Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Socialism and Religion: the similarities that can't be denied

It is a great irony that socialists hate religion, considering that socialism has all the defining characteristics of a religion. Let's have some fun examining the obvious similarities.

1) Socialism and religion are both completely unproven dogmas that have zero actual evidence to back them up. In fact, there is plenty of evidence against both.

Therefore, belief in religion or socialism can only come from completely blind, irrational faith. The faith that theists and socialists have in their doctrines is very strong, bordering on hysterical. Why is it so strong? Because the idea that they may be devoting their lives to a stupid pipe dream (cough) is too much for them to handle. They don't want anyone blowing on the house of cards that is their belief structure.

2) Socialism and religion both promise that we can eventually reach a state of "heaven." And in the process, they've both brought us hell on Earth. Socialists and theists have yet to apologize for all the atrocities their belief systems have generated. If you point to the Soviet Union, socialists will answer that it wasn't "real" socialism. If you point to hideous rights violations in Middle Eastern countries, you'll be told that "real" Islam is a "peaceful" religion, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

3) Socialism and religion both maintain that everything would be chaos without central planning running the show. But in reality, neither the economy nor the universe could ever be "planned." Both are just the result of a ton of spontaneous shit happening. This lack of control horrifies both socialists and theists.

4) Socialists and theists both believe that those of us who simply laugh at their dumb beliefs are evil and working against all that is good and right. We are trapped in the hands of Satan, or in the pay of the "capitalist class" (defined as anyone who works for a living).

5) Socialism and religion both fulfill a similar psychological need: the need to believe in a "higher power," or the "common good." Neither exist, but they are both comforting to believe in. Comforting lies are always far more pleasant than the truth.

28 comments:

  1. You've managed to bungle it all up and confuse libertarian socialism (my position) with State communism again. If you had read my response to you, you wouldn't have written this useless entry. Honestly, right now you just look barking mad with your ignorant rants.

    Please read my entry response to you and understand what "socialism" means. It is to your advantage to do so, because if you actually attacked my position instead of attacking a different ideology, I might actually get offended, and since you are a troll this is of course your end purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Franc,

    State-socialists and Marxists say the same thing. "We don't support tyranny! Honest!" Great.

    Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. There can be no such thing as a "voluntary" network of czars running the economy. And no, I don't care that they're "democratically elected."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I should add not that I don't consider Tuckerite mutualism to be 'socialism.' I'll make a post on that issue later.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yea, you haven't read my entry either.

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/yea-im-declared-a-commie-again/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Francois, just for the record, Cork wrote this post.

    However, I do think it stands on its own apart from his reference to you.

    Just for the record, I acknowledge you are not a State socialist, and that you remain a libertarian. You could, though, still be a pursuing "pipe dream" as Cork puts it, but that's a matter of opinion.

    The term "commie" can of course be used in more than one sense, not necessarily a technical or literal one (like the constant refrain by some Republicans that Obama and the Democrats are "communists").

    My original post was obviously not a serious one, but your reaction to it was over the top. I'm still troubled by your apparent hatred of "capitalists" , no matter how innocent they may be of anything approaching what you call exploitation.

    As far as who is barking mad goes, I think the comments to my post speak for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Please read my entry response to you and understand what "socialism" means.

    The obviously intellectually challenged Francois thinks that only his definition of "socialism" is the correct one, and that we should completely ignore what others who also call themselves socialist say it is (most of them are statists of one variety or another).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here's a question for you, asshole: when have I ever said my definition was the only right one?

    Go back to Chile, pig.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here's a question for you, asshole: when have I ever said my definition was the only right one?


    So socialism doesn't mean what other socialists say it does? I'll quote you again :'Please read my entry response to you and understand what "socialism" means'.

    If you want your own idiosyncratic definition, fine, but the reality is that the vast majority of those who advocate socialism define it differently.

    Go back to Chile, pig.

    Spoken like a true love-filled socialist. Stop hating the only economic system ever proven to achieve prosperity for the masses.

    ReplyDelete
  10. the economic freedoms that freewheeling capitalist believe in don't work...have you been asleep the past 10 years? Do some homework, it was the government that gave the opportunity during the 50's to achieve "the American Dream". It is robber barons and greed that trample the pursuit of happiness for the common working class.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Robert, you are a retarded moron.

