Why socialism, communism, Marxism, and the progressive left ideologues are based on faith that defies science, history, and logic.

[RealityChecker]

It seems that it is very hard to differentiate between reality and fantasy for many who identify themselves as being on the progressive left. Progressive left zealots appear to have the same brainwashed mindset as the deluded followers of religious cults, healing cults, quacks, and put their trust or faith in con artists like Bernie Madoff. They not hard to expose as zealots because they know they cannot explain why they believe what their dubious ideas. Those who dare question their vision of some utopian reality are quickly seen as the enemy. They seek to silence (or worse) anyone who dares question any of their dubious ideas and reject any and all evidence that conflict with their "vision" of reality.

 

[Antiwar]

Explain why you think any of those are based on faith that defies science, history, and logic.

 

[Decypher]

How disappointing. A promising title but a really poor OP.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

It seems that it is very hard to differentiate between reality and fantasy for many who identify themselves as being on the progressive left.

Let's see now: election results denial, climate change denial, women's rights to their bodies denial, lapping at the heels of Trump, demanding audits, STORMING THE CAPITOL, believing the Dems are running a pedophile ring, that Jewish bankers (aka the Globalists) are running the world, moaning and groaning about censorship from privately owned social media outlets, replacement theory, Qanon, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Incels (all Rightwing groups btw) are all NOT fantasies? Right?

But thanks for the laughs, best satire I have read all week.

 

[OrphanSlug]

It seems that it is very hard to differentiate between reality and fantasy for many who identify themselves as being on the progressive left. Progressive left zealots appear to have the same brainwashed mindset as the deluded followers of religious cults, healing cults, quacks, and put their trust or faith in con artists like Bernie Madoff. They not hard to expose as zealots because they know they cannot explain why they believe what their dubious ideas. Those who dare question their vision of some utopian reality are quickly seen as the enemy. They seek to silence (or worse) anyone who dares question any of their dubious ideas and reject any and all evidence that conflict with their "vision" of reality.

Too argumentative, too many falsehoods, and really just an intention to make matters worse between progressives and moderate liberals.

Truth be told extreme political views tend to move the needle, to both good and bad results depending on any number of factors.

The idea of social safety nets so people did not starve to death was a radical idea at one time, the idea of paying people so they could survived if something happened to their spouse was a radical idea at one time, the idea of women voting or even working was a radical idea at one time, the idea of minorities being treated the same as white people was a radical idea at one time, the idea of *not* targeting civilians during the course of war was a radical idea at one time, the list goes on.

Our issue is when the line is blurred between historically proven outcomes against political vanity.

At no time in history has a strong government over the individual with less rights ended well for the individual, however plenty of nations have adopted a blend of mixed model economics with mixed model governmental ideologies and elevated more people to a reasonable life with less risk of financial and social disaster.

The real "cults" in this nation are the political extremism wings of our duopoly of a political system. Not just because of sinister intentions to marginalize the opposition, but because they are clear stated goals including dealing with "moderates" and "centrists" that to not abide by the authority they want.

The line becomes what is the social and economic benefit against the intention to target and harm the opposition, and these days in this nation that is a messy line to put it mildly.

 

[Mach]

It seems that it is very hard to differentiate between reality and fantasy for many who identify themselves as being on the progressive left. Progressive left zealots appear to have the same brainwashed mindset as the deluded followers of religious cults, healing cults, quacks, and put their trust or faith in con artists like Bernie Madoff. They not hard to expose as zealots because they know they cannot explain why they believe what their dubious ideas. Those who dare question their vision of some utopian reality are quickly seen as the enemy. They seek to silence (or worse) anyone who dares question any of their dubious ideas and reject any and all evidence that conflict with their "vision" of reality.

I agree, weak OP. It's just al litany of insults to the progressive left. The Bernie Madoff mention looks nuts.

Progressives basically want a number of things that many western-styled countries already have, and do quite well with. The idea that they have to be zealots for this, or that it somehow isn't based in reality, is absurd.
Tax the wealthy..that's what really scares the Republican elite isn't it. Regulations on companies like facebook. Green energy. Scary to those in power. Progressives in the U.S. aren't quite so far left in the rest of the developed world.
Better retirement and healthcare, better education benefits. Infrastructure, reducing pollution, green energy grid, climate change goals, etc. Nothing that's really crazy in given the reality of nations around the world that show a lot of it being done already in some form or another.

