Is communism good or bad?

[Igognito]

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state

Lets refine a bit your Capitalism definition...
Taken by wikipedia:

Capitalism is an economic system based upon private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

State is not related with Capitalism.

And as u pointed out in an abstract way capitalism is perfectly fine with Islam! Actually, Islam is much closer to Capitalism than what Christianity is!

And what u refer that Muslims want is a Caliphate with a Caliph. Historically, the "last" somewhat accepted caliphate was from the Ottoman Empire. After the dissolve of the empire no Muslim nation/power managed to set a caliph that would be widely accepted.

And here we come to the next point, Islam is inherently authoritarian. Islam defines a Supreme Leader setting it as an authoritarian ideology.
ps1: Catholicism also has a Supreme Leader (Pope) and is similarly authoritarian to Islam. Notice that I'm mentioning Catholicism and not Christianity because there are other branches of Christianity that are not so authoritarian.
ps2: To the best of my knowledge only 1 zero authoritarian ideology exists: Anarchism. In general we tend to call authoritarian a system that has 1 supreme leader, or very small leadership that has supreme authority (examples: Stalin's communist party; China's communist party).

Economically speaking:
So Islam, up to the point of "religious restrictions" is completely compatible with capitalism. Actually, more than what Christianity is which promotes the abolish of personal property and promotes its donation to the needy.

Politically speaking:
Islam is authoritarian, and inherently does not go well with Democracy (especially with the Shia Muslims). Sunni Muslims are authoritarian again but from a more wide population base (I would put them close to Catholics in that aspect choose in a representative way your supreme leader).

Do we agree up to here?

Next point, can we have Capitalism and True Democracy together?

Okay, this is difficult to answer. The moment you have Capitalism you automatically create entities that have more power than others. These entities, lets use the term Oligarchs, end up controlling the Democratic system. This results in having ochlocracy (mob ruling) which is what we experience pretty often in modern times.

Okay, I'm taking it far I know... But what I wanted to point out is that in these discussions people are mixing different ideologies (common problem).

Economic Ideologies:
Capitalism
Communism
Socialism
Political Ideologies:
Anarchism
Democracy
Authoritarian Systems (Kingdoms, Dictatorships, Oligarchies, etc)
Religious Ideologies:
Catholicism
Other Christianity
Islam

For many people from the USA: Democracy = Capitalism; Christianity = Catholicism; Socialism = Communism; Communism implies Dictatorship etc...

So you get funny discussions with questions like: Communism is good or bad? But they are actually asking whether a specific communist regime of Russia was good or bad?
Because if they asked specifically whether the Communist Ideology (as theoretically is defined) is good or bad? The answer would be obvious :-P

The problem is whether good ideologies are actually applicable.
Take for example: Anarchism. It is the best ideologically political system... But it is simply Utopian and not applicable. The closest we can get to it is a Democratic Socialist country such as Sweden. Many philosophers/sociologists claim that the next step which should be doable is to go to a Democratic Communist state but we are not there yet.

Ohh and where religion fits to all these? Well you cant have an authoritarian religion to be dominant if you want a truly Democratic Socialist country because you would have to many "authoritarian supporters = rightist". To return to our example Sweden is not Catholic but Lutheran (Protestant) that mean no Pope, no Religious authority (more or less).

I hope my post helps clarify why these discussions lead to nowhere usually :-D

[3bdushakur]

@Igognito

The rule of the Muslim nation (Ummah) is supposed to be under a Khilafah, which does not exist today, and will only re-appear when the Mahdi is appointed Khalifah over the Muslims near the approach of the Final Hour.

As for the leadership, again, yea, one ruler, or head of state. I wouldn't use the word "Supreme" though, sounds off (and because the Shi'a use that term to refer to their leaders).

Democracy and Islam are incompatible. As for the Shi'a, then they are a different case and Shi'aism should not be associated with Islam as they are two opposing ideologies (particularly the main body of Shi'ah, the 12ers). Shi'aism is incompatible with much of anything in Islam or the world around it.

