Are you saying that anything that doesn't fit in your textbook of beliefs is a religion when it comes to interpretation.. if so yes.

@NBaby Why not? Same First Cause slot, different placeholder...

Tendmote asks questions like Neil Cavuto.

No it isn't.

However, people can and do develop strong beliefs in non-religious ideas which can be comparable to religious fervor. People believe in homeopathy and fiercely defend it despite there being no evidence for its efficacy.

It's not that communism is a religion, it's that communism, and other worldviews/ideologies, can inspire the same sort of intense belief in people that religion does. It's a function of human nature generally, not communism specifically.

What distinguishes communism from religion, other than alienation being substituted in for God as a First Cause?

Earth to Tendmote, divine miracles have never been confirmed to have taken place. Whereas you'd have to be willfully blind to refuse to acknowledge the presence of class struggle as a motor of history.

Also, people who look at class as a motor of history are not all communists. Communist implies membership in a party, a dues paying member.

Communism originated from the writings of Marx back in the 1840s as a reaction to the working conditions and working practices he saw at the time, if he was writing that today I am sure the book would be very different ......

First it's class struggle, now it's alienation. Tendmote is a slippery one, always moving the goalposts. He has his agenda and will fix all the "facts" into his narrow partisan view of reality. Ironically this is what he always accuses "Communists" of doing.

@Putin33 "Tendmote asks questions like Neil Cavuto."

Nice association fallacy there. My own argumentative skills are pretty much shit, but you seem to pride yourself on yours, so you ought be ashamed!

Class struggle, alienation, either/or. What is the first cause in Communist philosophy then?

Communists are good, rich people are bad. All communists are equally good, but some are more equal than others.

"Nice association fallacy there."

Just an observation. You never ask questions to gain information.

"What is the first cause in Communist philosophy then?"

As usual, I have no idea what the hell you are babbling about.

@Putin: Communist most assuredly does not imply membership of the Communist Party.

What I'm getting at here is that if one does not accept the premises that Communism introduces into an argument, the arguments that follow can't have much meaning. It's analogous to a religious person presenting an argument that follows from the existence of God. To an atheist, that argument would have no meaning.

As such, I should probably have asked is Communism "like a religion", rather than "a religion."

But, does the communist/noncomunnist to believer/athiest analogy hold?

perfidious - good word

Communism isn't based off the believe in some supernatural being, so no. It's a social/economic system based off common ownership of the means of production which proponents of it claim can come to pass if the lower and middle classes forcefully take the means of production from the upper class. You may disagree with this theory, but it doesn't invoke some sort of divine mechanism.

If you start classifying communism as a religion you might as well classify capitalism as a religion too for its believe in the invisible hand of the market.

If you have a beef with communism try using actual arguments. Given its failed history there are plenty of valid criticisms to be made of communism without resorting to this kind of name calling.

Also, it's a grammatical mistake to capitalize the word communist in the middle of a sentence.

Religious fervour, perhaps, or holding the place that religion holds for some, giving meaning, direction, and purpose. Not worship. It's not as much a first-cause thing, more of final destination thing.

No different than any kind of "-ism". Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, Conservatism...different blinders looking at the same pile of crap. Any can be followed with religious zeal.

I suspect that tendmote isn't so much slippery as much as he isn't clarifying arguments to your level of satisfaction before posting, or is just posting ideas for discussion, and therefore is not posting his beliefs, which may come up later. Not everyone who posts is looking for an carefully posted logical argument, just a fun discussion.

@ Mendax

Communist most certainly does. It has always been a name of a party (during Marx's time and then from 1918 onward, the name of the Bolshevik Party), distinguishing between socialists those who wish to overthrow the bourgeois order and those who do not. You cannot be a 'communist' while not being an activist (see On Practice, Combat Liberalism, How to be a Good Communist, Theses on Feuerbach, etc), and you cannot be an activist unless you are a member of a party, otherwise the word is meaningless.

Tendmote, for goodness sake define your terms.

What do you mean by religion, and what on earth do you mean by communism? And what on earth do you mean by first cause?

Some clarity and precision would be nice.

