What Is Communist Socialism?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
What is Communist Socialism, and how does its ideals conflict with Christianity and God's giving of inalienable rights?

1. Under Communist socialism, rights of the people originate from the State.

Under Communism, the people have no inalienable rights. Their rights and freedoms are determined and given only by the State. This means that whatever rights the ruling party thinks the people to have, that only will they have. There is NO basis of human rights, as the ruling party also defines what are human rights according to their principles based on Marxist philosophy. This has led to many direct persecutions and even executions of the people by rulers in a Communist state. The ruling party's realm of control over the individual is limitless using this socialist principle. The State in Communist nations have, and many of them still do, control authority for marriage, whether or not a married couple may have children, the amount and what type of education the child receives, and the type of work. If the individual wants to be Christian, then only belonging to the State operated and controlled Church is allowed. Every aspect of the citizen's life is controlled and influenced by the State.

This principle that only the State can give rights to the people is directly opposed to the idea of inalienable rights that originate from God per His Word The Bible. In a Free State, it is the duty of the State to protect inalienable rights that belong to the people. The U.S. Constitution does this when it is followed. Many of the U.S. laws to protect inalienable rights within the Constitution were derived directly from God's laws in The Bible, which is their basis. This is one of many areas in which the U.S. Constitution aligns with God's Word The Bible.


2. Communist socialism does not support individual property rights.

Under Communist socialism, EVERYTHING is owned by the State, including the people. The people also are State property in a Communist system of government. A false idealism abusing the word 'equality' is used to remove property by those who work harder in order to give it to those who get by with working less. Over the history of Communist governments this principle has created a problem with the nation's economy, making it weak. Since the people knew if they worked harder they would still receive only a portion, they had little incentive to do so. At Jamestown the Pilgrims used the idea of socialism the first year in sharing goods. Many starved that first year because there was no incentive to work hard, since if you did your abundance would be taken away and given to others that refused to work. If there is no incentive to work, it produces financial weakness. Apostle Paul said if a man refuses to work, let that man not eat.

In Communist Russia the government siezed farmer's lands and the farmer was forced to travel to the city to find work in order to live. The State created farm collective systems which the State placed other workers on the farm with no incentive to produce, and thus the land was made less productive. Some starving land owners would go back to the farm lands they owned before and gather some of the old harvest left laying in the field for a single meal, and were shot for stealing from the State, which used the idea of stealing from the people.

Protection of individual property rights is a principle that promotes productivity and real wealth, and a healthy economy. The U.S. Constitution protects these rights of the people when followed. It's illegal financial laws and systems against the U.S. Constitution that have allowed financial corruption by the few in America. One such system is the idea of Fiat paper money not backed by gold reserves. The Federal Reserve system is a Private Bank. It is not a form of Constitutional government of The United States. It pays taxes. Our U.S. Constitution only allows Congress to regulate 'coin money', not print paper dollars backed by thin air.


3. Communist-socialist idealism supports sacrifice of its people for any and all purposes devised by the State apparatus.

In some historical cases, this has meant direct genocide upon its own citizens (Cambodia, Vietnam). Under Stalin's regime state executions were common, even within party leadership. Approximately 8 million Soviet citizens were executed by Stalin's secret police squads. In war, the State often uses human wave tatics in battle sacrificing unecessarily. This is based on the principle of 'THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS'. The State views even its people as a 'thing' to be used and sacrificed for its aims. Thus Communist socialism promotes a debased value for human life.

Under the U.S. Constitution, only U.S. Congress is to have power to declare war, not the President (another area the Constitution has been supplanted by Socialist ideas from treaty agreements with world bodies like the U.N.). At the start of WWII, U.S. Congress followed the American people's desire to stay out of the fray (roughly 80% majority). It took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to get the American people on the war wagon. (De-classified U.S. documentation per Freedom of Information Act documented in the work Day of Deceit suggests the FDR administration formed an 8 point plan that initiated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, thus drawing Congress to declare war upon Japan. FDR was a socialist idealist.)


4. Under Communist socialism, there is no such thing as freedom of speech, nor right to free assembly, nor against unreasonable search and siezure.

This principle should be most dear to all true Americans. The others are no less important, but it was the unlawful acts of unreasonable search and siezure without warrant, persecution of freedom of speech, and right for the people to assemble, that especially led up to the American Revolution against Britain. British soldiers served as the police over the American colonists as an occuptation force. They entered homes at will, pillaging, raping, and in some cases committing murder. This all Communist states have practised throughout their history against their own citizens.

