@Putin33 It's a discussion, you pompous ass. I asked a question and I'd have to say the answer is "no, communism is not a religion." But I'm not persuaded that it isn't faith based. It's philosophical underpinnings might be as shaky as any other non-testable assertions, so why should anyone act on them? *Especially* in an "emergent properties" environment where outcomes are unpredictable?

I referenced Food not Bombs because it is an organisation that many communists belong to, as an example to show that trying to change things doesn't have to be done through the party structure.

"It's a discussion, you pompous ass

No it's not. It's a crap polemic based on utter bullshit and mangled definitions by you. You refuse to read about the topic and analyze this honestly and you're doing cartwheels in order to defend the original stupid premise of your stupid disingenuous "questions".

All the philosophical underpinnings are amply scientifically tested, which is why Marxist methodology is still widely used in the social sciences. That you refuse to even acknowledge any data that doesn't confirm your biases is demonstrative proof that your claims to being interested in "science" and testing are a fraud.

"Billions of Muslims are not jihadists and anyway, I already said that Islam is exceptional when it comes to activity. Which is why many of its critics say it is not a religion, but a political movement."

You said the difference between religion and communism is that religions are "content with being windbags who do nothing but talk about their beliefs." Jihadists are unquestionably a religious group, even if they are a minority in Islam, so that's just plain wrong. Also, there are examples of in other religions who do more than just talk. You often ring the tocsin about the Religious Right here in America. Surely that's activism where the people involved do more than just talk about their beliefs. The settlers in the West Bank, especially those outside the main blocs, are largely there for religious reasons. Surely building villages on hilltops while fighting off Palestinian attacks is more than just being a windbag? And what about the Falun Gong? You're really just flat-out wrong here.

"As for the No True Scotsman issue, I don't accept that. Practice is fundamental to being a communist. Handing out pamphlets is at least political activity, it at least involves participating in a structured organization with a line, change of command, and discipline. If you're content with the current ruling class, and do nothing about trying to change it, then you can't call yourself a communist. And you can't point me to a single theoretical document anywhere by any leading light of the communist movement that says it's acceptable to do nothing."

Well, by the sound of that "activism" is so broad as to be meaningless. So the guy who votes CPUSA every election but keeps to himself isn't a communist, but the guy who hands out pamphlets on the corner for the irrelevant United Workers' Socialist Revolutionary Provisional Committee of North America (Marxist-Leninist) is?

If communists are involved then I doubt that Food Not Bombs is the only organization they belong to.

"A description of how shit happens" is still just "shit happens" written as a kind of poem. It doesn't have any predictive power.

“All the philosophical underpinnings are amply scientifically tested, which is why Marxist methodology is still widely used in the social sciences.”

Ah, now I have a research topic. "amply scientifically tested"... I smell bullshit!

Bye!

Widely used in the social sciences, which aren't really science, and irrelevant in the hard sciences, which are really science. Suspicious...

"Well, by the sound of that "activism" is so broad as to be meaningless."

No, it's not meaningless. People who are trying to build a movement are activists, even if the movement is yet small. People who do nothing to challenge the current order are not. The definition of activist isn't difficult.

"Jihadists are unquestionably a religious group, even if they are a minority in Islam, so that's just plain wrong."

You keep repeating the same point over and over again. Religion inspires political action, but political activity is not intrinsic to membership in a religious organization, which is why the overwhelming majority of members are not members of religious-based political organizations trying to change the social order.

That point should be obvious.

"t doesn't have any predictive power."

Yes it does. There have been lots of struggles within, for example, evolutionists between the punctuated equilibrium crowd (who tend to be Marxists) and their opponents. That hypothesis is very testable.

Bye!

"Religion inspires political action, but political activity is not intrinsic to membership in a religious organization, which is why the overwhelming majority of members are not members of religious-based political organizations trying to change the social order."

But such organizations do exist. Jihadists can be seen as a denomination of Islam. Membership in that denomination REQUIRES political action. To be a kooky settler in the West Bank REQUIRES political action in building and maintaining the little compounds they build. You're just excising the groups which don't fit your neat little definition of the differences between communism and religion. Again, I'm not saying communism is a religion, just that your particular argument is nonsense.

