listeners of progressive rock are evil !

progchain wrote: Guys, this man is completely "gone..." Howewer, it's real, I spent 90% of my budget for prog discs!!!!! - yeah, I'm a liberal in Bertrand Russell's way but I think that Marx when he said that "Religion is opium for the Masses" said the truth; the results are these and Osama and witchburning and more and more and more... - Also if you listen to groups like Dr.Z, Comus, Coven, Jacula, Antonius Rex satanic reflections are more or less clear anyway...remember that Indian Summer's first song is "God is the Dog"... but I think they were not Satanists.. - Anybody knows black metal? Maybe this guy confused the genres or maybe in Marion those discs are not for sale... Re-Exhuming McCarthy?  "Space is the place"

I think that Marx said "Religion is opium for the Masses" because, in his thinking line, he considered religions like a sort of "brain washing": people wouldn't fight against the opression accepting any unfairness because, after all, everybody will live in paradise. 

Marcelo wrote: progchain wrote: - yeah, I'm a liberal in Bertrand Russell's way but I think that Marx when he said that "Religion is opium for the Masses" said the truth; the results are these and Osama and witchburning and more and more and more... I think that Marx said "Religion is opium for the Masses" because, in his thinking line, he considered religions like a sort of "brain washing": people wouldn't fight against the opression accepting any unfairness because, after all, everybody will live in paradise.

It's even more complex than that- in his view, religion wasn't simply brain washing but also a personal choice for escapism (just like taking a drug...or watching TV, or listening to progressive rock ). He definitely believed that religion was encouraged by those in power, as it justified the status quo and removed the desire to improve one's station in this world. Like Nietsche, he regarded the abandonment of religion as a necessary step to liberate oneself from servitude, but Marx also believed that religion was an expression and symbol of suffering- the common man empathizing with the suffering of Jesus, for example. This aspect of his views on religion actually coincide with the beliefs of some religiously oriented agents for social change (the Berrigan brothers, for example). In many ways, Marxism shares many of the populist tendencies of Christianity- or Democracy, for that matter. Ultimately, however, Marx was against the social hierarchy that the prominent religious organizations established and supported.

Ironically, Marxist beliefs have been thoroughly and insidiously adapted into our current belief system, and have now become as fundamentally escapist as he believed religion to be. This is apparent in academic critique and more commonly in 'political correctness'- social hierarchy relative to cultural elements, viewed from an oppressor/ oppressed dynamic. Once an inspiration for revolutionary change, now Marxist thought is most often used to criticize and denigrate anything that seems to hold a position of cultural ascendancy (masculinity, western history and artistic traditions, being caucasian, etc.) and therefore provide an illusory empowerment to those who feel like victims.

maani wrote: James et al: According to Marx and Engels, the two basic economic principles of "true socialism" (i.e., communism) were "common property" and "from each according to his ability to produce; to each according to his need."  In this regard, consider the following passage: "Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common...Nor was there anyone who lacked, for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet, and they distributed to each as anyone had need." [Acts 4:32-35] Thus, Marx and Engels actually stole the idea of communism from the early Christians!  And then they have the unmitigated gall to turn around and call Christianity (because that was, after all, the prevailing religion in Russia) "the opium of the masses?" Methinks there is some hypocrisy afoot here... Peace.

Interesting. I have always considered communism to be fundamentally flawed as it makes no allowance for man's desire to compete. One-up-manship is the driving force behind progress, and the supression of internal competiveness was the undoing of the Soviet dream. Marxism as an idealism looks great on paper, but, rather like the Bible, has often been used to futher the goals of people with less than idealistic motives.

Opium is a naturally occuring plant derivative, the use of which has been invaluable throughout the centuries as a means of relief from pain and suffering, and without which modern medicine would be in a sorry state.

Opium was used (by the Brits) to subjugate the Chinese in the 19th century, and in its purified form (heroine) was, untill the advent of "crack",  the preferred "drug of control" of pimps worldwide.

Religion, (yes, even christianity) has  been used throughout history to subjugate nations, or to supress free thought through dogmatic adherence to particular credos.

In this respect Marx was absolutely correct. An invaluably good thing will always be (mis)used by unscrupulous minds to futher their own selfish ends. Where Marx slipped up however, (and this is a trait of an idealist) is he failed to see that his own, well meant credo was every bit as open to misinterpretation as those he so criticised.