Under Communist socialism, freedom of the press is only allowed as much as it supports the goals and propaganda of the State. All other media sources are prohibited. Mere disagreement in a Communist socialist state has led to direct executions. Many Christians have been jailed and tortured by Communist states just for openly declaring one's Christian beliefs, or for openly preaching The Gospel in public. Religion is tightly controlled in Communist states, as with all other beliefs, whether political or religious.

Under our U.S. Constitution, our freedom of speech, right to assembly, and right against unreasonable search and seizure of our homes is protected.


5. Communist socialism relies on the police state and propaganda apparatus to control unpopular opinion and political loyalties of its citizens.

Under Communism, the state police, secret police, and military, enforce the political beliefs of the State upon its citizens, by force if necessary. In a police state, the police force's primary function is not just to keep law and order, but especially to enforce the aims of the State upon its citizens. There is no Posse Comitatus law, meaning the military also functions to augment the police forces. In contrast per American law of the Posse Comitatus Act, no military troops are to be used to augment local and state police forces (except in a national emergency). The military's function is to use extreme predjudice against enemy armies, not against common citizenry. This was one of the problems created in the American colonies with British soldiers acting as a police state force upon the citizens.


6. Under Communist socialism, due process of law can be extinguished at any time by the State.

This means under Communist rule, a citizen is guilty until proven innocent. Under U.S. Constitutional due process a citizen is innocent until proven guilty, and that proof must be beyond a reasonble doubt. Under Communist socialism doubt has often been used by the State to convict a citizen for death by execution.


7. Under Communist socialism, there is only ONE controlling party, the Communist Party.

When you go to vote in a Communist system of government, you vote for a Communist-Socialist, whether you like it or not. Elections are often only for 'show' in Communist nations. A way to make the citizens feel they have some say in what the ruling Communist Party does. The citizens do not have a say.

Our U.S. Constitution supports the right of its citizens to elect representatives which may come from several different political parties. It doesn't happen often that an independent gets elected, but the option is still there.


8. Under a Communist socialist State, the press is controlled by the State.

Communist socialist states often ban reading material its feels is a threat to the political beliefs of Communism. One such banned book in Communist history has been The Bible.

Our U.S. Constitution protects freedom of the press. As for censorship against filthy literature, it's still the right of the people to determine that.

9. In a Communist socialist state, the corporations are ultimately owned and controlled by the State.

A Communist economy is anti-free enterprise. Our U.S. Constitution protects the people's right to the pursuit of prosperity and happiness. It is illegal per our U.S. Constitution for the government to own and operate a free-enterprise corporation. Government is supposed to function in protecting the rights of free enterprise among the people, not involve itself in running its own free enterprise like Communist socialist states do.


10. Under a Communist socialist system, there's no limit to the State's authority over its citizens.

Under our U.S. Constitution, the rights of the state and federal governments are restricted to those rights specificaly delegated to them per the Constitution. All other rights belong to the people.


It's not difficult to fathom how our U.S. Constitution is a protector of the American people's rights and freedoms. It has all the tenets needed for a free people to govern themselves and ensure each citizen's right to opportunities for happiness and prosperity. It's when unjust leaders and courts get away from following our U.S. Constitution that produces shackles and bonds on the people away from our rights as a free people. And it's up to each U.S. citizen to know what those rights are per the U.S. Constitution, and to defend it.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Socialism and Communism are two different forms of government. There is no such thing as Communist Socialism. Also, Communism has never actually been tried. Finally, you definition of Communism Socialism is Despotism.
 

[email protected]

Choir Loft
Apr 2, 2009
1,635
127
63
West Central Florida
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Socialism and Communism are two different forms of government. There is no such thing as Communist Socialism. Also, Communism has never actually been tried. Finally, you definition of Communism Socialism is Despotism.

Definitions are for the classroom study and for polite academic conversation.

The TRUTH about Communism is its bankrupt economic basis and its oppression.Everywhere its been tried, the result has been the same.

With the possible exception of China, which now has a modified capitalist system, all Communist regimes have failed in their economic manipulations.
Four hundred years of the free market system has proven the market to be the best dictator of supply and demand.
No government, not even the US republic, can adequately regulate an economy towards prosperity.
The current efforts of the US government as well as the Federal Reserve Bank system is a point of proof. Everything they try makes things worse.
The United States economy is too complex to be managed by a few bureaucrats. The same is true of any large country.

If you think Communism will be good for America let me ask you where you would build the gulags (concentration camps)?
The icy wastes of Alaska? The desert of the southwest?
You're going to need them because a lot of Americans will oppose a Communist government quite actively.

The churches will be forced to go underground, but then a lot of people who suck up to the Communist ideology will embrace that as well.