Again, the Khalifah is technically the only leader over the Muslims under a Khilafah (there is no comparison to any other system, be it Christian/Catholic, or other Western trends). The Khilafah is based solely on the Qur'aan and Sunnah. Authoritarianism is a Western ideological construct, and the perception does not go in accordance to the Shari'ah meaning of Islamic rulership, and from the Muslim perspective, the world is viewed through an Islamic lens, not any other. At least, this is how it should be, but I am sure that you will find Muslims who would rather view the world from the lenses of those who they love outside of the religion.

So, no, we do not agree.

This is exactly why Communist countries are atheistic and Capitalist countries are secular in nature. The religion applies restrictions. Although, of the two, Communism is openly opposed to religion period, which makes it totally incompatible with Islam and any other religious body. Capitalism on the other hand is a double edged sword, and it cuts depending on who wields it. So it can be used by sincere and just people (religious or otherwise) and it can be used by corrupted and criminal individuals (including those who ascribe themselves to any given religion or otherwise).

As for the Catholics, the Pope is not comparable with the Khalifah of the Muslims. The Khalifah has actual political, legislative and religious authority, the Pope doesn't. The Pope is merely a living idol for the Catholics to worship besides Allah. He is the Supreme living leade for the Catholics, as for the Muslims, the Khalifah is a man appointed the position and responsibility of leadership of an entire nation, he is not worshipped, he is not elavated to sainthood or any godhood (much like the Shi'ah and their Ayatoilets). The Shi'ah worship their leaders as gods on earth as per their religious doctrines, they are polytheists, like the Catholics.

Like I said, this would all make sense if you actually understood the religion of Islam based on the Qur'an and Sunnah as was understood by the Companions of the Prophet. Then religious and economic etiquette would make sense, until that happens, you will continue to draw these comparisons that do not work, simply beause I know enough about my religion and theology in general. Along with some of these inane political philosophies that, despite the details surrounding the main point (which act as a smoke screen to blind you from the end-game), are fairly simple and based on nothing but the ideas of men.

[3bdushakur]

The point of all of this, is that Communism is as bad as Capitalism, if not, worse.

Using the pretext of human rights and social justice to claim that Communism, an Autharitarian system, as was pointed out, is a viable option and means of support for the poor and disenfranchised is a retarded, ill-logical disposition to be caught in. A system where the means of production are in the hands of an authoritarian state, who decide how, and when to distribute goods is determined is exactly why Capitalism became so popular. People do not want the government controlling their income, and whatever wealth they made from their own hard work. And before the argument of taxes comes into the discussion, taxes do not control how much you are allowed to earn, taxes are charged according to the ammount you make in order to keep the system running, which is a good thing, otherwise, we'd live in a hellhole. The government regulates markets, but not what you are allowed to earn...a poor man can become rich, a rich man can easily become a bum. It all depends on how you utilize the financial system to meet your financial requirements. You either make good decisions or you make bad ones, that somewhat contribute to financial gain )not taking into consideration other factors aside from personal responsbility).

If anything, Communism leads to fascism, which is fine, if you want that, but to advocate it and then call for the death of people simply because of their income bracket requires a special kind of stupidity. Communism is the opposite if freedom, Capitalism is too much freedom. They are two extremes on a political spectrum, where the only one capable of being balanced (with the proper foundation) is Capitalism, which is why it works. Communism is pure extremism, there is no room for moderation.

And soon marxwasright will come along, and respond with some dribble that lacks any substance, screaming "Communism is the Best!" With his keyboard, like a pure autist.

[tora is a simp bitch for billionaires]

I don't see Communism being generally hostile to religion, it's a false idea. For instance Kerala, an Indian state with a Marxist government, is largely made up of Hindus, Muslims and Christians with little sectarianism.

It's when religion is used by the capitalist class to control the working class through propaganda via the church is when it becomes problematic.

[3bdushakur]

I don't see Communism being generally hostile to religion, it's a false idea. For instance Kerala, an Indian state with a Marxist government, is largely made up of Hindus, Muslims and Christians with little sectarianism.

It's when religion is used by the capitalist class to control the working class through propaganda via the church is when it becomes problematic.

Communism is an atheistic system of governance.

Marx said

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

This is the foundation of your user name. Marx was an atheist. And his words are not the words of a man who supports religion, or freedom of religion.

