Alexander Solzhenitsyn taught me everything I need to know about communism. I will never allow such ideologues of elitist government class totalitarians any power over my freedom and certainly not over my family, it is a sick religion and communism and Islamic extremism both are religions that are proven failures ever killing others who they blame when their failed utopias never materialise. As a Hindu, I certainly am willing to help someone free themselves from such cults if I can and if the cultist is willing, bit too many of them I have encountered actually have personal issues and demons, but some can be helped, I have turned a couple of them around but often it is a waste of time and the best thing to do is make sure they don't ever get their hands on children and certainly not government power. There is no future as far as where communism and Islamic extremism is concerned 100 years from now, there moments other than their butchery actually are but a blink of the eye in history. As far as Jesus being a communist, as a Hindu that isn't too important to me but even I have to laugh at that one, Jesus was a Jew with Royal blood and there is zero comparison to Pol Pot or Mao or Stalin, or for that matter Hitler who was a National Socialist and really all the same leftist extremism. Just because two communist types declare war on each other doesn't mean they are the same spots on the leopard, in fact it is expected that such a big government regime will turn on their brother or sister, they kill their own children too because their way never worked nor will it and they always blame the "jew" (whoever, someone other than themself) when it is obvious they have failed, the only thing is when your goal is an impossible utopia and you fail then those who are responsible for it given the power kill everyone else they can as "unworthy of utopia".
Anyway, since the introduction here was really more of a thread on communism and less an introduction, I thought I would rant a bit too to just join in on the fun. But if there are any questions from someone who is interested in my religion, no problem, ask away.
I am generally unfamiliar with Hinduism, as I'm more familiar with Judeo-Christian beliefs. I'll have to fill that gap in my knowledge in time. Thanks for the offer none the less.
I don't quite know where to begin, but I think to be honest if your willing to sit down with members of cults and to try to reason them out of their beliefs, all i can is good on you, as that is a really hard thing to do. And yes, I have a history of personal issues, which has made me question the extent to which may own beliefs are the product of my own experiences. I have given it much thought and question my own beliefs and part of coming on the forum is continuing that process.
However, I think you're somewhat missing the point that the promise of utopia is often the mask for ruling elites and that it is very difficult to tell the difference between the two because our understanding of reality is not wholly objective. 'reality' is simultaneously objectively real, but also subjectively experienced which is why two people facing the same set of facts can reach different conclusions. To some extent 'reality' itself is a concept, and even if it accurately reflect the external world it can never do so wholly accurately. The line between fanaticism and faith is the willingness to accept the imperfections of one's self and one's beliefs, but without necessarily feeling oppressed by them. Utopia is impossible because no society can ever perfectly reflect our ideas, but that is not a reason to stop trying. Utopia is a worthy goal, if we have the humility to find out who we are in the process.
On the issues surrounding National Socialism and Communism; yes there are strong similarities between the two in so far as they both represent a massive expansion of government power. But the Nazi's were 'reactionaries' who sought to preserve existing social relations (and despite the 'socialist' label did actively defend private property and were supported by big business as a way of 'stabilizing' Germany by repressing Trade Unions, Democratic Socialists and Communists, and led to a massive increase in the concentration of capital and the size of corporations during the Third Reich etc.) The Nazi's were still capitalists, but I've learned that in examining this argument Marxists and Libertarians have very different definitions of capitalism and I'll leave you to decide that for yourself.
Communists were Revolutionaries who sought to change society in ways that in many cases simply hadn't been tried before because it hadn't been possible before the Industrial Revolution. In some ways, this made us worse because behind the propaganda, the Nazi/Fascist system was pretty anarchic and Hitler often deputized tasks to several subordinates because he wanted them to compete with one another so as not to diminish his own power. The Nazi's had a profoundly self-destructive tendency which meant they lost the war. Whilst nothing can be gained by comparing genocides, the Soviets never set out to find a 'final solution' and there crimes were more 'adhoc' which meant the violence they committed was also more pervasive. This is partly because of the ideological differences between them; Nazi's held that their enemies were the product of 'nature' in representing genetic and racial differences (and demonized 'Jews'), whereas communists thought there enemies were the product of 'nurture' and were the product of social and economic conditions (and therefore demonized 'Capitalists' or Kulaks/Rich Peasants).In Both cases, however it devolved into a war of extermination of enemies within their own borders and that is what they share in common as 'totalitarian' systems.
Communism was probably the more 'rational', calculating and arguably more totalitarian system (but it was still incompetent by any standard) because it used social revolution to push aside any institutions that got in the way of increasing state power. Communism was dictatorial in a new way which took advantage of all the technological and economic developments of the previous centuries industrial change and was a radical social experiment with a new form of social organization, that ultimately proved to be very bureaucratic rather than democratic as people had hoped.
That said, Communism
does have a future as capitalism is again producing the conditions of it's own demise. Neo-liberalism is the greatest gift to political and religious extremists the world over as it is so systematically complacent to it's own failings and limitations. It holds absolute conviction in the rationality of indivdiual human behavior and therefore in the perfect operation of free markets. But people aren't that rational. look at Black Friday Christmas Sales in the US and ask how anyone can call that 'rational consume behavior'? There a problems everywhere, but in order to admit that these problems exist you have to admit that not all outcomes of a market economy are rational, nor are they automatically the best or most desirable outcomes.
But this is a system where it pays to be ignorant and not to rock the boat even when it's sinking. People's jobs depend on them not speaking out, not questioning authority and not telling the stock markets when they've made mistakes. It pays to take extra-ordinarily short-sighted but self-defeating investments such as lending sub-prime mortgages to people who can't afford to pay so that bank employees can meet their quota and get their bonus. Instead, it's a game of musical chairs and no-one knows when the music is going to stop. But if you take a look at Climate change and the way in which the competition between corporations and national governments has utterly paralyzed their ability to respond effectively to the threat, that is a recipe for disaster. And people are going to start listening to extremists of different sorts when they realize that ultimately, it is all an illusion of control. The danger with communism is that it will give people that control, and we aren't ready for it.