Artistic expression becomes a function of the propaganda ministry. Any free expression is suppressed.

Throughout the years, millions of people have fled communist governments in order to live in nations which have a free society.
There's a reason for that.

The repressive tactics of a Communist police state, shortages of goods and services and suppression of religion as well as artistic freedom are the motives for escape.

Finally, Communism is a SIN. Specifically, it is the sin of idolatry.

It breaks the first commandment.
"I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me."

Whether we like it or not, man is hard wired to worship and serve something beyond himself.
When a repressive atheistic government makes religion illegal, it substitutes the state itself as a form of god.
Communism is a perverted form of religion in that it demands rigid loyalty, rejecting all other attentions and expressions.
The Communist system makes itself god, and that's a sin.
For that reason alone, it ought to be rejected.

Classroom theoretical persuasive tactics are a tissue of lies. Experience and observable history are the truth.
Communism is a stain on the history of mankind as well as a sin.
Any thinking, reasonable person will reject it.

Greedy lazy persons embrace it, for they believe it will give them a free ride.
The workers paradise is a barbed wire cage.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Definitions are for the classroom study and for polite academic conversation.

The TRUTH about Communism is its bankrupt economic basis and its oppression.Everywhere its been tried, the result has been the same.

With the possible exception of China, which now has a modified capitalist system, all Communist regimes have failed in their economic manipulations.
Four hundred years of the free market system has proven the market to be the best dictator of supply and demand.
No government, not even the US republic, can adequately regulate an economy towards prosperity.
The current efforts of the US government as well as the Federal Reserve Bank system is a point of proof. Everything they try makes things worse.
The United States economy is too complex to be managed by a few bureaucrats. The same is true of any large country.

If you think Communism will be good for America let me ask you where you would build the gulags (concentration camps)?
The icy wastes of Alaska? The desert of the southwest?
You're going to need them because a lot of Americans will oppose a Communist government quite actively.

The churches will be forced to go underground, but then a lot of people who suck up to the Communist ideology will embrace that as well.

Artistic expression becomes a function of the propaganda ministry. Any free expression is suppressed.

Throughout the years, millions of people have fled communist governments in order to live in nations which have a free society.
There's a reason for that.

The repressive tactics of a Communist police state, shortages of goods and services and suppression of religion as well as artistic freedom are the motives for escape.

Finally, Communism is a SIN. Specifically, it is the sin of idolatry.

It breaks the first commandment.
"I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me."

Whether we like it or not, man is hard wired to worship and serve something beyond himself.
When a repressive atheistic government makes religion illegal, it substitutes the state itself as a form of god.
Communism is a perverted form of religion in that it demands rigid loyalty, rejecting all other attentions and expressions.
The Communist system makes itself god, and that's a sin.
For that reason alone, it ought to be rejected.

Classroom theoretical persuasive tactics are a tissue of lies. Experience and observable history are the truth.
Communism is a stain on the history of mankind as well as a sin.
Any thinking, reasonable person will reject it.

Greedy lazy persons embrace it, for they believe it will give them a free ride.
The workers paradise is a barbed wire cage.

The human attempt at Communism is despotism and yes, it is evil - just like consumerism is evil. Like I said before, Communism in it's purest state has never been tried except in Monasteries and the early church. In monasteries it has work very well for the past 1500 years,
 

deprofundis

New Member
Dec 3, 2010
135
4
0
I would argue that "pure" communism is one of the only possible governments which could not be argued as idolatrous; any form of state is arguably a false idol, while "pure" communism is one of the few stateless systems of government around. While Marx may have been an atheist, there's nothing about the central principles of communism that is necessarily atheist. Contrary to this thread's first post, Marx's vision of "pure" communism lacked any form of state, meaning that there would be no state from whom rights originated, for whom people were sacrificed, to interdict one's speech or privacy, be a police state, extinguish due process of law, have any political parties at all, control the press, own or control corporations, or exercise any (let alone limitless) control over citizens. I really have no idea where Veteran got his interpretation of communism (well, that's not true, I have several ideas), but it reflects something somewhere between State Capitalism and a vintage cold war strawman of communism, since the original vision of pure communism does not have a state. Since essentially every point in Veteran's post refers to a state, it really does not reflect on communism whatsoever.

To reiterate, true communism has never really been attempted. As mentioned above, State Capitalism is the more accurate political term by which most/all so-called Communist nations should be known. Of the nations to which people have referred (China, СССР, etc.), can any of those people name one in which the workers controlled the means of production? No, in fact, in all of them, the means of production were firmly in the hands of the state, which is why they are more aptly termed "State Capitalism," as it reflects capitalism run and practiced by the state more than any articulation of Marxist or communist thought.

