i think you mean "means of production," and regardless, it already belongs to "mankind."  the problem is, does it produce for "mankind," i.e., purely for the sake of production, not profit?

no, because "communism" is not a system of thought or a teaching.  it is an economic state of being.  i assume you're referring to classical marxism or marxism-leninism along the stalinist model.  in that case, the answer is also no.  it is neither a teleology, a soteriology, nor a metaphysic, so it satisfies no popularly held definition of religion.

most marxists are atheists.  many are not, particularly in latin america.

who are "they"?  the chinese communist party?  the cuban communist party?  the now defunct communist party of the soviet union?  the european communists?  the fourth international?  the wobblies?  the iranian communist mujahideen?  who?

what is "their" bible?  if you say the communist manifesto, you're a dilenttantish tard in this area.  their "church"?  a party?  so the dems and repubs have "churches" too?  membership?  yes, very good, most organizations have memberships.  a "creed"?  if that's what you want to call a political program, fine, but that means there are a helluva lot more religions in the world than anyone ever thought.  as for this inner cabal called "hell," who told you about that?  robert conquest?  richard pipes?  bertram wolfe?  solzhenitsyn?  john halliday and jung chang?  henry kissinger?  a bunch of mafiosi "refugees" in miami?

complete and utter falsehood repudiated by darwin's own children and accepted by no credible historian.  then again, i suppose ray comfort gave you the whole conversation on cassette tape.

yup, and he drank babies' blood.  same as i did the other night.  that's why the soviet union lost in afghanistan.  the devil couldn't decide which of his false religions--islam or communism--to back, so he picked islam after flipping a coin.  he explained all this to me and my evil vampire jew friends as we listened to iron maiden and barbecued a starry-eyed, blonde young republican at the local masonic hall last week.

From the woman who led him to Christ, Jeffrick.  I have the book on it and will have to look up the title for you later on.  I noticed that you are the top donor to the site and want to compliment you and others here on the website.  Very sophisticated!  I am definitely impressed.  Let me introduce myself.  I have been a blogger for about 12 years now on the internet and usually focus on Middle East Politics. I own 7 political boards and am an administrator on one. The others I have appointed Administrators and Moderators to as I really don't have the time for it. 

A friend of mine emailed me and told me about your board and a discussion concerning the question of grace vs law in the bible.  My response was to that but she had asked me to write here as she felt that your board needed more balance in regards to varying points of view.  I do understand the need for all points of view as it is what drives a website.  For instance the one board that I am actively administrator on has 150,000 viewers.  We have almost a thousand posts in a day and about 60 members there.  I find that one of the most important things to keep in mind with growing a website, message board, etc. is to keep it professional, stay to the topic and try to avoid personal attacks which usually result when the attacker feels threatened or cannot hold up their end of the discussion ( otherwise ) with that said, I look forward to discussions here.  Let me address some of your comments, Jeffrick.

Galt was a cousin of Darwin, I didn't claim they lived at the same time.  Let me make that clear first.  Also, Karl Marx was not an atheist. I don't know where you get that from but I've studied Marx thoroughly, have many of his writings, poetry, plays he had written and it is quite clear he was once a believer and left Christianity after being influenced by a satanist.  Stalin himself said that if people knew the truth about Marx they would be shocked.  There is a reason for his statement.  The real story on Karl Marx has been sealed in the archives of Russia and never released. 

By examining Marx's poetry, plays, correspondence, and biographical accounts Marx exposes himself as a hater of God, and therefore, a hater of Gods creatures.  Those who have suffered under communism and Marxism tell the true story of what Karl Marx really believed and it is most unfortunate that he died unrepentant of his reprehensible actions.  Moses Hess was the man most influential in Karl Marx' life.  Marx stated that Communists preach absolutely no morals.  When the Soviets in their early years adopted the slogan, "Let us drive out the capitalists from earth and God from heaven, they were merely fulfilling the legacy of Karl Marx. 

One of the peculiarities of black magic, is the inversion of names.  Inversions in general so permeated Marx's whole manner of thinking that he used them throughout.  Arnold Kunzli, author of Karl Marx  A psychogram, writes about Marx's life, including the suicide of his two daughters and a son in law.  Three children died of malnutrition.  His daughter, Laura, married to a Socialist Lafargue, also buried three of her children, then she and her husband commited suicide together.  Another daughter, Eleanor, decided with her husband to do likewise.  She commited suicide, he backed out.  Marx felt no obligation to earn a living for his family, though he could have easily done so as he had a very gifted mind.  Instead he lived begging off of Engels. 