 

[KingLeo]

You need to take the word Reality out of your name since you obvious live in some kind of strange far right fantasy land.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I've said for years that the far-right will now politicize anything. They have put their politics ahead of their religion, their families, their jobs, and as covid is proving, even their lives.

But Bernie Madoff??? Lol... Lol... Politicize Madoff?? Lol..

 

[RealityChecker]

Too argumentative, too many falsehoods, and really just an intention to make matters worse between progressives and moderate liberals.

Well debates really are argumentative. If people share the same view or perspective what is there to debate?

Truth be told extreme political views tend to move the needle, to both good and bad results depending on any number of factors.

No debate there.

The idea of social safety nets so people did not starve to death was a radical idea at one time,

Charities made sure most Americans did not starve before we had food stamps. Today most people use food stamps to "buy" fattening foods and drinks and most are overweight or obese, and developing illnesses that could have been prevented by a healthier diet and lifestyle. Most Americans starving to death today have anorexia nervosa. By contrast, under Mao's Marxist socialism or Soviet socialism millions of people starved. Hell in Venezuela today we have people starving due to socialism. Progressive left ideology is not liberalism.

the idea of paying people so they could survived if something happened to their spouse was a radical idea at one time,

People bought term life insurance in case something happened to their spouse. Welfare for women with children resulted in far fewer marriages and made society worse in many ways.

the idea of women voting or even working was a radical idea at one time,

No debate there. To me the radical idea was that women should not be allowed to vote.

the idea of minorities being treated the same as white people was a radical idea at one time,

No debate that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the right thing to do. However, for decades we have seen the government promoting race and gender discrimination against white men and increasingly Asian-American men. The progressive left sees affirmative action policies that promote such discrimination as "social justice". How does that jibe with your claim that minorities should be treated the same as white people?

the idea of *not* targeting civilians during the course of war was a radical idea at one time, the list goes on.

Yet we just witnessed the US military murder I believe 13 civilians of whom I believe 8 were children. The US attack was based on misinformation from the Taliban. Was that okay?

At no time in history has a strong government over the individual with less rights ended well for the individual,

Agreed.

however plenty of nations have adopted a blend of mixed model economics with mixed model governmental ideologies and elevated more people to a reasonable life with less risk of financial and social disaster.

Agreed, but in many cases government programs while perhaps based on good intentions have had very detrimental effects on the lives of Americans.

The real "cults" in this nation are the political extremism wings of our duopoly of a political system. Not just because of sinister intentions to marginalize the opposition, but because they are clear stated goals including dealing with "moderates" and "centrists" that to not abide by the authority they want.

I think I largely agree but could you provide more details as I am still a bit uncertain of your point.

The line becomes what is the social and economic benefit against the intention to target and harm the opposition, and these days in this nation that is a messy line to put it mildly.

Agreed. The more authority we grant to the Federal government and take from the states and individuals the messier things become. I am more interested in results of government actions than their intent. As they say: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[RealityChecker]

But Bernie Madoff??? Lol... Lol... Politicize Madoff?? Lol..

I am not politicizing Madoff, religious cults, faith healers, or quackery. The point was that people put their faith in these "prophets" hoping to profit, heal, or be "saved". All mistook dubious claims for reality and all paid a price. One might argue those that believed Marx, Hitler, Mao, the Kims, Chavez, and other collectivist authoritarians all ended up paying a heavy price by voting for and/or putting their faith in these political ideologues.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I am not politicizing Madoff, religious cults, faith healers, or quackery. The point was that people put their faith in these "prophets" hoping to profit, heal, or be "saved". All mistook dubious claims for reality and all paid a price. One might argue those that believed Marx, Hitler, Mao, the Kims, Chavez, and other collectivist authoritarians all ended up paying a heavy price by voting for and/or putting their faith in these political ideologues.

Who the hell put their 'faith' in Madoff?? You're confusing faith with greed.

No one looked at Madoff as a prophet. They looked at him as someone who could give them plus 15% on their investments..

 

[Grandpappy]

It really fascinating. These people will defend their "religion" even when staring right at the evidence of it's failure. All other non believers are heretics. It's a cult, really.