However, even to consider these governments in the discussion, if you ask where one would build gulags, I suppose the real question is where there is room. Currently, the United States represents about five percent of the world's population and about twenty-five percent of its imprisoned population. That gives us not only the largest percentage of the world's imprisoned population, but the largest imprisoned population relative to our total population. California will be releasing thousands of prisoners because there is no longer room to hold everyone we imprison. Furthermore, it's not as though artistic expression is particularly free of censorship in America, either; the number of African-Americans authors who left the US to write in the Soviet Union is staggering. None of this is, of course, to say that the Soviet Union was by any means a desirable or good government in any sense, merely to note that those who live in glass houses are better off not casting stones.

Finally, what about the democratically elected communist government of Chile in the early 1970s? Oh, that's right, it's almost impossible to judge how that would have turned out, since the United States government paid the future despot Augusto Pinoche to murder Allende and hundreds of others in September of 1973.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
There's no such thing as "true Communism" either. It's as much a lie as Socialism, which the Communist USSR abrreviation stood for United Soviet Socialist Republic. It's impossible for government NOT to exist, for that's the way God set things in order for this world. Karl Marx's ideas are just as much a lie as the lies of today's socialists, for Marxism is just another name for Hegel's social philosophy. Both Marx and Hitler developed their own programs of socialism based on it, with one as Communistic and the other as Nationalist. And both Marx's students and Hitler were guilty of the same kind of atrocities against their own citizens. It's because Socialism's basis is that everything and everyone is mere property of the state, to be used and abused at will. Nor is the USSR's use of the word Republic correct, for in a Republic is assumed elected representatives chosen by the people.

The problem is that those who join the boat of Communist Socialism today simply can't see very far in front their own noses, because Christ's enemies simply use the ideas of Socialism and Communism for their hidden purpose of taking control over all nations and peoples in order to try and usurp Christ's True coming reign as KING of kings and LORD of lords. If Christ's enemies could call it something else other than Communist Socialism, or even Nationalism, or Republicanism, or Democracy, they would. Whatever they can use to fool people to buy into their Utopian Totalitarian Socialism, which is really only a mask.

The days are soon coming when the world will discover what the real purpose has been all along behind the ideas of world Communist Socialist Marxist philosophy, for those actually behind it do not plan to end the idea of the state, nor religion, but instead to setup a monarchy with their own philosopher-king of the world instead of The Lord Christ Jesus The KING. This is why our Lord Jesus revealed in Revelation 13 the coming false messiah who is setup in power over all nations will make an "image" to the beast, and require ALL peoples to bow down in religious worship to it, just like what the historical king of Babylon did in the days of the prophet Daniel. It's going to be interesting to see what today's atheists will do in that time when they're required to bow in false worship. It's obviously difficult for Communists Socialists to fathom that's the main purpose of what Leftist Communist-Socialist philosophy has been used for all along.

The American form of government called a Constitutional Republic is not a Democracy like ancient Greece, not a Communist Socialist Republic like the USSR, not an oligarchy, nor despotism. It's the best form of government a free people can have, if its people can keep it like Benjamin Franklin said.

The ONLY true Government is a Monarchy, and that's what we ALL will have when Christ Jesus returns, for He is our True King and King of Righteousness.

Isa 9:6-7
6 For unto us a Child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
(KJV)
 

deprofundis

New Member
Dec 3, 2010
135
4
0
There's no such thing as "true Communism" either. It's as much a lie as Socialism, which the Communist USSR abrreviation stood for United Soviet Socialist Republic. It's impossible for government NOT to exist, for that's the way God set things in order for this world.
I've never taken that interpretation out of the scripture, personally, especially not out of the words of Christ. Support for a government seems necessarily to be idolatry, if you ask me. I don't believe in a violent revolution, but I also don't believe, whatever the law says, that any nation or government is my sovereign. Furthermore, why is "pure Communism" a lie? Perhaps I've been spoiled by more formal argumentation than is common on the internet, but in most debates into which I insert myself, there is an expectation to provide an argument beyond "You're wrong," or "That's a lie," without reason being given why this is the case. Finally, again, the USSR did not represent a communist nation, or even a particularly good socialist nation, but is generally regarded as an example of "state capitalism."

