I disagree with Noble Truth #3. True suffering comes from physical or emotional pain.

"Pain" is not synonymous with suffering. The word "suffering" is used to highlight a metaphysical point of the self-degenerating nature of yearning or "desire".

It is human nature to compete and competition by definition must cause some degree of harm to the losers.

Speaking of "a nature" is a philosophically easy thing to do - and permits us to talk about behavior axiomatically without having to question the verity of our claims. But whether or not it allows us to talk about things as they are is another question altogether. People do compete; it doesn't mean that it is in our nature to compete any more than smoking cigarettes is in our nature just because people do it. Behavior is a contingency, resulting from the development of an overarching vocabulary. So is the notion of "competition" a part of this greater vocabulary. But that's it.

The fact that you nor anyone else has to compete and can consciously choose not to compete suggests that on the one hand it is a contingent behavior and on the other hand can be abstained from such that you are not doing harm. But, even the latter isn't necessarily a part of the consideration of the suggestion to do no harm or that competition does cause harm.

Decapitalize markets. Let robots work, Allow humans to reap the benefits. Don't let Wall-E fool you!

actually, i said provide examples.

I pointed to the KDP and NSDAP in Germany to highlight the fact that Fascism and Communism are extremist liberal and conservative systems diametrically opposed to one another. So when you write “In the post that i was criticizing, you didn't provide any examples on why one movement is Extremely Conservative and the other is extremely Liberal. All you said was that they were, and provided no examples.” you are wrong. I also briefly discussed the basic principles of Fascism: militarism, nationalism, and anti-communism, and provided the points presented in Mussolini's treatise to support those principles, which I did happen to cite mind you: “What is Fascism? 1932”. I, however, never required you to cite anything. I simply asked that you hold yourself to the same intellectual obligation (that you held me to) and also support your claims with sources other than your own claims.

It was all about the labor class creating riots and revolting against the Ruling Class and the Capitalists

You should re-read the manifesto, and then Marx's other works for an education in Communism. If this is your conclusion, then you really need to get up on your analytical game.

okay, now for your first question, Marx (from what i remember) doesn't say anything specific about killing all political prisoners. on the other hand, he believes in that people will only be truly Communist once any other idea is gone from their heads. You know, once they no longer think about how it could be: really, this would explain both the political turmoil and the hatred towards Capitalist Democracies. If this answered the question at all, I would surely accept it. But it doesn't. I asked, from what Marxist literature do you get the idea that he believed, quote: death was the only way to prevent ideological turmoil. If you can't point to any source, just admit that you're pulling out of your ass. It happens.

If he hated Pacifism so much, it couldn't be from Marx's and Engle's beliefs in Communism, for people who were fine with physical overthrow and riots surely were not pacifist

If and only if we accept your proposition that “physical overthrow” is the same thing as violence, violence being the issue you were addressing, then they are not. But all revolutions require “physical overthrow” - even non-violent ones. The velvet revolution of 1989 also resulted in the physical overthrow of Communists in eastern Europe, but it was non-violent. But the thing is, Communism doesn't propose any notion of “rioting”. That's something you've just made up. And the quote you use only talks about force, but even the pacifist Hippies used force. The question is what does that mean? Does it mean violence? No. Since, even in the Manifesto, Marx uses the term “revolution” in a variety of ways, but most normally within an ideological context. That is, the revolution overturns a historical ideology (the very perspective is called “end of history”, not beat people up). Mussolini's commentary on pacifism was a jab at the socialist criticisms of Nationalism - which played a major role in the military engagement(s) of World War I.

I never mentioned anything about Garibaldi. Nationalism was a thrown around term.

But I did. I mentioned Garibaldi to highlight how wrong you are when you state that “Nationalism is an up in the air idea”. It's not. It was a concrete philosophic system that evolved from the class consciousness, and the growing tension between classical conservatism and liberalism that developed in the middle 19th century. In fact, there were specific principles universal to Nationalism as highlighted by, again, the Prussian Germans, or Greeks before the Greek revolution in their attempt to overthrow Ottoman control in the 1820s (Oh look, another example). And it was a very basic concept, one that I will further reduce here: nationalism was the idea that the cultural makeup of a bordered people be reflected in the state politics. Hence a German nation is one in which cultural German traditions are represented by the government.

Nationalism, supporting your country above all else, was technically a necessity for both rules. It's really a necessity for totalitarianism in general.

Maybe now. But we're not talking about a contemporary “nationalism”. We're discussing classical discourse. And it's not necessary for totalitarianism in general since I can point to any number of classical monarchies that existed before the idea of “the nation” existed, and were totalitarian: the Hapsburgs, Tudors, or Hohenzollerns are examples I can think of off the top of my head.