 

[bongsaway]

It seems that it is very hard to differentiate between reality and fantasy for many who identify themselves as being on the progressive left. Progressive left zealots appear to have the same brainwashed mindset as the deluded followers of religious cults, healing cults, quacks, and put their trust or faith in con artists like Bernie Madoff. They not hard to expose as zealots because they know they cannot explain why they believe what their dubious ideas. Those who dare question their vision of some utopian reality are quickly seen as the enemy. They seek to silence (or worse) anyone who dares question any of their dubious ideas and reject any and all evidence that conflict with their "vision" of reality.

You mean like religion and faith?

 

[RealityChecker]

Who the hell put their 'faith' in Madoff?? You're confusing faith with greed.

Actually, I know two people who "invested" with Bernie Madoff. In my experience people who get taken in by Ponzi schemes are not all that different from people who put their faith or trust in the advice of quacks, faith healers, and religious cults. Many people who "invested" their life savings with Madoff or other investment gurus paid a heavy price for putting their faith in dubious claims.

No one looked at Madoff as a prophet. They looked at him as someone who could give them plus 15% on their investments..

In the end they got taken in by the incredible claims made by Madoff as he made off with their money. L. Ron Hubbard, like Madoff, was a con artists hoping to profit from getting gullible folks to trust them. My point is that if you put your faith or trust in a con artists who may either be a sociopath or perhaps a delusional zealot himself, you may end up paying a heavy price. I am a bit of a skeptic by nature. Put me in the verify before you trust or put your faith in some dubious claims. It matters not whether those dubious claims are political, religious, financial, or about some questionable claims about treating or preventing disease. You think the people who voted for Hugo Chavez got what he promised? Did the followers of Jim Jones or Charles Manson end up better off? How about the folks who went to an alternative cancer treatment by some "persecuted healers" who set up shop just south of the border to escape justice, did they get conned or healed? Did Bernie Madoff's "investors" get conned or wealthy in the long run?

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Actually, I know two people who "invested" with Bernie Madoff. In my experience people who get taken in by Ponzi schemes are not all that different from people who put their faith or trust in the advice of quacks, faith healers, and religious cults. Many people who "invested" their life savings with Madoff or other investment gurus paid a heavy price for putting their faith in dubious claims.

In the end they got taken in by the incredible claims made by Madoff as he made off with their money. L. Ron Hubbard, like Madoff, was a con artists hoping to profit from getting gullible folks to trust them. My point is that if you put your faith or trust in a con artists who may either be a sociopath or perhaps a delusional zealot himself, you may end up paying a heavy price. I am a bit of a skeptic by nature. Put me in the verify before you trust or put your faith in some dubious claims. It matters not whether those dubious claims are political, religious, financial, or about some questionable claims about treating or preventing disease. You think the people who voted for Hugo Chavez got what he promised? Did the followers of Jim Jones or Charles Manson end up better off? How about the folks who went to an alternative cancer treatment by some "persecuted healers" who set up shop just south of the border to escape justice, did they get conned or healed? Did Bernie Madoff's "investors" get conned or wealthy in the long run?

Again, you're confusing greed with faith..

Have a great day..

 

[mrjurrs]

It seems that it is very hard to differentiate between reality and fantasy for many who identify themselves as being on the progressive left. Progressive left zealots appear to have the same brainwashed mindset as the deluded followers of religious cults, healing cults, quacks, and put their trust or faith in con artists like Bernie Madoff. They not hard to expose as zealots because they know they cannot explain why they believe what their dubious ideas. Those who dare question their vision of some utopian reality are quickly seen as the enemy. They seek to silence (or worse) anyone who dares question any of their dubious ideas and reject any and all evidence that conflict with their "vision" of reality.

Can you name the biggest current cult in American politics? I didn't think so.

 

[RealityChecker]

You mean like religion and faith?

Yup. Religion is by definition an unquestioned belief (usually about some deity), but the those who their faith in quacks, political zealots, faith healers, or investments gurus in the end are all acting on faith or trust. I am a seeker of truth and justice and not a pied piper promising more than I can deliver. From my perspective faith or trust keeps one from asking questions. Pied pipers and their faith followers (a.k.a. dupes) do not tolerate those who dare question their veracity or that of their "dear leader". Once you stop asking questions reality becomes even harder to come by but faith keeps one from asking questions and seeking objective reality.

 

[RealityChecker]

Again, you're confusing greed with faith..

You are the one who seems confused. Putting one's faith (or trust) in a quack, con artists, investment guru, religious cult leader, or political zealots is done by people seeking to benefit or profit in some way by following their ideas of what does and does not lead to a better life.

Have a great day..