Karl Marx's ideas are just as much a lie as the lies of today's socialists, for Marxism is just another name for Hegel's social philosophy. Both Marx and Hitler developed their own programs of socialism based on it, with one as Communistic and the other as Nationalist. And both Marx's students and Hitler were guilty of the same kind of atrocities against their own citizens. It's because Socialism's basis is that everything and everyone is mere property of the state, to be used and abused at will. Nor is the USSR's use of the word Republic correct, for in a Republic is assumed elected representatives chosen by the people.
First, you're operating under a double-standard; if "Socialism" is defined by the "Socialist" in USSR, why isn't "Republic;" if "Republic" is misused, why couldn't socialism be? Secondly, the idea of communism has roots stretching back farther than Marx or Hegel, into Confucian philosophy and Christian teachings, and probably even before when it was not recorded. To put that aside, I don't and never have argued that socialist and/or communist principles could not be misused or could not be used for evil. I'm saying that they are not inherently evil, and to limit one's interpretation of them to an inherent evil, when they provide perhaps the best hope for a fair and just world that can escape materialism and violence and in which people live more in accord with Christ's teachings.

The problem is that those who join the boat of Communist Socialism today simply can't see very far in front their own noses, because Christ's enemies simply use the ideas of Socialism and Communism for their hidden purpose of taking control over all nations and peoples in order to try and usurp Christ's True coming reign as KING of kings and LORD of lords. If Christ's enemies could call it something else other than Communist Socialism, or even Nationalism, or Republicanism, or Democracy, they would. Whatever they can use to fool people to buy into their Utopian Totalitarian Socialism, which is really only a mask.
On this, we somewhat agree; I think in essentially every instance of a "communist" or "socialist" group coming to power, this is, for the most part, what they have done, the same is true of nationalist groups and republicanism and democracy have both been used to justify heinous atrocities. I don't think the philosophy of living with the false idol of a state and sharing one's possessions, everyone giving what they can and taking what they need, is one of the most noble and Christian goals I've heard a political system espouse. It is, of course, a dream that most likely won't come true, and the name of which may be used as a mask for evil, but evil always hides behind the mask of good and noble ideals. To reduce the idea of communism to its bloodiest and most brutal historical incarnations is the same as those who use the Spanish Inquisition to attack Christians. I don't believe in the savage murder of anyone whose faith isn't exactly identical to mine, any more than I believe in sending off anyone with a different political viewpoint to a gulag. Yet, I am a Christian and, after a fashion, I would consider myself a communist.

The days are soon coming when the world will discover what the real purpose has been all along behind the ideas of world Communist Socialist Marxist philosophy, for those actually behind it do not plan to end the idea of the state, nor religion, but instead to setup a monarchy with their own philosopher-king of the world instead of The Lord Christ Jesus The KING.
1. You don't have to say "Communist Socialist Marxist," you can just use any of the three, since you use them interchangeably with no regard for their differing meanings, anyhow.
2. Um, what Communist Socialist Marxists are these? The ones in the Sovie-- oh, wait, no Soviet Union. The ones in Chi-- oh, wait, capitalist dictatorship, now. The ones in Cub-- oh, wait, Cuba's basically going capitalist, as well. Maybe the government of former Sandanista David Ortega in Nicarag-- oh, he turned pretty capitalist over the last decade. This philosopher-king isn't going to have many followers, it doesn't look like.

This is why our Lord Jesus revealed in Revelation 13 the coming false messiah who is setup in power over all nations will make an "image" to the beast, and require ALL peoples to bow down in religious worship to it, just like what the historical king of Babylon did in the days of the prophet Daniel. It's going to be interesting to see what today's atheists will do in that time when they're required to bow in false worship. It's obviously difficult for Communists Socialists to fathom that's the main purpose of what Leftist Communist-Socialist philosophy has been used for all along.
Communism is essentially in power over no nation, loosely socialist policies have minute amounts of power in a few otherwise capitalist nations in Northern Europe. If anyone is being set up as the false idol, it is the Dollar, to whom people bow as their salvation and for whom they sacrifice their morals. If the false messiah is going to be a communist, or even a socialist, he's got a lot of countries to take over, yet.

The American form of government called a Constitutional Republic is not a Democracy like ancient Greece, not a Communist Socialist Republic like the USSR, not an oligarchy, nor despotism. It's the best form of government a free people can have, if its people can keep it like Benjamin Franklin said.
You accuse communists of building gulags and thus despotism, but ignore the fact (despite me having even brought it up) that we have more of our population in chains than any communist nation did. Tell me how having a twentieth of the world's population, and a quarter of the world's imprisoned population can be anything but despotism?
You say we're not an oligarchy, but I'd like to know when was the last time that somebody without rich, powerful corporate connections ended up in the White House?

The ONLY true Government is a Monarchy, and that's what we ALL will have when Christ Jesus returns, for He is our True King and King of Righteousness.