The word "Communism" in most parts of the world is simply the name of a particular political point of view, and many democratic countries have communist politicial candidates who are no more feared or mistrusted than their capitalist counterparts. In America, where it was so demonised during the MaCathy reign of terror, that people were scared to express any left wing sympathy for fear of being branded criminally "UnAmerican", (whatever that means?) one gets the impression to this day that communism is seen not so much a  political movement as a satanic death cult. Even you, Maani, who have often spoken up on the subject of tollerance and respect for opposing points of view within this forum, seem to find it acceptable to use words such as "hypocrisy" when it's communism you're critisising. The same word directed at the Bush administration would, I'm sure, cause a huge row in which members would storm off vowing never to return. Think on...

(EDIT: James, sorry mate, I didn't read your previous post and have somewhat reworded some of the views you expressed, but when you're right......)

Emdiar:

Thank you for your response.  I certainly agree with your linking of opium and "religion" vis-a-vis their ability to be used to subjugate masses.  I would only add that they do not necessarily do so per se: it takes a "corrupt" leader or leaders to consciously use it in such a way.

Re my use of the term hypocrisy, I was only calling it hypocritical for Marx/Engels to denigrate an entire belief system (Christianity), yet, with the other hand, claim one of the central tenets of that belief system as their own.  Were Christians (as a whole) actually able and willing to truly follow the "essence" of Jesus' ministry - i.e., to actually live the passage I cited - Marx and Engels would have been out of a job...or at very least been forced to recognize that some (if not many) of the principles of Jesus' ministry and that of the apostles and disciples - what is often called "true" or "primitive" Christianity - were not only in keeping with their own, but that "true Christianity" (as practiced by the early Christians spoken of in that passage) was, in fact, a model of "true communism."

Peace.

I always though that Jesus was the first true communist, trying to teach about love, peace, equality, justice, etc... Sadly, modern human history only shows two real examples of true communist life system (if I'm not wrong): The Israelian "kibbutz" and some communities in Spain before the Franco's tirany. Marxism attemps in the former Soviet Union failed because there was a political party that understood communism as another way to get all the power, forgetting idealism and freedom, the basic human right.

BTW, in our capitalist societies -where ambition and greed are accepted as competition ways and politicians fill their mouthes with the word "freedom"- communism (just a political position, after all) is still demonized. I. e., each time I travel to USA I must complete a visa form that includes some questions like "are you a weapons dealer, are you a drugs dealer, did you participate in an US citizen kidnapping, etc" and... "do you belong to a communist party?" (!!!).

I'm not religious, but I'm sure that there's no any religion principle talking about some kind of thoughs discrimination. So, which is the message from our "Western and Christian world"? 

JrKASperov wrote: emdiar wrote: JrKASperov;" I did not 'learn' my exceptional standings on morals during my life, I always had 'em".   So morals are genetically inherited eh? If this were true it would save us parents a whole bunch of hard work! Why, explain to me then how I remember watching all kinds of kids in kindergarten getting bullied and me having a bad feeling about all that?

Maybe because, at that age, you had already learned how it felt to be bullied yourself, so you felt sorry for them?

People who (with good reason) believe political debate has no place in this forum are cordially invited to ignore this post. (Let's face it, you should have done so about 3 pages ago.)

James; I can tell you are a truely free thinker, like all of my many American friends who have had the benefit of perspective, ( expats', the onlooker sees most of the game after all) and are horrified at the tide of antiAmerican sentiment that is engulfing the rest of the world.

There are definite parallels to be drawn between McCathy and Bush. Just as with McCathy, Bush has used the propaganda machine to spread a dangerous myth, which goes something like this: "If you're anti-me, then you're unAmerican." Quote: "If you're not with us you're against us!". I'll decide who I'm with or against thank you very much, and I won't base my decision on some misguided sense of flag waving patriotic zeal.

Although I am one of those who has claimed  that communism is unworkable due to the inherent greed of man, I would like to point out that I did include the proviso "when exposed to the allure of capitalism". Capitalist powers have made good and sure that such exposure is universal, whilst deliberatly scuppering communist states. The USSR did have one very important function, which was this: It created a balance of power in the world. Uncle Sam had to watch his Ps and Qs during the cold war. That counterbalance has been taken away and America has (at least in the eyes of the rest of the World) become just a little too big for its boots as a consequence.

Oh yeah, one Moore thing (get it ?),...... IMHO!

Love to all on both sides of the Atlantic,

M.D.R.

Maani,

I echo your comments on the civilised nature of the debate in this thread.

What I would say though is that while I appreciate that this thread began as discussion about whether "listeners of progressive rock are evil", it soon digressed into a theological and political discussion, far removed from music. I have no problem with such discussion, but would prefer that it be confined to the "Not related to music" section. The "Main discussions" section should be about the core subject of the forum, i.e progressive rock.

I mean no disrespect to those who have carried out the discussion here, and I have no wish to attempt to stifle debate, but everything in its place...?