You too. And perhaps try being a bit more open minded. What is the worst that could happen to you from listening to someone who is attempting to better understand what is and is not real or fair and share what he believes is most likely truth and justice? I claim no divine incite or any secrete cures or utopian social goals but simply am a guy with an open mind that is fairly immune to dubious ideas and claims.

 

[RealityChecker]

Can you name the biggest current cult in American politics? I didn't think so.

Well if you believe the last election was a reflection of what most Americans believe in, then it would appear the progressive left has the most adherent followers/voters. Of course, both political parties are pretty corrupt and most private sector middle class and working class Americans who blindly trust most politicians are likely to by dupes. Politicians of both stripes are not to be trusted so putting your faith in either is generally a mistake unless you are doing so out of personal greed hoping they will cater to your "special interests" if elected. Most are there to serve their interests and not those of most of those who vote for them.

 

[mrjurrs]

Well if you believe the last election was a reflection of what most Americans believe in, then it would appear the progressive left has the most adherent followers/voters. Of course, both political parties are pretty corrupt and most private sector middle class and working class Americans who blindly trust most politicians are likely to by dupes. Politicians of both stripes are not to be trusted so putting your faith in either is generally a mistake unless you are doing so out of personal greed hoping they will cater to your "special interests" if elected. Most are there to serve their interests and not those of most of those who vote for them.

I don't think you can support the idea that 30% of Americans are progressive, but at least 30% believe the big lie. Trumpists are the largest cult in American politics.

Do you believe that President Biden was elected in a fair election free from statistically significant voter fraud last November?

 

[soylentgreen]

I am not politicizing Madoff, religious cults, faith healers, or quackery. The point was that people put their faith in these "prophets" hoping to profit, heal, or be "saved". All mistook dubious claims for reality and all paid a price. One might argue those that believed Marx, Hitler, Mao, the Kims, Chavez, and other collectivist authoritarians all ended up paying a heavy price by voting for and/or putting their faith in these political ideologues.

What you are doing is making the usual mistake of thinking there is no difference between philosophy and religion. People like you are really nothing more than a bane to philosophy because you think once some philosopher says something others simply believe it. Philosophy is about asking questions and being sceptical. Where as religion as you point out is about faith.

The problem here is only that you cannot tell the difference betwen a religion and a philosophy. Not the philosophy itself.

 

[RealityChecker]

What you are doing is making the usual mistake of thinking there is no difference between philosophy and religion. People like you are really nothing more than a bane to philosophy because you think once some philosopher says something others simply believe it. Philosophy is about asking questions and being sceptical. Where as religion as you point out is about faith.

The problem here is only that you cannot tell the difference betwen a religion and a philosophy. Not the philosophy itself.

You seem awfully interested in demeaning me personally. I am well aware of the difference between religion and philosophy so your claim I do not understand or appreciate the difference is false.

Philosophy is based on reason and logic rather than faith. It questions assumptions we make about our lives and really digs into the details of why we think what we think and how we choose to act. Philosophy can get complicated at times, but it can also help a person to see more clearly that there are other ways of looking at the world and better grasp reality.

Religion is based on faith. Faith is by definition an unquestioned belief. One does not find new answers unless one is will to accept their current opinions might be out of sync with reality or what is objectively verified and logical. Before the Enlightenment separated science and philosophy from religion we had the "Dark Ages". Back then people who dared question the royal families and the religious leaders who supported them were seen as heretics and punished. The progressive left seem increasingly zealous and more than willing to punish those who dare question their "dear leaders".

 

[soylentgreen]

You seem awfully interested in demeaning me personally. I am well aware of the difference between religion and philosophy so your claim I do not understand or appreciate the difference is false.

Philosophy is based on reason and logic rather than faith. It questions assumptions we make about our lives and really digs into the details of why we think what we think and how we choose to act. Philosophy can get complicated at times, but it can also help a person to see more clearly that there are other ways of looking at the world and better grasp reality.

Religion is based on faith. Faith is by definition an unquestioned belief. One does not find new answers unless one is will to accept their current opinions might be out of sync with reality or what is objectively verified and logical. Before the Enlightenment separated science and philosophy from religion we had the "Dark Ages". Back then people who dared question the royal families and the religious leaders who supported them were seen as heretics and punished. The progressive left seem increasingly zealous and more than willing to punish those who dare question their "dear leaders".

