Posted on Dec 17, 2015
Is there any philosophical difference between a Humanist and a Communist?
2.08K
14
43
1
1
0
pretty self explanatory.
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Politics
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 6
3
3
0
The two are completely unrelated. Its like asking if there is any difference between Christians and football fans. Some Christians like football and some football fans are Christians, but one has nothing to dow with the other.
Some Humanists are probably communists, others are socialists, others are capitalists. Even among all of those diverse people, some are liberal, some are conservative, some Humanists are even Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.
Humanists are just people who have a worldview that does not include direct intervention of or involvement of supernatural beings. Not all Humanists are atheists, not all Humanists think that there is no god, though I would wager that most Humanists are at least agnostic, it is not a requirement. The religious person who thinks that we humans make our own lot in life and that their particular good is too big to be involved with anything as trivial as the life of an individual human might be a Humanist.
Even the very religious, whose own faith guides their actions yet who don't take any interest in converting others or in "saving" them may be Humanists. The Dalai Lama is considered by many to be a Humanist, as is Pope Francis.
Mainly being a Humanist means not being an bad person, helping others where one can (converting them to religion is NOT helping them) and understanding that one's personal rights end right where another person's begin. THAT is Humanism.
Communism, on the other hand, is a political system in which all people work to the best of their own ability and all wealth is distributed and controlled by the state for the benefit of all. It works great on paper, but once human nature is mixed in, it all falls apart. Communists, like Christians, Atheists, red heads and football fans, come in all shapes and sizes and has no relation to anything else about a person other than his or her political ideology. Communism isn't even really about being liberal or conservative, just about a belief that private property is a bad thing. If one was to go back to Russia in the 1950s or to America today, you would likely find about an equal number of people who are socially liberal and socially conservative. One has nothing to do with the other.
Some Humanists are probably communists, others are socialists, others are capitalists. Even among all of those diverse people, some are liberal, some are conservative, some Humanists are even Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.
Humanists are just people who have a worldview that does not include direct intervention of or involvement of supernatural beings. Not all Humanists are atheists, not all Humanists think that there is no god, though I would wager that most Humanists are at least agnostic, it is not a requirement. The religious person who thinks that we humans make our own lot in life and that their particular good is too big to be involved with anything as trivial as the life of an individual human might be a Humanist.
Even the very religious, whose own faith guides their actions yet who don't take any interest in converting others or in "saving" them may be Humanists. The Dalai Lama is considered by many to be a Humanist, as is Pope Francis.
Mainly being a Humanist means not being an bad person, helping others where one can (converting them to religion is NOT helping them) and understanding that one's personal rights end right where another person's begin. THAT is Humanism.
Communism, on the other hand, is a political system in which all people work to the best of their own ability and all wealth is distributed and controlled by the state for the benefit of all. It works great on paper, but once human nature is mixed in, it all falls apart. Communists, like Christians, Atheists, red heads and football fans, come in all shapes and sizes and has no relation to anything else about a person other than his or her political ideology. Communism isn't even really about being liberal or conservative, just about a belief that private property is a bad thing. If one was to go back to Russia in the 1950s or to America today, you would likely find about an equal number of people who are socially liberal and socially conservative. One has nothing to do with the other.
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SrA Art Siatkowsky - No, communism is a political philosophy derived from a belief that private wealth is bad. Marx and Lennon were Christians.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SSG John Thornton - Typo. Can't stand autocorrect.
Lenin was at least partially Jewish by ancestry, and whether or not he believed or not is actually quite complicated and up for debate.
Lenin wrote that religion is a private affair, and he also wrote that atheism is not a prerequisite to communist party membership.
I'm certain that Lenin eventually moved to atheism, but he wasn't raised as an atheist. His parents were Russian orthodox and his maternal grandparents were Jewish.
What Lenin wrote about religion mostly relates to its addictive and controlling properties and the dangers organized religion presents to the state. While communism doesn't work in real life (its great on paper), Lenin and Marx was dead-on when it comes to the dangers of organized religion.
Lenin was at least partially Jewish by ancestry, and whether or not he believed or not is actually quite complicated and up for debate.
Lenin wrote that religion is a private affair, and he also wrote that atheism is not a prerequisite to communist party membership.
I'm certain that Lenin eventually moved to atheism, but he wasn't raised as an atheist. His parents were Russian orthodox and his maternal grandparents were Jewish.