Marx was also an ignoramus when it came to religion, he clearly does not understand the purpose of religion, he viewed it in such a simplistic manner, like the people he was criticising. He was as ignorant as the people who use religion as an opium (this hasn't changed much today).

[Igognito]

@3bdushakur, you are wrong on the following:
As for the Catholics, the Pope is not comparable with the Khalifah of the Muslims. The Khalifah has actual political, legislative and religious authority, the Pope doesn't. The Pope is merely a living idol for the Catholics to worship besides Allah. He is the Supreme living leade for the Catholics, as for the Muslims, the Khalifah is a man appointed the position and responsibility of leadership of an entire nation, he is not worshipped, he is not elavated to sainthood or any godhood (much like the Shi'ah and their Ayatoilets). The Shi'ah worship their leaders as gods on earth as per their religious doctrines, they are polytheists, like the Catholics.

Yes, the Pope normally had full political, legislative, religious and military authority. Slowly the Pope was forced to give up to secular power and eventually democracy was reinstated and removed all except his religious authorities. The Pope until 1563 in practice was an Emperor having authority over multiple nations (and even over Empires, such as the Portuguese and Spanish).

So we do agree that Islam and Democracy are incompatible ;-)
I do not see why we disagree with the Caliph? I think we say the same thing with different words... You place a Caliph per state while the normal definition has 1 Caliph for all Muslims.
About Shia and Sunni, I'm not an expert I only know that Shia are more radical and want a Caliph that is directly connected to Muhammad and the Sunni allow a leader that is appointed by representatives. Anyhow, we can put out Shia from the discussion.

Well Communism as an ideology doesn't necessarily removes religion. Marx did stated that religion should not be involved in politics and economics, and also he personally was against religion but that doesn't mean that Communism cant co-exist with a religion like: Buddhism or Confucianism or Traditional Chinese religion even with some sects of Hinduism. Those religions have nothing to do with authoritarianism and could co-exist with Communism. (ps: Buddhism, Confucianism normally are only philosophies but are refereed as religions because the promote inner spiritual elevation)

[Igognito]

@3bdushakur, again you do the same confusion... You are speaking about a specific example that used Communism as a pretext but was not truly communism.

Stalin's Communism was an authoritarian Communism system. The problems that appeared where purely authoritarian and not related with the economic system.
If nothing else the economic system managed to elevate a completely destroyed Russia to an empire at the time of Lenin. Not that I'm in favor of Lenin, but going to communism did save Russia at that moment.

[3bdushakur]

@3bdushakur, you are wrong on the following:
As for the Catholics, the Pope is not comparable with the Khalifah of the Muslims. The Khalifah has actual political, legislative and religious authority, the Pope doesn't. The Pope is merely a living idol for the Catholics to worship besides Allah. He is the Supreme living leade for the Catholics, as for the Muslims, the Khalifah is a man appointed the position and responsibility of leadership of an entire nation, he is not worshipped, he is not elavated to sainthood or any godhood (much like the Shi'ah and their Ayatoilets). The Shi'ah worship their leaders as gods on earth as per their religious doctrines, they are polytheists, like the Catholics.

Yes, the Pope normally had full political, legislative, religious and military authority. Slowly the Pope was forced to give up to secular power and eventually democracy was reinstated and removed all except his religious authorities. The Pope until 1563 in practice was an Emperor having authority over multiple nations (and even over Empires, such as the Portuguese and Spanish).

So we do agree that Islam and Democracy are incompatible ;-)
I do not see why we disagree with the Caliph? I think we say the same thing with different words... You place a Caliph per state while the normal definition has 1 Caliph for all Muslims.
About Shia and Sunni, I'm not an expert I only know that Shia are more radical and want a Caliph that is directly connected to Muhammad and the Sunni allow a leader that is appointed by representatives. Anyhow, we can put out Shia from the discussion.

