I dont know what to believe anymore

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
For religious fundamentalist types, it is very easy to assume all the masons must be evil. (not a shot at you, Lady..... I already wrote that before you posted- I don't see you as a fundamentalist)

You can prove such-and-such person was a mason but that doesn't necessarily discredit them. The freemason stuff is complicated.

Do they have super secret ultimate knowledge? I doubt it. Their beliefs are probably not that different than New Age stuff except maybe a fancier.

It is like a club but.... i don't even think they're a single club. I think there are lodges and such.... which are independent of each other.

In any case, I don't think all the masons are necessarily on the same side. If you study masons and history.... I think different masons fought sincerely for totally different sides. I think there are- or at least have been- different sides and factions within these mason groups. Not all the masons were evil.

Plus I don't even think masonry and the secret societies were even originally evil. Look at what happened to Socrates. If you tell the masses too much.... they very likely will kill you and you'll be targeted by the power structure. So if you are Plato or you are like Plato and Socrates..... it would be perfectly logical to form secret societies where you can discuss things without being targeted by elites and masses. I think that was the original purpose of the secret societies- a way to preserve knowledge. They were supposed to be like guardians protecting to society- as Plato described in the Republic. I think Plato and Socrates.... they probably had to do with that stuff but.... I seriously do not believe they were evil. They were trying to preserve knowledge and philosophy.
I agree with this.
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
If Socrates and Jesus had lived during the cold war they woukd have been killed for being "communists". That is basically what the rabid anti-communism thing is about.... you threaten the established system.... "communism!".
again, it doesn't really matter insofar as ideas are concerned. Were his ideas true or not?
I am sorry but saying "screw Jung- he was a Nazi!!!" is not virtue- it's just laziness. If you don't want to do the actual difficult work of studying philosophy, fine. If you don't want to actually read books and study philosophers and you just want to go off the internet, fine. But don't try to mask laziness as virtue lol.
Good points.
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
I instinctively distrust any sort of 'secret' society. Sure, people can organize however they want - but why? I can see the value in and necessity of secrecy in a time of persecution of free thinkers (inquisition) but in a modern day society surely anybody wishing to 'do well' can - and I daresay even should - do it in the open. The entire tradition of Western thinkers is - said to be, at least - based on laying everything out in the open.
I agree. Secrecy is where all the problems start. If someone has useful knowledge, they should share it and try to make the world a better place. Some people use it for bad though.
 

Helioform

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
3,195
How do you define socialism and communism?
Socialism: mild governmental control over the production of goods, services and the job market.

Communism: total governmental control over the economy. The establishment of central banks for example was one of the first communist goals.
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
Socialism: mild governmental control over the production of goods, services and the job market.
Communism: total governmental control over the economy. The establishment of central banks for example was one of the first communist goals.
But the dictatorships that arose in China and Russia weren't even communist. They were dictatorships... economists consider the soviet union to be state capitalist, not communist or socialist. Communism and socialism require the working class to have control over the "means of production" which means that the government cannot control the economy in a communist or a socialist society. Russia and China were communist by name only because the people never had any control in the government and they were under the will of a ruling class. The people are supposed to govern themselves in communism and socialism, not a dictator or an elite class. Socialism is defined as the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production and it's supposed to be a transition into communism. Socialism still has a state but communism is supposed to be moneyless and stateless... but by definition they both still require the common ownership of the means of production by the working class. Socialism and communism are basically theories and no one has really implemented them.

Pure Communism or Socialism are oppressive and faulty. Socialism leads to Communism and both have the same flaws of showing a benevolent facade while hiding their true side, which is oppression and subjugation.
If Russia and China were truly communist then I'd agree. But they only labeled themselves communist to get support from the working class, they used it as an excuse to form oppressive dictatorships and gain power for themselves and an elite class.
 
Last edited:

Illuminized

Established
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
206
Socialism has been executed from time immemorial. Communism is inherently flawed. It'd be a mistake to say they're the same.
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
Socialism has been executed from time immemorial. Communism is inherently flawed. It'd be a mistake to say they're the same.
But they're very similar though. The only difference is that communism lacks a state or money. But they both share the same general ideas of common ownership of production. What do you think the inherent flaw in communism is and why do you think socialism is better?
 

Helioform

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
3,195
But the dictatorships that arose in China and Russia weren't even communist. They were dictatorships... economists consider the soviet union to be state capitalist, not communist or socialist. Communism and socialism require the working class to have control over the "means of production" which means that the government cannot control the economy in a communist or a socialist society. Russia and China were communist by name only because the people never had any control in the government and they were under the will of a ruling class. The people are supposed to govern themselves in communism and socialism, not a dictator or an elite class. Socialism is defined as the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production and it's supposed to be a transition into communism. Socialism still has a state but communism is supposed to be moneyless and stateless... but by definition they both still require the common ownership of the means of production by the working class. Socialism and communism are basically theories and no one has really implemented them.