What Lenin wrote about religion mostly relates to its addictive and controlling properties and the dangers organized religion presents to the state. While communism doesn't work in real life (its great on paper), Lenin and Marx was dead-on when it comes to the dangers of organized religion.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
In their active years Marx and Lenin were both definitely atheists, but unlike Marx, Lenin was not at all militant about it.
(0)
(0)
SrA Art Siatkowsky
No Lenin pulled the right strings...he was very responsible for the millions killed by Stalin. I think i tried to add this quote before but not sure if it was one of the 3 or 4 times RP crashed on my reply so...
" If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years."
hint hint....nudges Stalins shoulder...
In response to Communism as being an economic political philosophy only....no political philosophy is simply economic in nature. The underlying beliefs of the people who develop the political philosophy are absolutely relevant to the formation of that philosophy. Had Stalin been a believing christian he would have to think long and hard on the genocide he was committing. Instead his atheistic beliefs put no such mental road block in his way and the slaughter ensued. I add his humanistic beliefs of sacrificing others for the good of the Communist party allowed him to justify his actions.
The core philosophy of the poltical system is key to understanding their motives. I beleive our founding fathers actually had sincere intentions when they crafted our constitution because they in essence said," we want the people to be the ones in charge, we want the government to be subordinate to the people ...and to prove this... we will let the people remain armed so they have the means to put a halt to the government if the government becomes tryannical. " Here is our deal...the government will be limited, it will be local, and if it becomes tryannical....you the people can effectively ...not hypothetically....but effectively put an end to it. You the people will have the RESOURCES at hand to end the tryanny if it comes to be. Now look at Communism....we the leaders are the more intelligent of the species....we will tell you the people what is best for the party , aka human race...etc etc ....you will do as we say or you will be killed and used for parts ( china ). We will justify our actions because we do not beleive in a God so we do not fear reprisal after death, we do not beleive in notions like justice,or truth..we will educate the young in the manner we choose that best fits the needs of the party regaurdless if we teach them the truth, our decisions are made for the survival of the party, species, etc,etc so if we say you must die for the species it should be YOUR honor to do so. If you dont beleive the way we believe we will force your sacrifice all the same. Human rights are decided by the 'RATIONAL' leaders of the party, species, those in charge, because they are the brightest of the species. The rights of the individual do not matter ( unless your a high lvl party member ) only the good of the party matters. My question to the leaders of the communist party, the marxists , to the secular humanist is why? Why must the party go on? Why is survivial of the human race so important that we must lose our humanity to save it? If we need to become like an ant colony ...mindlessly dying for the species, mindlessly following the commands of the ' more intelligent' leaders of the ant hill....what is really left of our race if we are simply mindless minions? I prefer an end rather than that type of future. But my preferences aside, there is no reason provided by science or philosophy to support the secular humanist mystical belief that the species must go on. This man made religion ' secular humanism' is just that. Nothing more than people making things up and saying they matter when nothing in natural law or the entire amoral universe supports their claims. The horror of this man made religion is that is prefers to sacrific other who dont buy into into made up beliefs instead of simply saying to each their own. Secular humanist have an agenda, it is being brought to realization by the liberal democratic party in America and it does not have the Peoples best interest at heart. It is most certainly not concerned with the rights of the individual, and they most certainly think they are the rational leaders of the species even though there is nothing rational or scientific about their beliefs.
" If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years."
hint hint....nudges Stalins shoulder...
In response to Communism as being an economic political philosophy only....no political philosophy is simply economic in nature. The underlying beliefs of the people who develop the political philosophy are absolutely relevant to the formation of that philosophy. Had Stalin been a believing christian he would have to think long and hard on the genocide he was committing. Instead his atheistic beliefs put no such mental road block in his way and the slaughter ensued. I add his humanistic beliefs of sacrificing others for the good of the Communist party allowed him to justify his actions.