He had an illegitimate child by his maidservant, Helen Demuth.  Later he attributed the child to Engels, who accepted this role.  Marx drank heavily, Riazanov, the director of Marx - Engels Institute in Moscow, admits this fact in his book Karl Marx, Man, Thinker and Revolutionist.  The illegitimate child that I mentioned also commited suicide.  There was a definite curse on the family which was brought on in my opinion from the dealings Marx was involved in concerning Satanism.

  Karl Marx was always lusting after someone elses inheritance.  In a letter Marx wrote about a very happy event in which his 90 year old uncle had died.   He refers to him as the old dog and his only interest is in any money he might receive.  He didn't have any kinder feelings towards his immediate relatives such as his mothers passing.  He wasn't even on speaking terms with his mother but merely wanted to know if he was getting anything.  He never bothered to attend her funeral.  Marx life speaks volumes about the man he really was and not the one most learn of in liberal universities, Jeffrick.  Since the Satanist sect is highly secret, there are only the various reports, correspondence that identify Marx as a high priest even by his own wife and son in two letters.  There is much more but feel free to ask whatever you'd like and I'll try my best to answer it.  Thank you for your reply. - Jeremiah

Let me address the point you seem to be in question over.  Marxism as a church.  If you will go to Volume 2 of the Works of Marx and Engels it opens with Jesus' words to His disciples ( John 6:63)  as quoted by Marx in his book The Holy Family:  It is the spirit which gives life.  Then you will read this:

Critcism ( his criticism of all that exists ) so loved the masses that it sent its only-begotten son (Marx) that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have a life of criticism.  Criticism became masses and lived among us and we saw its glory as the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father. Criticism did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made itself of no reputation, taking the form of a book binder, and humbled itself up to nonsense, yes, critical nonsense in foreign languages.

   Those knowledgable in scripture will recognise the parody of Biblical verses here ( John 3:16, etc. ) Here, Marx, declares his own works to be "nonsense" as well as swinish books.  Marxism is a religion.  and it even uses "scripture". Its main work, The Capitol by Marx is called the Bible of the Working Class.  Are you familiar with that work?  Marx considered himself "the Pope of Communism and referred to himself as such.  Communism has the pride of infallibility.  All who oppose the Communist "Creed" ( this expression was used repeatedly by Engels AND Marx) are excommunicated.  Ever heard of the term "excommunicated before"?  Of course you have.  Well, Communism uses that term also.  Marx wrote, Bukunin should beware.  Otherwise we will excommunicate him.  ( to be clear the term is used in satanism as well they love to counterfeit God in all ways ) Lets' continue.......  Those who die in service to Marxism are feasted as "martyrs."  Marxism also has sacraments:  The solemn reception in the toddler's organization called "the Children of October," the oaths given when received as "pioneers," after which they come to the higher grades of initiaton in the Komsomol and the Party.  Confession is replaced with public self-criticism before the assembly of Party members.  Marxism is a church.  It has all the characteristics of a church.

  Yet, its god is not named in its popular literature.  But as seen by all the evidence you'll find about Marx, it's Satan.   Who do you think Saul Alinsky dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to?  Lucifer.  Why did he dedicate the book to Lucifer?  Because he said he was the first radical to win a kingdom.  The problem with this idea is that Satan didn't actually win a Kingdom.  He lost one.  And he is hoping like crazy he can cause you to lose your chance at that Kingdom because his envy of your opportunity rivals the very gates of hell for your soul.  Those are the facts.  I am happy to meet you and look forward to discussing whatever you desire.  Thanks for reading. - Jeremiah   p.s.  in answer to your question about the organisation called hell?  It was founded in 1872, a revolutionary society and was formed under the simple name the organization which had a super secret inner circle called "Hell".  Its existence was unknown to the outer world but over the years stories emerged.  Like this one:

In 1965, In Revolutionist Underground in Russia, E.S. Vilenskaia wrote:  "Hell" was the name of the center above the secret organisation, which not only used terror against monarchy, but also had punitive functions towards its members of the secret society.  In another writing called Netchaiev, one of the members of "Hell" took it upon himself to poison his own father in order to give the organisation his inheritance.  Tcherishevesky, who belonged to the movement, wrote, I'll participate in revolution; I am not afraid by dirt, by drunkards with sticks, by slaughter.  We don't care if we have to shed thrice as much blood as rebels in the French revolutino.  So what if we have to kill a hundred thousand farmers?  Members of the hell organisation have this proclamation amongst themselves:  We are not afraid that we might find out three times more blood will have to be shed for the overthrowing of the existing order.  If for the fulfillment of our objectives we had to slaughter one hundred thousand landlords, we would not be afraid of that either.  We would not be afraid is a key slogan with them.  Sound familiar?  It should!  Its at America's front door step right now......