    The past ten years? Sorry, but the massive deficit spending by government and the counterfeiting of the money supply by the Federal Reserve that has lead to the current economic crisis has nothing at all to do with free markets. Are you stupid? You must be to capable of writing such inane statist nonsense.

    it was the government that gave the opportunity during the 50's to achieve "the American Dream".

    Really, the government gave us prosperity? Then Cuba and North Korea must be the two most prosperous and successful economies on earth, right?

    ReplyDelete
  12. You could change "socialism" to "capitalism" and the article would still be true.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "So socialism doesn't mean what other socialists say it does?"

    Actually, all "socialists" I've read held... the same definition. The same one that composes the expression "libertarian socialism." See that "socialism" word? I call myself a "socialist" because that's what my ideology is called.


    "If you want your own idiosyncratic definition, fine, but the reality is that the vast majority of those who advocate socialism define it differently."

    Please do tell us what "the vast majority of those who advocate socialism" define it as. Would that be anything like, say, the Wikipedia definition, which is, like all Wikipedia entries, a consensus definition?

    _Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources._

    Gee, sounds exactly like what I'm advocating! Which other version of socialism are you babbling on again?


    "Spoken like a true love-filled socialist. Stop hating the only economic system ever proven to achieve prosperity for the masses. "

    Go tell that to the people of Chile, Brazil, India and Nigeria, you addle-headed moron.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Francois, you are arguing against a ghost, not that there are not people who hold similar views, but in this particular instance, the "moron" has changed his mind.

    Thanks for the comment, though.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I would say, the people of India and China do seem to be doing much better under their respective versions of "capitalism" than they were (and especially, the Chinese) under what they had before.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Are you the new moron?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Are you the new moron?

    Are you saying the Chinese were better off under Mao?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Am I saying the Chinese were better under the Ming dynasty? Am I saying they were better as cavemen? Obviously eras cannot be compared with each other. That doesn't stop us from seeing that neo-liberalist capitalism is shit on a cracker.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well, there aren't any Chinese alive today who personally remember the Ming Dynasty, but there are millions who lived under Mao and the time immediately after, and there is no question that most are better off materially and economically under Chinese capitalism than they were under whatever you want to call the previous system. Anyone who denies that is simply blinded by ideology.

    I make no claim other than that, and no, my statements are not a defense of capitalism, Chinese or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ah yes, the good ol' "blinded by ideology" schtick. Well played sir.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If you can't admit that the average Chinese citizen is better off (and much wealthier in real measurements) now compared to only a relatively short time ago, then yes, you are blind to reality and objective facts.

    That doesn't mean that capitalism in any of its incarnations is the best system. I'm not saying that at all.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Then please tell us, what IS your position?

    ReplyDelete
  23. There are now more billionaires in China than any country in the world save the USA.

    Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  24. when joseph stalin was asked "is socialism a religion" his answer was "yes"
    what is going on is in fact a religious war, the same applies for islam which is inundated with socialists.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Listen to what you just said: It's ironic that socialism hates religion because it is itself a religion... There is nothing ironic about a NEW religion hating the OLD religion. Whereas God used to be God, now the State shall be God, whereas paradise used to be a future paradise in heaven, now EARTH will be a Marxist utopia. Socialism, whether extreme (as in Communism) or moderate (as in Europe, where I live!!!!) will ALWAYS try to undermine religious influences, try to get rid of Christian education, increase government regulations, promote secular humanism etc. Many European countries have already adopted or are thinking about adopting an anti-cult law, giving secret services authority to monitor the CHURCH coming together on Sunday. I live in a socialist (not communist) country, so I can tell you, socialism leads to persecution of religion. The more radical socialists tend to be, the more they try to undermine every political theme Christians tend to care about: freedom of religion, traditional family life, Christian education etc. That is why homeschooling is such a terrible idea to them, think about what happens when Christian parents influence their children!!! We can't have that! Think about this: what is called ''right wing'' in most European countries is still ''left wing'' in America. From a European perspective, Obama is right wing. Don't be naive, fellow Christians, do NOT become like Europe!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. "socialism leads to persecution of religion. The more radical socialists tend to be, the more they try to undermine every political theme Christians tend to care about: freedom of religion, traditional family life, Christian education etc. "

    Sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

    ReplyDelete

If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails