::Comment: this is commie trolling. I feel the banhammer calling my right hand....[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:10, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
(re-indent) I'm not sure what "commie trolling" means, but if the suggestion is that I'm acting as an apologist for communism, then I'm shocked at the suggestion. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say that the problem, as I see it, is that the article fails to address the most fundamental failure of Communism--namely, that the underlying theory is simply wrong. I understand that some apologists have tried to preserve the reputation of communism-the-theory by distinguishing it from the putative communism actually implemented, but we should not draw the fallacious conclusion that everyone who points out this distinction is a communist apologist. Personally, I think it's important to understand why it is that self-described communist regimes did not, in fact, implement "real" communism precisely because it illustrates the futility of attempting to implement communist policies: Even regimes whole-heartedly committed to bringing about a communist utopia could not do so! They had to settle for various half-measures they hoped would bring about the communist utopia incrementally (such as socialism, in which, supposedly, resources are distributed "from each, according to his work, to each according to his need"). Those half measures failed, and the international revolution of the proletariat never materialized. In the end, the communist block lost the Cold War because, contrary to the claims of communist theorists, in practice, communist countries simply could not keep up with the material wealth produced by private property. That would have been true even if communist countries had been run by an unbroken chain of saints. [[User:QBeam]] 4:46 EDT, 11 Oct. 2007
:So "real" communism, or communism in practice (I don't see the difference) does not belong on the ash heap of history? If not, why are we having this discussion? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::No, I'd say exactly the opposite. Both "real" communism and the various attempts to implement it very much belong on the ash heap of history, because the theory is just plain wrong. Because the theory is wrong, no effort to implement it can ever work. Consider an analogy to perpetual motion machines. At some point, it makes sense to become suspicious of someone's claim to have made one, purely from the fact that everyone who's ever claimed to make one has turned out to be wrong. However, by itself, no matter how many frauds and failures you see, that can never prove that no one will ever figure out how to make one. (Maybe it's just like breaking the sound barrier--hard, but possible.) But once you understand the underlying theoretical problem with them--they violate the Law of Conservation of Energy--then you can stop saying they're "probably" a fool's errand, and say "We know they're a fool's errand." My point is that there is an underlying theory that explains why private property produces wealth, and why the absence of private property rights produces shorages and misery. We don't have to settle for "communism is probably wrong"--it can be demonstrated to be wrong from first principles. Therefore, any comprehensive article discussing communism should do so, in my opinion. [[User:QBeam]]
:::P.S. The distinction between "real" communism and "communism-in-practice," for want of a better term, is straitforward. "Real" communism refers to to communist ideology, or theory. "Real" is perhaps an inapt term for something characterized by its existence only in some people's minds. But why quibble? "Communism-in-practice," on the other hand, is meant to refer to the systems that actually existed behind the Iron Curtain. They differ from one another profoundly. In "real" communism, there is no private property of any kind--it has been made obsolete, because, as a result of making the means of production publicly held, productivity has been increased to the point where the supply of everything exceeds the demand. In a world where everything you might want is free (even in the strict economic sense), you don't need private property. Obviously, no communist regime ever tried to completely abolish private property, though they took a variety of steps in that direction. Even more obviously, no communist country ever managed to improve its productively beyond that of free market economies in which private property rights are respected. The distinctions between "real" communism and communism-as-actually-practiced go on, but these are, in my opinion, the most crucial distinctions. [[User:QBeam]]