Of course I am serious.  I am stating facts here. If you'd like me to post the sources for this research I'll be happy to do that for you.  - Jeremiah

I will simply address the Charles Darwin death bed conversion it is bunk, the only person who claimed that was Lady Hope, and both of Darwin's children have refuted that because she was not present at his death nor was she ever present during his illness, she lied and that came from his children, Darwin never recanted his scientific views.

As for communist as a religion then socialism is a religion as is democracy and any other political system. We all know it's not a religion, it s a political and economic system, but not a religion by any stretch of the imagination.

 Most people would not view Communism is religious terms, how about head over to this board with this idea?  Where is the support for this ???  If you have to go down this road you might use a word like 'cult'. Communism is utopian experiment. The results on the populous are hard to miss. I dont think you are helping yourself by your initial remarks in the least bit. Understanding of something requires knowledge and knowing the particulars. How does putting it in such a framework indicate you have the slightest knowledge of the subject. Dont tell me we are to assume this from any of your remarks thus far. Ironically, Many of the board on any side wonder at a Government's lust for control, but that would be in 'political' terms ? (( Look up my Tongue-In-cheek mini-treatise  on the color red .. it is in your accustomed 'spiritual' terms)). Utopian dream, we are a fool that find thee.

patently untrue.  the modern european social state owes as much to marx as any other political thinker.  just because they don't emblazon his bearded face on giant placards doesn't mean they don't validly implement his theories.  no matter how earnestly lenin and stalin insisted they were marx's sole valid ideological successors, that doesn't make it so, and since pretty much every subsequent "communist" revolution--whether in europe, asia, or latin america--has followed the stalinist lead (invariably identifying itself as "marxist-leninist" ), that goes double for mao, kim il sung, or anyone else. 

 (quote) [Defined] "communism" is the apolitical form of society--which no state has ever claimed to have reached--when all the organs of state repression have "withered away," there is no centralized governmental apparatus, and the economic and labor system works according to marx's (rough) encapsulation, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

that's it.  that's all.  any other use of the word "communism," however popular, is incorrect.(/quote)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  Dana's reply,   . . From Marx's famous slogan.  I DO wish we'd all adopt more exacting definitions in all things.

 Iwbiek replied, Patently untrue.  the modern european social state owes as much to marx as any other political thinker.  just because they don't emblazon his bearded face on giant placards doesn't mean they don't validly implement his theories.  no matter how earnestly lenin and stalin insisted they were marx's sole valid ideological successors, that doesn't make it so, and since pretty much every subsequent "communist" revolution--whether in europe, asia, or latin america--has followed the stalinist lead (invariably identifying itself as "marxist-leninist" ), that goes double for mao, kim il sung, or anyone else.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

   I would hate to imagine where this thread would end up if iwbief were not here to contribute to the narrative.  I am here to learn. THANKS for the two corrections, much appreciated (smile)

Where is your evidence?  You are going on hearsay and it is inaccurate.  He was indeed in the location she claims him to have been and that has already been proven.  Atheists have been known to use lies in order to bolster their claims as I am sure you are aware.  No offense intended but it is part of the creed, is it not?  As to the subject of Communism, I have given you clear cut evidence that it is and one must admit that Socialism is far more than a political system.  It leads to Communism and we can see by the erosion of our Constitution that is precisely where America is headed. Tell me if you are an atheist than how is it you would fight against a God you claim does not to exist? Would it not be similar to one beating ones fists against the air?  An act of madness?  You see Karl Marx stated clearly that he wished to avenge himself against the One who rules above.  He also stated the idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization.  It must be destroyed.  Does this sound like an atheist to you?  I didn't think so.  Me neither. 

-Jeremiah

Socrates said, Slander becomes the tool of the loser when the debate is lost.  He was correct.  You have provided not a shred of evidence to disprove what I've written here.  Try again.  But first.......

Before you do let me suggest a principle to you that will prevent you from every getting to the truth, Vastet.  This principle is to condemn an idea before examining the evidence.  You see, this principle alone is guaranteed to keep you in everlasting ignorance.   So let us consider the facts and the evidence, shall we?  First, let us examine some modern Marxists.

