• BustinJiber@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    So the asshole who posted this claims after we die and go to heaven it’s going to be the same shit that we have right now?!

    • fkn@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s more classless as in you don’t have to pick fighter or wizard… You can just put your points in whatever skills you want and build novel characters. 🤷

  • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Classless?!?! Haha, someone look up the heaven flow chart (yes really) for Mormons. 3 levels of heaven and outer darkness (hell). For those that make it to the top, congrats on being a god! You and your many wives will enjoy eternity as you crush the hopes and dreams of your own creation.

  • xia@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Many believe the early church was marxist (“had all things in common”, etc).

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or they just read what is said about Jesus in the bible? Marx didn’t invent the concept of helping the poor by sharing.

    • Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, yeah probably. Jesus was pretty clearly a socialist, though I’m not studied enough in socialism or the bible to say which version of socialist he was.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Including their women. There are little hints. Paul seems worked up about permissive sex going around, the earliest Gospel has Jesus spend a surprisingly high amount of time, for a rabbi, alone with women. James and Cephus would need a motivation to keep the failing Jerusalem church going, Mary Magedlian seems to have made enemies where she is accused of being permissive (every conservative accusation is a confession), records of lots of children of James, and a cryptic stuff about how there would be no gender in the future and no gender before Jesus. The last line was uttered by a person who told people to unquestionably follow James.

      History of early Christianity makes so much sense if you just treat it like any other cult. Sex, money, power. James and Cephus didn’t have money or power so what else could it be?

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    But it’s okay because they made everyone else’s life a living hell. They deserve it.

    /s

  • fossphi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, I get it. But what exactly is being produced in heaven such that the workers own the means of its production?

  • 52fighters@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    St. Thomas Aquinas taught that in the natural law all property was part of the commons and that only human law changed this.

    I think the major Christian objection to communism is the materialist dialectic.

  • Halvdan@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Communism isn’t realistic, you see. Only our realistic and nonfictional god can make something like that and only if you’re dead first. Now, get back to work!

  • Sibbo@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Arguably, in heaven all resources are ready and abundant, while on earth everything takes time and effort.

    So yeah, if you can just pick a freshly baked pizza from the next tree anytime, why would you need any incentive to work on anything?

    On the other hand, on earth, pizzas take time and resources to make. Hence if one person makes pizza, that person may not want to give it to people who simply choose to do nothing all day.

    Concluding, this comparison does not really work.

      • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is significantly easier to establish communism in a small community, where you can see the people daily that you consider part of your tribe, than a national communism where the work you put in benefits someone on the far side of the country that you’ve never met, and may consider them as part of your “tribe” on an intellectual level, but not much beyond that.

        • Choomtozen@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          You already put in work that benefits someone that you’ve never met, in this case it’s a billionaire. I’d rather pay for someone’s lunch than another yacht ykwim

          • Draghetta@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure but you’d also rather benefit a nobody in exchange for money than you would in exchange of “trust me bro”. As you say, you’re working to benefit somebody else in both ways, but only one gives you immediate positive feedback. In enormous societies such as modern countries are you need a strong stimulus to work, money provides that but benefits don’t - you would see much more people happy to pay taxes otherwise.

            Not that I wouldn’t love living in a Star Trek federation like communist society, but we ain’t there yet

          • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I believe you would. But it wouldn’t happen, you’d be still paying for the rich. Instead of lying about trickle down economy they’d sell you lies about everyone being equal.

            We had the Soviet version of “communism” when those fuckers occupied us. Never again.

        • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, that’s why we need a transition period of Socialism.

          That period has to be generations long however and on a multinational scale to set the stage for eliminating money and the state so we’ll probably never see Communism on a national scale in our lifetime. Socialism’s good enough though tbh

      • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Communism only in the sense that the need for mobility/a nomadic lifestyle means that private property exists only insofar as you can carry it with you. It doesn’t work in settled agricultural societies because once a person becomes attached to a specific piece of land as is necessary in agriculture, other types of private property become possible and personal incentives begin to diverge such that the only way to achieve or maintain communism ends up being through coercion.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      The communism can be build, but so far the attempts required dictatorship type of government to keep the people in line. In future, it might happen though automatically, when our relationship to AI is akin our pet relationship to us now. Pets live under communism.

      • Draghetta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pets do what now?

        Pets live lives of luxury that they would never be able to afford were it not for somebody else’s toil. They don’t go hungry and they want for nothing, even medical expenses are provided by the people who serve them. Humans do all the work and pets reap all the benefits. They make us feel guilty if we stop providing for them and this is just how things are and have always been.

        Pets are the ultimate capitalists.

  • Tedesche@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree: it’s stupid of them to criticize communism, because communism is precisely as authoritarian a regime as their religious utopia.

    • Killercat103@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Every Communist that isn’t authoritarian would like to disagree with you. Anarchists are not Marxist-Lenninists for example

      • Tedesche@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t really matter—it’s inherent to the system. It’s built on a violent overthrow of the current system, followed by a single-party “transitional” government that never actually transitions and violently suppressed all opposition. Every communist movement that has ever taken over a nation state has devolved into an authoritarian dictatorship. Communists-lite like to call that a big, but it’s pretty clear to me and most other people that it’s a feature.

        • Sanyanov@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          How about Chile, for example? They had a left-wing front consisting of socialists and communists that came to power without any violence through a purely democratic process, was fairly popular with electorate, and then got forcefully overthrown by CIA-backed military junta in 1973 (cause surprise-surprise: a socialist/communist state in South America was not in US’s interests, and it was a cold war era).

          There is nothing inherent about transitional government or even violent overthrow of a current system, communism in its purest form is only about creating the economy that distributes wealth according to people’s needs. It doesn’t automatically describe the means to get there, and what was conducted in 20th century was an attempt to implement one of the ways mapped by 19th-20th century thinkers.

          Some communists will say the general direction was right, but the implementation wrong; some others will say the approach itself was wrong and we need to start building communist society in an entirely different way. Both will be communists.

  • Dra@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah yes, tankies who are so permanently online, they have never been able to ask for sauce in their entire lives - please tell me how to run the world