The core philosophy of the poltical system is key to understanding their motives. I beleive our founding fathers actually had sincere intentions when they crafted our constitution because they in essence said," we want the people to be the ones in charge, we want the government to be subordinate to the people ...and to prove this... we will let the people remain armed so they have the means to put a halt to the government if the government becomes tryannical. " Here is our deal...the government will be limited, it will be local, and if it becomes tryannical....you the people can effectively ...not hypothetically....but effectively put an end to it. You the people will have the RESOURCES at hand to end the tryanny if it comes to be. Now look at Communism....we the leaders are the more intelligent of the species....we will tell you the people what is best for the party , aka human race...etc etc ....you will do as we say or you will be killed and used for parts ( china ). We will justify our actions because we do not beleive in a God so we do not fear reprisal after death, we do not beleive in notions like justice,or truth..we will educate the young in the manner we choose that best fits the needs of the party regaurdless if we teach them the truth, our decisions are made for the survival of the party, species, etc,etc so if we say you must die for the species it should be YOUR honor to do so. If you dont beleive the way we believe we will force your sacrifice all the same. Human rights are decided by the 'RATIONAL' leaders of the party, species, those in charge, because they are the brightest of the species. The rights of the individual do not matter ( unless your a high lvl party member ) only the good of the party matters. My question to the leaders of the communist party, the marxists , to the secular humanist is why? Why must the party go on? Why is survivial of the human race so important that we must lose our humanity to save it? If we need to become like an ant colony ...mindlessly dying for the species, mindlessly following the commands of the ' more intelligent' leaders of the ant hill....what is really left of our race if we are simply mindless minions? I prefer an end rather than that type of future. But my preferences aside, there is no reason provided by science or philosophy to support the secular humanist mystical belief that the species must go on. This man made religion ' secular humanism' is just that. Nothing more than people making things up and saying they matter when nothing in natural law or the entire amoral universe supports their claims. The horror of this man made religion is that is prefers to sacrific other who dont buy into into made up beliefs instead of simply saying to each their own. Secular humanist have an agenda, it is being brought to realization by the liberal democratic party in America and it does not have the Peoples best interest at heart. It is most certainly not concerned with the rights of the individual, and they most certainly think they are the rational leaders of the species even though there is nothing rational or scientific about their beliefs.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Yes. One is a personal ideology and the other a political ideology. Communists like to think of themselves as humanists but, in practice, they are merely tyrants. The most common failing among humanists is that they are typically humorless snobs
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SrA Art Siatkowsky - You obviously have no clue what a humanist is. Humanists are just people who don't have a supernatural worldview. Among them, just as among religious folks, are good people, bad people, and every other kind of people.
As for atheists not able to handle the nothingness of atheism, again you don't understand what an atheist is. An atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in a deity. Just as with the humanist above (many, but not all of whom are atheists), there are good people, bad people, and every other kind of people.
I don't remember the source, but a great quote went to the effect of////,
"Good people will do good with or without religion.
Evil people will do evil with or without religion.
For good people to do evil, however, that requires religion."
As for atheists not able to handle the nothingness of atheism, again you don't understand what an atheist is. An atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in a deity. Just as with the humanist above (many, but not all of whom are atheists), there are good people, bad people, and every other kind of people.
I don't remember the source, but a great quote went to the effect of////,
"Good people will do good with or without religion.
Evil people will do evil with or without religion.
For good people to do evil, however, that requires religion."
(0)
(0)
SrA Art Siatkowsky
Ill reply in the main to the description of a humanist. RP is really not working very well even on a PC. typed a 2 page reply and it simply froze up....
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
LTC (Join to see)
Again, Naziism is straight from Martin Luther, a Protestant Christian if I recall.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) - Straight?
like I stated, what did Hitler did to Christianity after he in charged?? Maybe this part of the WW2 history had not mention enough, while everyone blame Christian for Nazism, and relate it as far right conservative. In fact it is not, Hitler just use Christian as a stepping stone, and come back to destroy it to make sure they will not cause any trouble.
like I stated, what did Hitler did to Christianity after he in charged?? Maybe this part of the WW2 history had not mention enough, while everyone blame Christian for Nazism, and relate it as far right conservative. In fact it is not, Hitler just use Christian as a stepping stone, and come back to destroy it to make sure they will not cause any trouble.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I don't blame Christianity for the holicaust. I blame a few evil men and a national fear that caused good people to stay silent.
Hitler was no atheist or Humanist though, he believed in the bible.
The fact that he believed in the bible had no relation in what he did, THAT was because he was an evil man, period.
Hitler was no atheist or Humanist though, he believed in the bible.
The fact that he believed in the bible had no relation in what he did, THAT was because he was an evil man, period.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google