The state itself is supposed to not exist after time in Communism. How long it takes, nobody knows

I know. Communist writers knew. It was supposed to be immediate, and necessarily so. Why? Because the successful revolution of the proletariat would make the people the government. Hence the dissolution of the state – as such - would be quick so as to permit a pure democracy. That's the whole point of Communism: raise the proletariat to the ruling class, class system is thus destroyed because everybody becomes a member of the proletariat, centralize capital as belonging to the state, which is defined as the organized proletariat and move onward in a true democracy.

But back to the original issue. Communism and Fascism are nothing alike. One is militaristic and expansionist. The other is not. One is classically nationalistic, the other is not. One is anti-communist, the other is "communist". One believes that the people are relative to the state, the other believes that the people are the state. What you have been comparing is the similarity of two totalitarian systems, Fascist Italy and Germany on the one hand and Communist Russia and China on the other (for example). The former followed the tenets of its philosophy, where the latter did not in any way follow the tenets of its philosophy. You're not comparing Communism with Fascism, but totalitarian states.

Not at all. You pointed out that I did not substantiate my claims. I then supported my position with the evidence present in the Fascist treatise. I am merely suggesting that you do the same thing. You've made certain claims about the positions of various historical figures who have written and spoken at length about their various theories, their writing and speeches readily available for anyone who is interested to view them on the internet. You have not taken the opportunity to use any of the resources available to you to buttress your points. Instead, you have relied solely on ipse dixitisms - which is the very thing you accuse me of. I am not questioning or attacking your credibility, merely pointing out that you're being hypocritical. And that's on the one hand. On the other hand, the things you have said are wrong and a simple read of the various figures you're trying to account for would easily correct your misconstruction of their positions.

And on another hand, I've asked you very basic questions, and the answers you give to those questions can highlight whether or not you actually have read anything these people have produced and why, for instance in the case of Marx, your claims are wrong. Simple reading will solve those problems.

Between the writings in Grundrisse and Das Kapital, where does Marx propose that "death was the only way to prevent ideological turmoil"? According to Marx, how is the battle of Democracy won? What is the distinction between Lenin's understanding of ideology and Marx's understanding of ideology, and how do you think it affected and effected the later Soviet Russia? Which communist revolutionaries did Mussolini point to and where, and in what context? What does Nationalism mean to Garibaldi? Under whose Communist philosophy is the state supposed to be strong and not "wither away" and is that Communism?

These questions are completely relevant to the claims you have made. Please answer to them, and stop being a hypocrite.

Anyone who says "nationalism is an up in the air idea" doesn't know much about the class consciousness and national philosophies that sparked the 1848 revolutions in places like Budapest and Milan, and the notions of citizenship of Prussian Germans.

Anyone who argues that Marx believed that Communism could only be possible from a violent revolution or that Marx saw democracy as a threat to Communism hasn't read Marx. Anyone who proposes that the Soviet Union is the closest reflection of Communism doesn't know what Communism is.

You accuse me of doing as the troll does, but turn around and do the same, as if your claims have any factual basis without supporting evidence. Why are you the only one who is exempt from the criticism of ipse dixit? Where is your supporting evidence, do you have available any primary sources or am I to conclude that your opinion is fact?

Let me help you along: between the writings in Grundrisse and Das Kapital, where does Marx propose that "death was the only way to prevent ideological turmoil"? According to Marx, how is the battle of Democracy won (This should give you a hint of the incorrectness of your point that Marx viewed democracy as a threat to communism)? What is the distinction between Lenin's understanding of ideology and Marx's understanding of ideology, and how do you think it affected and effected the later Soviet Russia? Which communist revolutionaries did Mussolini point to and where, and in what context? What does Nationalism mean to Garibaldi? Under whose Communist philosophy is the state supposed to be strong and not "wither away" (see the second question in this paragraph and the quotation marks in this question for a hint of the most accurate answer) and is that Communism?

I was going to present a more thorough rebuttal, but it seems clear that you're not really well read on the literature, nor do you know much of your history, and you seem to have an inadequate understanding of both fascism and communism at best. So it doesn't really make much sense to keep going in earnest.

I don't mean to be an asshole, missing the spirit of the quote or anything, but Abraham Lincoln never said or wrote these words. The sentiment comes from Rev. William J. H. Boetcker.

My first criticism is simply that Communism has never been practiced. Totalitarian regimes under the name of Communism (Russian and Chinese Communism, for example) are not Communist, any more than modern Democracy is Democracy as it was conceived. The founding fathers of America were fundamentally against Democracies and were Republicans.

But to get to your points one by one.

Fascism isn't Communism cause it's Conservative and Communism is Liberal.

This is in fact not what I said. I stated quite specifically that they are extremist positions. During the rise of nationalist movements of the late 19th century, socialist movements acted as their primary sociopolitical opposition. You can look at the socialist criticisms of nationalism leading up to World War I, as examples. The point is that it means that they are direct political opposition.

Mussolini's dislike of Communism wasn't simply relegated to the issue of private property. In fact, all you have to do is read his treatise on Fascism (which I mentioned earlier) and you would know this. In his criticism of Communism (and his development of Fascist doctrine), Mussolini writes (What is Fascism (19832)):

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment (Communism), believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism

The first consideration of Fascism is militarism, which is diametrically opposed to Communism.