Isa 9:6-7
6 For unto us a Child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
(KJV)
On this much, at least, we can agree. :)
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
I've never taken that interpretation out of the scripture, personally, especially not out of the words of Christ. Support for a government seems necessarily to be idolatry, if you ask me. I don't believe in a violent revolution, but I also don't believe, whatever the law says, that any nation or government is my sovereign. Furthermore, why is "pure Communism" a lie? Perhaps I've been spoiled by more formal argumentation than is common on the internet, but in most debates into which I insert myself, there is an expectation to provide an argument beyond "You're wrong," or "That's a lie," without reason being given why this is the case. Finally, again, the USSR did not represent a communist nation, or even a particularly good socialist nation, but is generally regarded as an example of "state capitalism."

Then you're not following God's Word if you have that attitude that being subject to government is like idolatry...

Rom 13:1-6
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
(KJV)

2 Pet 2:10
10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
(KJV)

The last part of your paragraph denies the facts of history about the movement of Communist socialicism by trying to equate it with a utopian ideal communism that has never existed, nor will ever exist, nor can ever exist. It's actually Socialism that is the heart of that philosophy, for Hitler used it one way, and the Lennist-Marxists applied it another way. But both applied it in opposition to a monarchy like England and a free Constitutional Republic like the United States.


, you're operating under a double-standard; if "Socialism" is defined by the "Socialist" in USSR, why isn't "Republic;" if "Republic" is misused, why couldn't socialism be? Secondly, the idea of communism has roots stretching back farther than Marx or Hegel, into Confucian philosophy and Christian teachings, and probably even before when it was not recorded. To put that aside, I don't and never have argued that socialist and/or communist principles could not be misused or could not be used for evil. I'm saying that they are not inherently evil, and to limit one's interpretation of them to an inherent evil, when they provide perhaps the best hope for a fair and just world that can escape materialism and violence and in which people live more in accord with Christ's teachings.

No double-standard here, Socialism is the 'heart' of both the movement of world Communism under Marxist-Lenninist ideology, and Hitler's Nationalist Socialist Party during the 1930's and 1940's which was also 'called' the movement of Fascism. Many of the dictatorships in Latin and South America (like Venezuala) are Socialist states which can easily align with either Communism or Fascism. Both are Socialist movements.

Communism does not go that far back in history, but the idea of Socialism it comes from does go back farther. The first settlers at Jamestown used the ideology of Socialism their first year, and many starved that first year because of its principle that no matter how hard you worked, everyone received the same. I've already explained in earlier posts how Socialism is very anti-economy in principle, and anit-property rights, which is also against God's laws in His Word. A modern example?

The state of Greece has gone bankrupt in the last year because of following Socialist philosophy, for that's the principles it used for simply giving wealth away to people that wouldn't work. More people were drawing free paychecks from the state than there were people working to cover it. It eventually overburdened the economy and state coffers. The other European Union nations are angry about it too, because now the other EU nations must pick up the tab if it is to allow Greece to continue in the EU. What is especially sad is that the EU itself follows and promotes the principles of Socialism that's the ultimate cause. The EU is not a friendly system to the western European nations with promoting Socialism, as the other nations having to pick up Greece's tab are slowly discovering. Somebody's got to pay, and in Greece's case, it's the rest of the EU member nation economies, and thus its peoples. But those who choose to remain in ignorance about it will say the EU is the best thing since sliced bread.

As for the USSR's usage of the word Republic, that was as a mask, as they instituted an outward form of government to the people with supposed free elections of a president, when the only ones allowed to run were Party members. It's kind of like Hitler holding free elections where the only ones you could vote for were Nazi Party members. If that ploy was so easy to see with the USSR's usage of principles of a republic, then why can't people see how their promotion of Communist Socialism is also a mask for but another aim?

On this, we somewhat agree; I think in essentially every instance of a "communist" or "socialist" group coming to power, this is, for the most part, what they have done, the same is true of nationalist groups and republicanism and democracy have both been used to justify heinous atrocities. I don't think the philosophy of living with the false idol of a state and sharing one's possessions, everyone giving what they can and taking what they need, is one of the most noble and Christian goals I've heard a political system espouse. It is, of course, a dream that most likely won't come true, and the name of which may be used as a mask for evil, but evil always hides behind the mask of good and noble ideals. To reduce the idea of communism to its bloodiest and most brutal historical incarnations is the same as those who use the Spanish Inquisition to attack Christians. I don't believe in the savage murder of anyone whose faith isn't exactly identical to mine, any more than I believe in sending off anyone with a different political viewpoint to a gulag. Yet, I am a Christian and, after a fashion, I would consider myself a communist.