Well Communism as an ideology doesn't necessarily removes religion. Marx did stated that religion should not be involved in politics and economics, and also he personally was against religion but that doesn't mean that Communism cant co-exist with a religion like: Buddhism or Confucianism or Traditional Chinese religion even with some sects of Hinduism. Those religions have nothing to do with authoritarianism and could co-exist with Communism. (ps: Buddhism, Confucianism normally are only philosophies but are refereed as religions because the promote inner spiritual elevation)

The Pope has lost his power, so they are not comparable, since there is no Khilafah to compare him to. The Pope has minimal power, but even religiously, he cannot do a thing about apostates of Catholocism (such as myself). If there were a Khalifah, the apostate of Islam is treated exactly how a traitor of any other nation is treated (with a chance to repent and give up dessertion), execution. Simple as that. If the Mahdi where to appear today and establish the Khilafah and Muslims apostated, no government or human "rights" groups would have an authority over it to prevent the law from being established.

As for the Shi'ah, they worship their leaders, they worship the dead, and have insane rituals. The Shi'ah are a rejectionist sect, who reject the fundamental principles of Islam while cloaking themselves with a warped Islamic identity, it began from political disagreements, and evolved into absolute heresy in general. Today, Shi'aism is a heretical religion.

Islam is a complete system with legislation for the religious and political spectrum. Islam cannot be removed from politics and politics cannot be removed from Islam. Shari'ah is a Legal system, and Communist ideology undermines it with its rhetoric, so it is totally incompatible.

The "religions" you mentioned are corrupt and polytheistic by nature, they are not really religions anyway, they are philosophies, which is why it can fuse with Communist philosophy. "Inner spiritual elevation" doesn't make a religion, otherwise the Raelians, Scientologists, the Rajneesh and so forth would be legitimized, and they are not. Cults and religions are two different things.

[3bdushakur]

@3bdushakur, again you do the same confusion... You are speaking about a specific example that used Communism as a pretext but was not truly communism.

Stalin's Communism was an authoritarian Communism system. The problems that appeared where purely authoritarian and not related with the economic system.
If nothing else the economic system managed to elevate a completely destroyed Russia to an empire at the time of Lenin. Not that I'm in favor of Lenin, but going to communism did save Russia at that moment.

I can accept that. But Communism isn't only an economic philosophy like Capitalism, it goes into religion and seeks to undermine it. Capitalism, although often secular, does not promote secularism, it is purely economic.

[tora is a simp bitch for billionaires]

The point of all of this, is that Communism is as bad as Capitalism, if not, worse.

I don't understand. You're saying capitalism is bad now, after several posts of defending capitalists?

The point of all of this, is that Communism is as bad as Capitalism, if not, worse.

Using the pretext of human rights and social justice to claim that Communism, an Autharitarian system, as was pointed out, is a viable option and means of support for the poor and disenfranchised is a retarded, ill-logical disposition to be caught in.[/quote]

no it's not "retarded" , it's a movement that was literally born out of the disenfranchisement of the working class. every piece of communist literature shows this. there's nothing inherently authoritarian about communism, like there is with capitalism. under capitalism we are subservient to capital and arbitrary hierarchies. the Earth's wealth in controlled by a top 0.01% of the population and they have influenced society for their own interests, not most of the people. that's the ultimate authoritarianism.

If anything, Communism leads to fascism,

it leads to fascism in the sense that when the ruling elites are threatened by the working class they will use fascism to suppress them. when communism took hold in russia and  communist movements in other countries were gaining popularity, in germany for instance,  franz von papen and his ilk allowed hitler to gain power. hitler was no threat to the ruling class, he was a useful idiot for them.
fascism is capitalism is decay.

which is fine, if you want that, but to advocate it and then call for the death of people simply because of their income bracket requires a special kind of stupidity.

wealth distribution and expropriation of excessive luxuries isn't akin to murder you stupid shit.

Capitalism is the opposite of freedom, Communism is freedom for the working class.

just fixed for accuracy, you're obviously confused about terms. i mean you didn't even know what liberalism is.

They are two extremes on a political spectrum, where the only one capable of being balanced (with the proper foundation) is Capitalism, which is why it works.

except capitalism doesn't work. rising poverty, rising homelessness , the complete degradation of hyper-capitalist dystopia america is evidence of this.

[tora is a simp bitch for billionaires]

I don't see Communism being generally hostile to religion, it's a false idea. For instance Kerala, an Indian state with a Marxist government, is largely made up of Hindus, Muslims and Christians with little sectarianism.