"People who are trying to build a movement are activists, even if the movement is yet small. People who do nothing to challenge the current order are not. The definition of activist isn't difficult."

You're still saying the guy voting CPUSA and believing in communism root and branch but who lives an apolitical life is not a communist. Maybe he's a bad communist, but he's still a communist.

It's a good thing you people are obsessed with hair-splitting like this. Otherwise you might be politically relevant.

"You're just excising the groups which don't fit your neat little definition of the differences between communism and religion."

You're just making up definitions for the sake of an argument that don't make any sense. Jihad is a denomination of Islam? Go consult the Imams about that one.

"Again, I'm not saying communism is a religion, just that your particular argument is nonsense"

Your argument is to take behavior and equate behavior with sect, when you know damn well that sects do not proscribe political behavior. But you can't admit that because you're too far gone down this inane path.

"Maybe he's a bad communist, but he's still a communist."

Communism is not sola fide Protestantism. You cannot be an 'apolitical' communist. Activity is intrinsic and cannot be separated.

"Otherwise you might be politically relevant."

Really you want me to include do-nothings as communists and you want to claim I'm irrelevant? How are you relevant again? Backing Chris Christie as the Republican savior seems to be working out for you, like all your other predictions.

"You're just making up definitions for the sake of an argument that don't make any sense. Jihad is a denomination of Islam? Go consult the Imams about that one."

Jihadists, not jihad itself. Salafists like we see in Syria and have seen in Iraq are absolutely a denomination of Islam, backed by all the legalistic mambo-jumbo you could ask for.


"Your argument is to take behavior and equate behavior with sect, when you know damn well that sects do not proscribe political behavior. But you can't admit that because you're too far gone down this inane path"

What? Salafists say you need to engage in war against the enemies of God. Settler rabbis say you need to build on the land God rightfully gave the Jews. Religious Right pastors say you need to hassle Congressmen about abortion, etc. This behavior is intrinsic to the beliefs of the group, not just something members are allowed to tack on. Again, you're just excising things that don't fit in your little definition.

"Communism is not sola fide Protestantism. You cannot be an 'apolitical' communist. Activity is intrinsic and cannot be separated."

So a guy who votes CPUSA and believes in communism entirely but is not involved with any political action is not a communist? Yes or no.

Well?

"Jihadists, not jihad itself."

Jihadism isn't a denomination of Islam by anyone's definition. This argument of yours is absurd and you can't even pretend it's not. This isn't about me excising things out of definitions, this is about you manufacturing definitions out of nothing.

"Salafists like we see in Syria and have seen in Iraq are absolutely a denomination of Islam"

Salafism is not a denomination of Islam. Salafism is a diverse category encompassing multiple schools of thought within Islam. Some support violent political action, many do not. As usual you are mischaracterizing other people's views.

Settler rabbis are not a sect. The politically active religious right in America are not a sect. Jihadism is not a sect. The behavior is not intrinsic to any belief systems which they subscribe, although they choose to be active.

"So a guy who votes CPUSA and believes in communism entirely but is not involved with any political action is not a communist?"

If you believe in communism entirely then you're involved with political action, that's the point. Being a communist requires 3 things: paying dues, accepting a program and its rules, and active participation. A voter might be #1 and #2, but not #3.

"Well?"

Holy christ do you and Krellin think you're the center of my universe? Sometimes I have other stuff to do.

If you won't even acknowledge Salafism as a denomination of Islam then you're so far removed from reality that this is even more of a waste of time that I thought. "Sect" is just anything you say it is if Salafism isn't a sect.

As for the communist question, it looks like my initial No True Scotsman inkling was right.

Reality? I'm not an expert on Salafism, but I expect they know what they're talking about when they themselves define it, and they *do not* define it as a denomination, but rather as a methodology.

But I suppose you know better than they on what they believe.

And really somebody calling jihadism a denomination has no standing whatsoever to be lecturing people about defining sect anyway they please.