He goes on:

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State

The second consideration of Fascism is Nationalism. Again, diametrically opposed to Communism which sees the state as relative to the group, as it functions to serve to the benefit of the group, to its eventual dissolution.

Again:

the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone . . . . For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality.

The third consideration of Fascism is the perpetual growth of the nationhood as its primary means of survival. That is, the expansion is both the goal and the means.

More importantly:

Such a conception of Life makes Fascism the complete opposite of that doctrine, the base of so-called scientific and Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production

The fourth and primary consideration of Fascism is anti-Communism. Mussolini believed that Communism did not represent the aspirations of the people, and was counterproductive to the vitality of the nation. Private property wasn't that big of a deal to him, it was the entirety of socialist thought.

And the only reason I will cut it short is because 1) the treatise is readily available on the internet and 2) Fascism is politically and economically opposed to Communist philosophies and economics, and to be quite frank, it would take a paper to more appropriately explain why (using Mazzini, Marx, Mussolini and so forth). It shouldn't be surprising if you look at the German political struggles of the early 20th century as an example: the NSDAP (NAZI party) was entirely opposed to the politics of the KDP (Communist).

The only coinciding characteristic shared by Communism and Fascism as they have been practiced is that they are both totalitarian. And the only thing we can say, then, is that totalitarian regimes are similar. But not that Communism and Fascism are the same or even that Fascism has elements of Communism in it, because it doesn't and they aren't.

If you have bad posture, you're screwing yourself over in the long run (and that's the relatively short long run). And repeated typing (if that's what you're doing), of course, can and often does lead to carpel tunnel syndrome, which sucks.

It's a very Marxist position. One of Marx's chief criticisms of capitalism was indeed that people begin to kind of "fetishize" capital.

Fascism is pretty much the opposite (It is an extremist conservative movement) from Communism (which is an extremist liberal movement). There ain't an inkling of Communism in Fascism. Mussolini would be turning in his grave if he heard that. If you read his treatise on Fascism (he was the one who invented it and everything), you'll quickly realize how much he hates Communists and Communism. The idea of him or any Fascist utilizing Communist principles is kind of comical.

"First of all, I would rather believe that there is a creator, then that everything happened by chance."

If one follows where the evidence leads, we see a planet and universe that is diametrically opposed to design or hyperagency, one that is probably devoid of divine touch and one that is very, very much a natural phenomenon contingent on natural processes.

But consider for a moment what you state here. You would "rather". For you, it's a matter of preference and not a matter of what accurately explains and accounts for the world around us. You want to exist in the comfort of tradition and the safety of ignorance in the same way that a young child might ignore the fact that he or she is devoid of companionship because they would prefer to remain in the comfort of their imaginary friendship with their imaginary friend.

"It doesn't make sense to say that if you look at a car, that somehow everything crashed together and made a car that RUNS."

You're absolutely right. And we can demonstrate precisely why that wouldn't make sense. We use artificial designs to produce and manufacture artificial objects called cars that exist to serve a specific human purpose. And we can demonstrate to you how that car was precisely built, we can even show you the philosophy of transportation leading to the development of the car, we can even take you to a manufacturing plant and watch humans and other robots assemble the car for you if you want. But the universe and the planet earth are not cars.

The universe is a product of elemental forces acting upon one another. It might seem very complex, but it's just a combination of simple interactions overlapping with one another in various ways.

"This "powerful being" already thought of that and gave us a book that he inspired called the bible. "

And many Biblical scholars can attest to the fact that the Bible more than likely isn't the product of divine revelation or divine production. In fact, because of the various writing styles in the Bible, Biblical scholars know almost unequivocally that many of the books in the Bible have multiple authors from various cultural sources over varying periods of time. The Bible is folklore.

"He gave it to us so that we could know more about him"

And we can be fairly certain that this is wrong - insofar as reality and the history of human life is concerned. But I recognize that this is what you would "Rather believe". This is your preference. It has little to do with reality or human history. This is what you would like to believe. But there is nothing objectively or ontologically true about your beliefs, and god-belief tends to oppose reality and transforms the worldview of many into something unreal and unrepresentative of how the world and the universe really works. And this is precisely why you have to "rather believe" it. And I won't knock you for it.

But god doesn't exist. And any complex definition of god, as Paul Tillich would conclude, is simple idolatry and revokes the divine status of god, transforming that status into a very pedantically human entity absolutely devoid of its uniqueness.

This begs an epistemological question: how could you know that there is something necessarily so powerful that humans are incapable of understanding it? (isn't that a statement that relies on understanding the very entity that you say we might be incapable of understanding?)

It also begs a further question: how would you be able to recognize an entity or being that is outside of your capacity to understand; that is, without understanding what you are encountering, how would you be able to acknowledge it for what it is: a being more powerful than you are capable of understanding?