So far, I really don't see where you and I agree much on this topic, except with the idea that people who seek to rule might claim they support republican, democratic, communist, or socialist principles, while actually following something else entirely. But the educated peoples still won't be duped, because it's not at all difficult to determine whether a ruler is really following what they claim to follow. For that reason, Communists in Cambodia, Vietnam, etc., when taking power murdered many of the educated classes of people who well understood what the movement really is about, because their understanding poses a threat to the re-education of the unlearned majority. If the Communists get final control of the western Christian nations, as they plan, we'll see those purges again, this time among those in the West.


1. You don't have to say "Communist Socialist Marxist," you can just use any of the three, since you use them interchangeably with no regard for their differing meanings, anyhow.

All three can be included in the same phrase, because they are all about the principles of Socialist philosophy. One could even include Hitler's Nationalist Socialist label, or even Fascist label others gave to his movement. It's all based on the principle of Socialist philosophy, and it is anti-Biblical. There's no since in trying to sugar coat it just because many of the peoples in western Europe and America are now comfortable with the Socialist label, which has been Communism's plan for Europe all along per their long-range strategy against the West (per the 1960's ex-KGB defector Golitsyn in his work 'New Lies For Old'). The tie-in with European Socialism in the Americas comes from another group allied with European Socialists, like those in England which instituted an American branch of the British Round Table group operating in the U.S. under the name Council On Foreign Relations, which is linked with the British Socialist philosphy of Cecil B. Rhodes via the Rhodes Scholarship program (documentable per Georgetown history professor Carrol Quigley in his work Tragedy And Hope). Quigley actually said in his work Tragedy And Hope that the western Socialists often work with Commnism, and have no problem doing so. It makes sense, since both movements have the same aim of World Socialism.


2. Um, what Communist Socialist Marxists are these? The ones in the Sovie-- oh, wait, no Soviet Union. The ones in Chi-- oh, wait, capitalist dictatorship, now. The ones in Cub-- oh, wait, Cuba's basically going capitalist, as well. Maybe the government of former Sandanista David Ortega in Nicarag-- oh, he turned pretty capitalist over the last decade. This philosopher-king isn't going to have many followers, it doesn't look like.

That's funny. And it really shows your ignorance of what the movement of Socialism has always been about, whether it be Communist Socialism or Nationalistic Socialism (a type the EU promotes). It's about the control of all nations, peoples, multitudes, and tongues (Revelation 13:1 and 17:15). That naturally includes the control of ALL wealth too. That's why Communist Party members have often enjoyed wealth priviledges the masses under Communism have not.

In Communist Russia after Stalin died, the Party members got together and realized how Stalin's iron tactics upon its own citizens put Communism in a bad light to the rest of the world. So the Communist Party changed their tactics in Russia and developed a long-range strategy in 1958 called the New Economic Policy (per Golitsyn's work New Lies For Old). That new strategy since 1958 has had the plan to join East and West under one-world Socialism (per Golitsyn). It called first for a untied Socialist Europe "from the Atlantic to the Urals". The plan contains at least 45 points that western intelligence has known about since 1958 (as revealed by the FBI agent Cleon Skousen in his 1958 book The Naked Communist). Per Golitsyn, that meant Communism eventually joining with western capitalism to form a plan for one-world Socialism. This is why the Communist Party relaxed its earlier principles of Marxist philosophy, especially since they allowed the Berlin Wall to come down in the 1990's. It was always part of their 1958 long-range strategy for overtaking the West. But what will happen once they succeed in total control? God's Word shows us.


Communism is essentially in power over no nation, loosely socialist policies have minute amounts of power in a few otherwise capitalist nations in Northern Europe. If anyone is being set up as the false idol, it is the Dollar, to whom people bow as their salvation and for whom they sacrifice their morals. If the false messiah is going to be a communist, or even a socialist, he's got a lot of countries to take over, yet.

Sounds like you've believed some of the lies world Socialists want us all to believe with your first statement. World Socialism, even in northern Europe, has basically choked off many powers of state sovereignty. That was the purpose of the EU, and is still the goal of today's Communist International. The fact is that Communist Socialism has ALWAYS depended upon the Capitlist West for its economic subsistance, even as Red China is now taking great advantage of. It's not by chance that western socialists like FDR used to call Joseph Stalin by the nickname "Uncle Joe", and that the U.S. Lend-lease program built up Russia during and 'after' WWII.