It's when religion is used by the capitalist class to control the working class through propaganda via the church is when it becomes problematic.

Communism is an atheistic system of governance.

Marx said

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

This is the foundation of your user name. Marx was an atheist. And his words are not the words of a man who supports religion, or freedom of religion.

Marx was also an ignoramus when it came to religion, he clearly does not understand the purpose of religion, he viewed it in such a simplistic manner, like the people he was criticising. He was as ignorant as the people who use religion as an opium (this hasn't changed much today).

you just ignored what i wrote, copied a Marx quote you got from wikipedia and had zero answer to that quote (probably because you didn't understand any of it) while calling him ignorant. lol. you're a total waste of time.

[3bdushakur]

I don't understand. You're saying capitalism is bad now, after several posts of defending capitalists?

Because Capitalism can comprise of good and evil. I never denied the corruption of Capitalism but you totally blind yourself to the fact that not all Capitalists fall into this narrow vision you have. You want to execute anyone with wealth you deem to be more than necessary, regardless of how they acquired it, be it honest labor or crime. You lump everyone into the same warped view. You aso think about this about anyone who spends more than what you think a person should pay for any item. It doesn't matter if a person inhereted money, they can spend what was left for them as they please. If I inhereted 10 million dollars, and decide to buy a 10k dollar pen, in a Capitalist country, I can do that, in your Communist vision, I'd be shot.

And this is exactly why it's retarded. Because the disenfranchised are usually uneducated and emotional. They cannot control themselves enough to really analyze a situation, they just react out of a warped sense of vigilantism.

There is nothing inherently authoritarian about Capitalism, except that with more money, you can do a lot more, the only authoritarianism I see in Capitalism is authority over my own wealth more or less, than in your Communist vision.

Outside of Capitalism you are subjected to hierarchies such as ignorance and intellect, the two are not equal, neither are men or women, the political system stems from the oppositism of the biological and natural system. It is not arbitrary, and capital has always existed, and we have been subjected to that since the first man. Foodstuff is capital, crops and so forth, gold, silver, it is part of human nature to engage in a system of economics and trade.

You mentioned arbitrary hierarchies in Capitalism and then go on to basically insinuate that Fascism is the result of the RULING ELITE when they feel threatened by the working class. So there is an Elite in a Communist society, and they control the workers. If Communists ruling Elites adopt fascism as a means to supress the general masses, how is it Capitalism in decay?

YOU said we should kill the wealthy. I was refering to your asinine posts. And who is going to distribute my wealth, you? The state? Me? Who determines whether I have to distribute my wealth? Why should I give you my money? If I have 10 million and you have 10 cents, why should I be obligated to distribute it with you, if I worked my ass off for it? What makes you worthy of even recieving any of it? If I want to distribute my wealth, it is called charity and I can give as much as I please, there is no standard.

You fixed the terms according to the way you want to see them even if they are incorrect.

Capitalism has proven itself to work, if Communism was as ideal as you want to believe, we would not be in a Capitalist world, especially not this long. How many Communist countries exist today? China, North Korea....Cuba?

@marx was right

[3bdushakur]

I don't see Communism being generally hostile to religion, it's a false idea. For instance Kerala, an Indian state with a Marxist government, is largely made up of Hindus, Muslims and Christians with little sectarianism.

It's when religion is used by the capitalist class to control the working class through propaganda via the church is when it becomes problematic.

Communism is an atheistic system of governance.

Marx said

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

This is the foundation of your user name. Marx was an atheist. And his words are not the words of a man who supports religion, or freedom of religion.

Marx was also an ignoramus when it came to religion, he clearly does not understand the purpose of religion, he viewed it in such a simplistic manner, like the people he was criticising. He was as ignorant as the people who use religion as an opium (this hasn't changed much today).

you just ignored what i wrote, copied a Marx quote you got from wikipedia and had zero answer to that quote (probably because you didn't understand any of it) while calling him ignorant. lol. you're a total waste of time.