  First Bukaharin, a secretary general of the Communist International and one of the chief Marxist doctrinaires in this century, as early as the age of 12, after reading the Book of Revelation in the Bilbe, longed to become the Antichrist.  Realising from Scripture that the Antichrist had to be the son of the apocaplyptic great whore, he insisted that his mother confess to having been a harlot.  About Stalin he wrote, He is not a man, but a devil.  ( this was a compliment you must understand )  Too late Bukharin realised whose hands he had fallen into ( satans ) and in a letter which he made his wife memorise just before his arrest and execution, he said:  I am leaving life, I am lowering my head....... I feel my helplessness before a hellish machine............  He had helped erect a guillotine - the Soviet State - that had killed millions, only to learn in the end that its design had been made in Hell.  He had desired to become the Antichrist.  he became instead a victim of the Enemy.  As those who follow Satan will learn too late, he shares his "throne", his "kingdom" with no one.  It is a cruel trick which will leave those deceived empty handed. 

Similarly we learn of Stalin from his brother in law, Kaganovitch, who wrote in his diary ( published ) I started to understand how Stalin managed to make himself a god.  He did not have a single human characteristic.......  He was not human at all.........  One of Stalins' amusements was to put green glasses on the eyes of horses to make them see hay as grass.  Even worse, he put dark glasses of atheism on the eyes of men to keep them from seeing God's pastures, reserved for believing souls.  The diary itself reveals much of it:  Many times Stalin spoke of religion as our most vicious enemy.  He hates religion for many reasons, and I share his feelins.  Stalin also thinks that separation from children should be the main punishment for all parents belonging to sects, irrrespective of whether they are convicted or not. 

 In a latter entry he writes:  It may sound strange, but he occupied a position previously only reserved for God.  Stalin is not alone in his demand to be worshiped as a god.  This is consistent in the case of Mao Tse- Tung, another communist.  Mao Tse Tung wrote:  From the age of 8 I hated Confusius.  In our village there was a Confusianist temple.  With all my heart, I wished only one thing: to destroy it to its very foundation.  Is that normal for an 8 yr old boy to wish the destruction of his own religion?  No.  But his aspirations were to be a god and through Communism he obtain his lust to be worhsiped as one.  The Deification of Communist Leaders is no secret, Vastet.  Look at Kim Jong Il?  The North Korean people were forced to see him as God, the only God and the average life expectancy inside of North Korea for a Christian is approxiimately 4 months. 

Here is another Communist for you demanding worship as God himself:

Ceausescu, communist leader of Romania was another Stalinist figure.  He was referred to "as our lay God" In Bucharest there was a museum containing gifts brought by people to Ceausescu.  Was he worshiped as a god?  Of course he was because that is part of the Communist religion.  To make one man "God"...  and force everyone else to be subservient under him by use of force.  Its throughout history but I have given you several examples here.   Thanks for your reply.  - Jeremiah 

If it were as you say, Dana, merely a lust for Governments control there would not be a concerted effort to remove every trace of Judeo - Christianity upon which America was founded upon.  Every trace of the God of the bible for this land.  Communism is not void of god worship merely void of any love for the One True God and therein has made Him its mortal enemy.  To be clear, Communism has through the decades made clear its objective as stated in a Communist Newspaper years ago called Vetchernaia Moskva: 

We do not fight against the believers and not even against the clergymen.  We fight against God to snatch believers from him. 

With that said, it is quite clear these are not atheists.  They are satanists and their desire is to snatch believers out of God's kingdom to take captive to Satans which is hell itself.  Therein the reason for Communisms most elite inner circle of revolutionaries to call their organisation "Hell".   Ask yourself this, Dana.  How was it that Stalin became a revolutionary after reading "Darwin"?  As a student in an orthodox seminary he obtained from Darwin the idea that we are not Gods creatures but the result of an evolution in which ruthless competition reigns.  It is only the strongest and most cruel who survive.  He learned that moral and religous criteria play no role in nature and that man is as much a part of nature as a fish or an ape.  Long live ruthlessness and cruelty!  Do you see it now? 