If Russia and China were truly communist then I'd agree. But they only labeled themselves communist to get support from the working class, they used it as an excuse to form oppressive dictatorships and gain power for themselves and an elite class.
But how do you achieve communism if there is no government to enforce it? Answer: you can't. Which is why what happened in Russia and China happened like it did.
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
But how do you achieve communism if there is no government to enforce it? Answer: you can't. Which is why what happened in Russia and China happened like it did.
I think it could be possible, just very difficult... It requires all the people working together. But I don't think communism is at all achievable through a government because if you give one person or group all that power, they will certainly misuse it. The only way to achieve anything like communism is without a government or a ruling class taking over.

Regardless of whether it is truly achievable or not, the Russian and Chinese governments still never even came close to communism. They weren't communist, I think they used it as an excuse to gain power for themselves instead of transferring it to the people, which is what they would do if they were truly ever even trying to be communist.
 

Illuminized

Established
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
206
But they're similar though. The only difference is that communism doesn't have a state or money. But they both share the same general ideas. What do you think the inherent flaw in communism is?
Communism abolishes personal property and thereby denies human individuality and it's worth.

The proto-Communist Eusebius described this state of affairs in Acts 4:32-35.

"No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had... For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."

Socialism promotes a cooperation between peoples without sacrificing individuality.
 

Illuminized

Established
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
206
"Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows."

Here Jesus makes it clear that the individual does not cease to exist.
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
Communism abolishes personal property and thereby denies human individuality and it's worth.

The proto-Communist Eusebius described this state of affairs in Acts 4:32-35.

"No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had... For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."

Socialism promotes a cooperation between peoples without sacrificing individuality.
Communism is supposed to get rid of private property not personal property. People have the right to own their own things, like their car, house, clothes, computer, toothbrush... stuff like that. But communists don't like the capitalist idea of private property which is when one person owns things like an apartment complex (and rents it to other people) or a factory or something. They want collective ownership of the means of production instead of private ownership. But individuals can still own their personal items privately. Also since communism is controlled by the people, everyone comes to an agreement on what they're going to make public or not.
 
Last edited:

Illuminized

Established
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
206
Look, you can't blame people for failing to attain an ideal. That's like the Church saying that all of it's past atrocities were because of certain people, not due to it's ideology being flawed.

I've been saving this for a rainy day, a random comment I came across somewhere.
 

Attachments

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
Look, you can't blame people for failing to attain an ideal.
Their means to achieve the ideal were flawed. They never achieved the ideal because they weren't even trying. I don't think the Russian and Chinese governments had good intentions at all, they didn't want communism or care about the people. All they wanted was power, they wanted to be dictators in a ruling class and that's what they did.
 

Illuminized

Established
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
206
Their means to achieve the ideal were flawed. They never achieved the ideal because they weren't even trying. I don't think the Russian and Chinese governments had good intentions at all, they didn't want communism or care about the people. All they wanted was power, they wanted to be dictators in a ruling class and that's what they did.
The Bolsheviks seemed sincere to me, they were very open and honest about their intentions. They made no secret of what they wanted.

It's true that Stalin took the steering wheel from Trotsky, but he still remained faithful to Lenin.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,907
@Etagloc Jesus would not be communist...just like you talk about the tao te ching...Jesus did not follow or endorse the path of right action but instead the path of non action. So Jesus would prefer if people had God consciousness and in those conditions the rich would give to the poor in charity.
Btw communism was the way the Jewish elite robbed Russia and kept its wealth for themselves and gave very little of it to the people. After theyd taken the wealth then they abandoned communism and took the resources gas, oil.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
@Etagloc Jesus would not be communist...just like you talk about the tao te ching...Jesus did not follow or endorse the path of right action but instead the path of non action. So Jesus would prefer if people had God consciousness and in those conditions the rich would give to the poor in charity.
Btw communism was the way the Jewish elite robbed Russia and kept its wealth for themselves and gave very little of it to the people. After theyd taken the wealth then they abandoned communism and took the resources gas, oil.
Lord have mercy....

The message of Lenin's work on imperialism is that people have the right to self-determination. If people bothered to actually read the book I mentioned, they would know that.

I think that African people have the right to run their own countries. I think that Middle Eastern people have the right to run their own countries.

That is what Lenin was saying. He doesn't actually promote a particular political program in his book on imperialism.

He was attacking colonialism.

If I'm some bad guy because I'm against colonialism and imperialism and believe that people of all skin colors are equally human, then let me be a bad guy.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
If you are against colonialism and imperialism then I guess you must also be a "communist" because you agree with Lenin.

Believe it or not, you can agree with a philosopher on one issue without agreeing with every single thing they said on totally different issues.
 
Top