I posted that before you even responded, fool

Besides, you are not the only one who's read the Communist Manfesto, and other works of Communist/Socialist/Anarchist literature. Prior to becoming Muslim I was involved in Communist/Anarcho groups in California. I have been to meetings, gatherings, parties and so forth. We were not coffee shop revolutionaries, typing in forums. We had mainly Latin-American Communists and Anarchists, I was there because I'm Latino and the people I knew were part of these groups.

Western politics is a circus. This whole network was merely a pissing contest. And these people had the worst characteristics, definitely not fit for leadership over people. No one in any of these movements are mentally capable or mature to handle the responsibility, which is why Communism has failed when it tried.

[3bdushakur]

I don't see Communism being generally hostile to religion, it's a false idea. For instance Kerala, an Indian state with a Marxist government, is largely made up of Hindus, Muslims and Christians with little sectarianism.

It's when religion is used by the capitalist class to control the working class through propaganda via the church is when it becomes problematic.

Communism is an atheistic system of governance.

Marx said

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

This is the foundation of your user name. Marx was an atheist. And his words are not the words of a man who supports religion, or freedom of religion.

Marx was also an ignoramus when it came to religion, he clearly does not understand the purpose of religion, he viewed it in such a simplistic manner, like the people he was criticising. He was as ignorant as the people who use religion as an opium (this hasn't changed much today).

you just ignored what i wrote, copied a Marx quote you got from wikipedia and had zero answer to that quote (probably because you didn't understand any of it) while calling him ignorant. lol. you're a total waste of time.

I posted that before you even responded, fool

Besides, you are not the only one who's read the Communist Manfesto, and other works of Communist/Socialist/Anarchist literature. Prior to becoming Muslim I was involved in Communist/Anarcho groups in California. I have been to meetings, gatherings, parties and so forth. We were not coffee shop revolutionaries, typing in forums. We had mainly Latin-American Communists and Anarchists, I was there because I'm Latino and the people I knew were part of these groups.

Western politics is a circus. This whole network was merely a pissing contest. And these people had the worst characteristics, definitely not fit for leadership over people. No one in any of these movements are mentally capable or mature to handle the responsibility, which is why Communism has failed when it tried.

Everyone wants to be Ché Guevarra

But you are all Cliché Guevarras.

[Igognito]

Setting up the ground with simple sentences...
We agree on the following:

Islam + Capitalism are compatible within the religious restrictions.
Islam + Democracy are completely incompatible.

Not that it is important, but can we agree on: Pope was comparable with the Caliph but is not anymore.

We need to clarify better why
Islam + Communism are incompatible.

We need to open Christianity and Communism (this is complicated and to be addressed later)
Polytheistic religions are not necessary inferior from Monotheistic. Hinduism is one of the most advance religions (if not the most advance) and possibly the oldest thriving religion in the world (historians are not certain if Judaism or Hinduism is older). None of the religions I mentioned I would call it corrupt. All of them are pretty big religions (being in the 10 biggest).

To return to the topic in hand: Islam + Communism are incompatible.
Reason: by my personal opinion the problem is that normally Communism is the opposite of authoritarian (ignore the applications of it).
Normally in communism there are no rulers or special social classes.

Islam, Christianity and other religions have the: Clergy which by definition is a pyramid structured authoritarian system.
I believe this is the hidden reason why Communism cant work with most societies.

We should first abolish the authoritarian systems and society and only after that we can apply communism. (Personally, I'm in complete favor of removing authoritarian systems, but I'm still against on introducing communism but that is another discussion.)

To return to the main topic: Is communism good or bad?
I believe that Communism can only be applied on a society with 0 authoritarianism and where all are at equal ground. It is based on Utopian principles and Communism is bound to fail as would Anarchism. But in a small society (such as a family) communism is the ideal system to work with!

The small society develops better if they do not compete against them but instead collaborate; all are richer if everything is owned by everyone and not having individual wealth in a small society: This is also the basis of Nash Equilibrium which by all irony is used in Capitalism.

Simple example: When you where a kid, did your family owned a car? Was it your fathers? or your mothers? or maybe was it from/for both? Maybe, when you got a licence was it your car too... That is communism, everything is owned by everyone. We do not have individual properties... The idea is great just not applicable in large society.