::So we agree [[private property]] is a fundemental [[human rights|human right]]. This leaves aside the question that Communism, in good faith, ever sought to abolish this fundemental human right for some greater good. It rather seems to be more of the spiritual wickedness in high places we wrestle against, i.e. the [[envy]] and [[hate]] that possessed Cain to [[murder]] his brother. In the final analysis, the gospel of Communism did not then, nor does it now, nor many of its subsidiary offshoots and progeny, amount to anything more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd think any real conservative would be tired of attempts by liberals to shut down rational objections to their cause-du-jour by labeling them "human rights," so I'll presume that wasn't your intent. Private property is a valuable instrumental right, because it produces good results (namely greater material prosperity and social harmony), but that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right. It is at least theoretically possible to organize a society without the concept of private property that provides even better results. So far, we've yet to discover one, though Communism purports to be one. A thorough, rational response to Communism should specifally address the mechanisms by which private property works to improve prosperity and harmony, because the loss of those mechanisms is part of the opportunity costs of any Communist system, however sincere or well-meaning its organizers and rulers. (Furthermore, I think it helps to explain why persistent efforts to implement Communism tend to result in mass murder and misery. Once it becomes apparent that human nature, contrary to Communist prophesies, does not naturally bring about a Communist utopia, they begin to resort to attempts to alter human nature to make it compatible to their Communist vision, as with Stalin's deliberate starvation of Ukrainian farmers to implement collective farming.) Which brings me back to my original point: does it make more sense for them to be addressed in section on private property, or in a separate article on private property to which this one can refer?{{unsigned|QBeam}}
*''Private property is a valuable instrumental right...but '''''that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right'''.
:*Warning: You, personally, are advocating [[slavery]]. I feel the [[User:RobSmith|banhammer]] coming down very quickly if you wish to continue with this line of discussion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:41, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Firstly, I most certainly do not advocate slavery, and I object to your slanderous accusation. If what you meant to say is that one might think it possible to justify slavery from what I've said, then you ought to explain how you believe that is so (so that I will understand your error, and be able to explain it to you). Secondly, this is twice now that you've threatened the "banhammer," and on both occassions based on a grotesque misunderstanding of my position.{{unsigned|QBeam}}
:::Please begin signing your comments. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:45, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Wilco. [[User:QBeam]] 2:54, 25 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

*QBeam: [[Image:deadhorse.gif]] 
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:14, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

::As amusing as I found the "dead horse" icon, I have to say I found it confusing, as well. Generally, whipping a dead horse is understood to mean arguing an issue in circles or without the prospect of making progress. I don't see how that's applicable either to me or to RobSmith, since the discussion to this point has involved several misapprehensions on his part which I've cleared up. Surely that's fair progress?

::On the other hand, what I haven't seen yet is any helpful advice on how the additional content I'm suggesting would be best implemented. After reviewing the sliver of an article on the subject of property, I've decided to try to write an article on private property which includes this material. I've been trying, without success, to determine how new articles are submitted for review, so any hints would be appreciated. [[User:QBeam]] 11:04pm 28 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

==Capital Letters==
I think that communism shouldn't be have capital letters as it hasn't earned that right yet, being the worst form of government ever thought of. {{unsigned|jesusbushcheney}}
:Capitalization is not "earned," it is dictated by the rules of grammar. If you have to earn the right to capitalization then all babies would have lower case names, no? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Let's nominate this Talk page for Featured article==
I'd like to nominate this Talk page for Featured article status. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:28, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:lol.gif]]
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:32, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:The only talk page I've seen to rival this one in User:Essjay's after the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay scandal]] broke. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:40, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*LOL! Rob, Rob, Rob.....this page is like living in a mental institution! I have put it on watch, because it is obvious to me it is full or parodists. Or escapee's from mental institutions. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:29, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:*I'm trying to capture Community reaction to the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay Scandal]] right now; it can be a real challenge trying not to depart from sense and flavor of the written record. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#There.27s_a_special_circle_of_Hell_reserved_for_duplicitous_sacks_of_shit_like_you.] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Am I, y'know… ==

…''allowed'' to edit this page? --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 12:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== I think the wikipedians are better in this case. ==

Well, you have to dig through pages of criticism, and it doesn't even tell you what Communism aims for. Could someone edit this article?
[[User:Bias|Bias]] 16:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Discuss on talk page? ==

I don't see why I must discuss changes on the talk page before making them when no one else does. However, in accordance with the directive, I hereby propose that I revert to my version, which is much superior, IMHO. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:I'll take that as a "yes". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 13:57, 16 February 2008 (EST)
MakeTomorrow I would suggest you avoid editing this page due to a COI. All I see in your edits are an attempt to make Communism look better; maybe the one valuable thing I see is that you added Che Guevara to the notable communist.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:22, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== hang on a sec ==

now im not saying communism has ever functioned, but still this page is slightly biased. i believe if this is "the trustworthy encyclopedia" that i've been looking, then maybe it should keep a sterile perspective of things.