For religion, how about the wikipedia definition: an “organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.”

For communism, how about another wikipedia definition: “a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims at the establishment of” … “a classless, moneyless,[1][2] and stateless social order”

Now, as I understand it, in many religions it is believed that God is the source of truth. In communism, dialectical materialism is believed to be the source of truth. From these believed truths all other arguments flow.

What if you don’t believe dialectal materialism? It is after all just as unscientific as belief in God. As such, it has a religious aspect.

Communists are fighters and revolutionists, not members of philosophy clubs. The key difference between Communists and religious sects is that the latter are content with being windbags who do nothing but talk about their beliefs. They put their own self-actualization above the interests of their organizations. Communists are practical fighters for revolution. Talk is cheap, and belief is meaningless unless you put it into practice.

Not to mention the obvious differences between materialist epistemology and supernaturalism, belief in deities & superstition, etc.

I think the confusion comes from the fact that liberals are by nature passive and cannot fathom fervent commitment to anything or organization for the purpose of obtaining some goal. Liberals are content to being autonomous windbags, stuck in the realm of theory and detached from practically applying their ideas in the real world.

Being a good communist means being an activist, just like being a good Christian means being an activist ("So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple."). That doesn't mean there aren't lazy communists or Christians, or bad ones that just follow selected passages.

You can find similar books saying you can't be a feminist or whatever unless you are an activist and follow certain teachings. Even if the books in question are the forming, fundamental books of a movement, they do not say where the movement has evolved to since the books were written.

I think that the occupy movement, termperance movement, gay rights moment, women's suffrage movement, and African-American civil rights movement show that activism doesn't need to be associated with a political party. There may be political parties formed from a movement or parties that align themselves with a movement (Blank Panthers) but activism is independent from political parties. Civic activism can be done without political party interference, for example.

To be clear, communism is an economic system derived from political analysis. Having a communist state does not say what type of government it has. It does not need have a political party attached to it, such as if you have a military-run communist state.

"Communists are fighters and revolutionists, not members of philosophy clubs. The key difference between Communists and religious sects is that the latter are content with being windbags who do nothing but talk about their beliefs."

Then how to explain the legions of armchair radicals in academia and the hordes of jihadist fighters?

You're distorting reality so it suits your preexisting assumptions.

@Putin33 Got it. Communists aim to make their non-scientific, non-falsifiable, wholly contrived beliefs "true" by prevailing through conflict. Why should anyone who does not share these beliefs be persuaded by any argument that flows from these beliefs?

Keep in mind I don't think communism is a religion. See my first post.

Your definitions of terrible, and your assumptions are worse. Stop using wikipedia.

Dialectics is opposed to metaphysics. Materialism is opposed to idealism. Dialectical materialism couldn't be more different than religion. Why don't you study the topic before you spout off about it.

Dialectics entails the following: Nature is interconnected and cannot be understood in isolation; Nature is in a constant state of motion and change; quantitative change leads to qualitative change (meaning change is rapid & abrupt, from the simple to the complex); and contradictions are inherent in nature, a struggle of opposites.

All of this can be scientifically investigated.

Materialism implies looking at the world as is, as different forms of matter, not as an "idea" or "consciousness". It implies that there is an objective reality apart from our consciousness, and that the world and its laws are knowable.

All of which can be scientifically investigated ,indeed materialism is required for science to be possible.

"Why should anyone who does not share these beliefs be persuaded by any argument that flows from these beliefs?"

Why should anybody take your non-questions seriously since you don't intend to be serious and you don't know what you're talking about?

Communist beliefs are eminently falsifiable. There is a long tradition of criticism & self-criticism. Just stop talking. You're concocting a giant straw man and congratulating yourself for beating it up. Either investigate what you are criticizing or shut up.

"Then how to explain the legions of armchair radicals in academia and the hordes of jihadist fighters?"

To be a radical doesn't mean you're a communist. And you don't have to be a jihadist fighter to be a Muslim. All you have to do is abide by the 5 pillars. Admittedly, Islam is more of an activist religion than Christianity, Judaism and the eastern religions.