Good that you know what they are. Pity you cannot tell the difference between when either should be used.

Your approach to communism suggests that you are pretending it is a religion.

 

[RealityChecker]

Good that you know what they are. Pity you cannot tell the difference between when either should be used.

I understand this topic far better than you do.

Your approach to communism suggests that you are pretending it is a religion.

Actually, faith in Marxist ideology (or communism, socialism, or fascism) makes them akin to a secular cult. Most N. Korean appear to worship the Kim family and see them as saviors. Psychologically faith in the Kim family is basically the same in faith in Muhammed by Muslim zealots. This type of blind devotion or faith in their "dear leaders" is not the result of education but of indoctrination or brainwashing. People who put their faith in the healing abilities of quacks are psychologically similar to people who put their trust in faith healers or gurus.

Perhaps you do not understand much about psychology and particularly about how brainwashing or indoctrination is accomplished? This is a topic I happen to know quite a bit about. If you want an education I can help but if you believe you know more about the physiology and psychology of indoctrination or brainwashing than you'll need to convince me you know what you are talking about. Let's start with a little review of this topic.

Was L. Ron Hubbard the creator of a religion [Scientology] or simply a greedy con man and perhaps a sociopath who understood how to dupe and indoctrinate "lost souls"? Was Charles Mason a cult leader or a sociopath indoctrinating "lost souls"? Have you read and understood "Battle for the Mind" by William Sargent, MD? How about the work of Dr. Pavlov and how dogs and people can have their faith and trust flipped 180 degrees via extreme stress and confusion? Have you ever wondered why Antifa and BLM converts often become alienated for their families and former friends when they get get indoctrinated at college? Do you understand how Erhard Training Seminars indoctrinate "lost souls"? Have you ever seen someone indoctrinated via "diversity training"? Any idea about how Mao "re-educated" people? Do you think Xi's "re-education camps" for Uyghurs are really brainwashing them out of their Muslim faith and into faith in communism?

I have spent much of my life studying cults (religious and secular), quacks, and con artists and their victims so I might just know a tad more about this topic than you do. So I find it rather amusing that you have the temerity to believe you understand this topic better than I do. That would have to be a belief based on faith and not verifiable evidence that is logically assessed IMO.

 

[soylentgreen]

I understand this topic far better than you do.

Actually, faith in Marxist ideology (or communism, socialism, or fascism) makes them akin to a secular cult. Most N. Korean appear to worship the Kim family and see them as saviors. Psychologically faith in the Kim family is basically the same in faith in Muhammed by Muslim zealots. This type of blind devotion or faith in their "dear leaders" is not the result of education but of indoctrination or brainwashing. People who put their faith in the healing abilities of quacks are psychologically similar to people who put their trust in faith healers or gurus.

Perhaps you do not understand much about psychology and particularly about how brainwashing or indoctrination is accomplished? This is a topic I happen to know quite a bit about. If you want an education I can help but if you believe you know more about the physiology and psychology of indoctrination or brainwashing than you'll need to convince me you know what you are talking about. Let's start with a little review of this topic.

Was L. Ron Hubbard the creator of a religion [Scientology] or simply a greedy con man and perhaps a sociopath who understood how to dupe and indoctrinate "lost souls"? Was Charles Mason a cult leader or a sociopath indoctrinating "lost souls"? Have you read and understood "Battle for the Mind" by William Sargent, MD? How about the work of Dr. Pavlov and how dogs and people can have their faith and trust flipped 180 degrees via extreme stress and confusion? Have you ever wondered why Antifa and BLM converts often become alienated for their families and former friends when they get get indoctrinated at college? Do you understand how Erhard Training Seminars indoctrinate "lost souls"? Have you ever seen someone indoctrinated via "diversity training"? Any idea about how Mao "re-educated" people? Do you think Xi's "re-education camps" for Uyghurs are really brainwashing them out of their Muslim faith and into faith in communism?

I have spent much of my life studying cults (religious and secular), quacks, and con artists and their victims so I might just know a tad more about this topic than you do. So I find it rather amusing that you have the temerity to believe you understand this topic better than I do. That would have to be a belief based on faith and not verifiable evidence that is logically assessed IMO.

Right! So point out to me where marx said we should worship our leaders as if they were a god as they do in N.Korea. Laughable that you bring up N. Korea as an example considering that they call themselves a democratic republic not a communist country.

You may have spent your life studying cults but you obviously have no clue about communism.