Darwin had written a scientific book setting forth his theory of origins.  It had no economic or political implications, Dana.  But though many might go so far as to concede that God created the world through a process of evolution, the end result of Darwin's theory has been the killing of tens of millions of innocents.  He therefore is the Spiritual Father of the greatest mass murderer in history.  About Karl Marx.  Marx praised Darwins book, The descent of Manas another master stroke that causes men to forget their divine origin and divine purpose.  Darwin said that man springs from animals.  Man dethroned by these two.  Satan could not dethrone God so he devalued man.  He used a man to accomplish it.  Man was shown to be the progeny of animals and a mere servant to his intestines.  Marx's son in law Paul Lafargue, in Socialism and the Intellectuals says:  When Darwin published his Origin in Species, he took away from God his role as creator of the organic world, as Franklin has despoilt him of his thunderbolt.  So there it is.  It is all new to you perhaps but it remains the truth.  I have tons of evidence for it.  Just ask.  Thank you for your reply, Dana.  - Jeremiah

To the title of the thread.

ANYTHING without the ability to dissent or question can and most likely will become a religion. Religion literally means "to bind". And it does reflect our species childish narcissism that manifests into politics and religion AND EVEN SPORTS.

Hockey and soccer fans worldwide are known for their after win and after loss violence. In the states even college towns have minions, like the rest of sports, who will get physical.

Until our species accepts that evolution is a range, and that every aspect of life is a range, and cannot be slapped with one word solutions, we will be stuck in a bullshit beef that needlessly goes on.

I am not delusional nor do I want a one world government. I am simply saying that labels don't matter. Neither Communism or Capitalism, or Hinduism or Christianity existed 100,000 years ago. Evolution did, and that is all our species has.

And if one can accept on a planet of 7 billion, that we are all different, but basically want the same things in food, shelter and an means to survive, then labels are total and utter bullshit that do nothing but promote division.

NOW that is not to say that labes will not happen or should not happen, just that our common humanity, and not our differences should be the focus.

If DNA is diverse, and it is, and we are diverse, and we are, and if we all want the same thing, then the only thing to do is to be individuals.

Please see my response to Dana concerning Charles Darwin.  - Jeremiah

While it is true that no human being is without the fault of lying Communists depend upon it in order to deceive the masses. 

As to an atheist fighting against God, against Jesus Christ and His Teachings.  Yes, you do.  I am reading this board and it is full of examples.  Open your eyes, Vastet.  It is quite obvious that there is a violent opposition to God on this board.  He is the target here and what I am asking you once again is that if he doesn't exist as you claim then how would this website exist which was created to oppose His existence?  Do you see the irony here?  - Jeremiah

i haven't suggested a goddamn thing. 

and hoss, i've been reading marx for years.  i've got the first volume of capital (twice), the grundrisse, the civil war in france, on the jewish question, theses on feuerbach, his polemics against bakunin, and a dozen other little things all under my belt.  i first read the communist manifesto when i was 14.  i studied a lot of shit in university but marx wasn't one of them, nor have i ever picked up a "textbook" on him, unless you count rosa luxemburg, lenin, trotsky, karl liebknecht, karl kautsky, ernest mandel, etc., etc., as textbook writers.

i admit, i have no interest in whatever "plays" he may have written in his juvenile years.  it seems he didn't either once he matured.  it may also shock you to know i don't give two farts in a windstorm if he was atheist, christian, satanist, jewish, if he ever celebrated a black mass, or thought he was the antichrist.  i'm not a marxist because i admire marx's character.  i'm a marxist because i'm a historical materialist and i want to see scientific socialism implemented on a global scale, and i believe in the necessity of revolution to see that come to pass.

i also don't think marx was right about everything.  marx didn't think he right about everything either, which is why he was constantly revising everything he wrote in light of new developments.  he did not leave us with a closed marxist "system."  it was those competing for the status of his successors that tried to do that. 

This board is called the Rational Response Squad, not Fight Against God board. 

Name some specific examples of "violent" opposition to god on this board (not the god idea or meme, but actually god).

This website exists because people like you are constantly trying to make every Atheist out to be something that they are not and are tired of theocratic based politics interjecting their own brand of fascism into governments. This website exists for rational responses to irrational claims. 

HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR THE NUMBER OF THEISTS ON THIS BOARD THAT ARE IN GOOD STANDING WITH MOST OF OUR MEMBERS ? 

I don't believe in god, santa claus, the tooth fairy, bigfoot, ghosts, the sandman, flying carpets, alien abductions, ancient aliens building early human civilizations, magic charms, magic underwear, lucky shirts, unlucky 13, numerology, astrology, crop circles and the list is ad infinitum. 

I don't "hate" nor have any violent opposition to these things. They are not real. 

You originally stated that you were "curious" what people would respond to your OP. You seem to be proving otherwise with all of these statements above. 

BTW. If there were ever an appropriate time to invoke the Socrates quote about slander, take a look at your post above. 

Apart from deductions from the basic "Laws of Logic", we do not have access to absolutely certain truth, and definitely not to absolute certainty about historical 'facts'. All we can do is assign varying degrees of confidence to various propositions  and claims, based on careful study of the reasoning behind them and the empirical data on which they are based. The methods of Science are designed to minimise the known sources of error in any given investigation of Reality. On many levels, claims of the existence of  a 'God' of any kind fail logical and rational tests, let alone one possessing the attributes assigned to the Christian version.

The bulk of non-believers, certainly the members of this board, do not hate God, we deplore the distortions of Truth and Morality associated with such beliefs.

As already stated by others, your claims about Darwin are highly questionable, not remotely well established.

As for Communism, the philosopher Bertrand Russell long ago pointed out parallels between Marxism and Christianity. This does not necessarily make Marxism/Communism a religion, but it shares some characteristics of a religious 'faith'. It would be better perhaps to describe it as a dogmatic belief system, promising answers to many problems of current society.

Any dogmatically held ideology is problematic, dismissive of any evidence that would suggest that it may be mistaken in any respect,

                         Your response to Danatemporary was has uninformed and inacurate has your original post.  Your hero Marx may have had a high opinion of Darwin but Darwin had no known opinion of Marx.  You and Hitler are both blameing Darwin for something that was created and promoted by Malthus and Galton, if was the OPPOSITE OF DARWIN.   Jeremiah eugenics/master race is the complete OPPOSITE OF "NATURAL SELECTION"!!!!!!!!!

Strong advocates of any belief system or ideology, whether religious, economic, social, or whatever, cannot fairly be accused of lying in their claims, even if they are factually incorrect. They are mostly simply mistaken. They may well passionately believe that what they are saying is true, so they are not consciously lying. This is an important ethical distinction.

That said, authoritarian governments and institutions may well deliberately make statements they know are not true, to support what they regard as more important goals. This definitely includes religious authorities.

   New guy:

  <quote=Iwbiek>  Iwbiek said, "onto the vague term "communism" (and "dictatorship of the proletariat" ), mostly in order to set his bolshevik faction apart from the mensheviks after the split of the russian social democratic labor party  ..  i have a lot of admiration for lenin, but i have no bones about saying he hijacked marx's name.  Identified themselves as "communist."  almost every other party that has aligned itself with marxism has called itself "social democratic," just like lenin's party was originally called. </quote>

  Personally I know much more about how Lenin's body was preserved than anything of consequence about the man.  I own to at least three books about  Bill Bass (Univ of Tennessee - Knoxvilles) forensic .. and founder of the famous "body farm".

      Often times we have no clue if you are here to talk or what ? Please be assured an Atheist board is usually not a place for the avocation and defense of the christian gospel, I am unclear about what have given you the idea however that would have led to this specific idea about this board. 

No

 I was really referring to the way some people hold views based on these ideas, in that they will not tolerate any kind of challenge, somewhat how certain authoritarian leaders, such as Stalin, appealed to Marx and/or Lenin to justify their actions. I acknowledge that they may have not been valid representations of the original ideas. Not that different to the way some 'free-market/capitalism' advocates can become dogmatic about their 'theories'. 

It all seems to stem from a failure to recognise the complexities, the 'messiness', of real societies and economies and the difficulties of applying any relatively simple principles to such realities.

This does not mean that there aren't people who advocate these ideas in a more nuanced and sophisticated way,

allow me also to state that i'm not trying to pull a no true scotsman.  i freely acknowledge that stalin, pol pot, mao zedong, etc., were both marxists and atheists, just as cardinal ximenez, mary i, jean-bedel bokassa, and napoleon were christians.  what i take issue with is that they represent the necessary development of marxism and/or atheism, just as i freely acknowledge that albert schweitzer, hans kung, martin luther king, jr., and dag hammarskjold were no less "truly christian" than the ones i mentioned before.

How untrustworthy the Soviets were?  Don't you mean are?  Do you really believe you can trust the Russians?  I don't! 

I have no idea why you think mere assertion is a contribution.

I do have a sneaking trick to pull out of my sleeve.

We are talking democracies in Europe. Cite the political parties which

have formed governments to implement policies which were presented

as marxist in order to win the elections and form the government.

I would be happy to have other than silence as a response.