As for the idea of the dollar, it's simply a means of exchange for goods or services. EVERY nation and people needs a method of exchange, whether it's barter goods, Indian beads, or whatever. Coke bottle caps could be used for money if the people agreed to it. It doesn't have to be something of intrinsic value like gold or silver, as can be seen with today's paper currency. So there's nothing wrong with the idea of money, it's the love of money that is the problem. And that's especially what the world Communists who use Socialism are out to get, the wealth of the nations, and all property. It's their aim to sieze all property, and then mete it out according to 'their' principles of Communist Socialism. The old Communist strategy was to keep the people on the edge of starvation to keep power over them, give them just enough for the bare necessities. It's always been about their political control over the masses, keeping the masses down so as to keep power over them; it's a Machivellian tactic.

As for the coming false messiah, he's not arrived yet. But as for the taking over of the majority of nations under the plans of World Socialism by Communists and their allies, the nation list of Ezekiel 38 is almost complete today. Or haven't you noticed who the radical Muslim nations have sided with today against Israel and the western Christian nations? Haven't you ever questioned how Communist nations like Russia, Red China, North Korea, etc., could ever be successful in supporting Islamic nations, since Communist philosphy is ultimately atheistic? Haven't you even wondered why Communist rulers in Russia and Red China would allow a state operated Christian Church for Christians, and why many Christians there refuse to belong to their state church?

You accuse communists of building gulags and thus despotism, but ignore the fact (despite me having even brought it up) that we have more of our population in chains than any communist nation did. Tell me how having a twentieth of the world's population, and a quarter of the world's imprisoned population can be anything but despotism?
You say we're not an oligarchy, but I'd like to know when was the last time that somebody without rich, powerful corporate connections ended up in the White House?

Actually, I didn't bring up the subject of Communist gulags. Someone else here did. And you're comparison of western prisons doesn't really fit the Communist gulags anyway, since the gulags in Russia were especially about imprisonment of political disidents that often was only about their open denouncement of Communism (check out Alexander Soltzenhetzen's 1970's work, since he was a political prisoner in a Russian gulag). So really, trying to compare western society's law structure of due process with a Communist state's policy of due process is in reality a joke. But it is gaining a like relationship, even since Obama wants to lock-up Americans that publically disagree with his politics. But isn't that an idea from Socalist Communism? Yep.

You question the powers in America? Then you're really questioning the principles of world Socialism, for many of today's high leaders in America are western socialists tied to European socialism, since that's where the methods of the western "establishment" insiders and the Rhodes Scholarship program originates (wasn't Bill Clinton a Rhodes scholar?). It's time to get out your Bible and really consider where we are today, and where we're headed in today's times prior to our Lord Jesus' return.


 

deprofundis

New Member
Dec 3, 2010
135
4
0
Then you're not following God's Word if you have that attitude that being subject to government is like idolatry...

Rom 13:1-6
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
(KJV)
I've always taken that verse to refer to actual higher powers, not those who, filled with vanity, presume themselves greater than another. The wise from whom we can learn, not the selfish tyrants to whom we are yoked. You, yourself, have attested to the acts of governments that do not punish those who do evil, but those who do His will.

2 Pet 2:10
10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
(KJV)
The word "government" here is translated from the Greek more accurately, at least in my view, translating to "authority." While I respect the beauty of the King James translation, one must consider the personal gain to the mortals who translated it, and that the political agenda behind their translation may not have been His will, but theirs. True authority is earned, not forced, as is the "authority" of a government.

The last part of your paragraph denies the facts of history about the movement of Communist socialicism by trying to equate it with a utopian ideal communism that has never existed, nor will ever exist, nor can ever exist. It's actually Socialism that is the heart of that philosophy, for Hitler used it one way, and the Lennist-Marxists applied it another way. But both applied it in opposition to a monarchy like England and a free Constitutional Republic like the United States.

No double-standard here, Socialism is the 'heart' of both the movement of world Communism under Marxist-Lenninist ideology, and Hitler's Nationalist Socialist Party during the 1930's and 1940's which was also 'called' the movement of Fascism. Many of the dictatorships in Latin and South America (like Venezuala) are Socialist states which can easily align with either Communism or Fascism. Both are Socialist movements.
I think you misunderstand my point; you define "socialism" by how it was used by the Soviet Union, and say that this is its definition because it is the name of the Soviet Union. Yet, you define "republic" in opposition to its use in the name of the Soviet Union, rather than by its usage there. Essentially, if they misuse "republic," why would they not also be misusing "socialist"?

Сommunism does not go that far back in history, but the idea of Socialism it comes from does go back farther. The first settlers at Jamestown used the ideology of Socialism their first year, and many starved that first year because of its principle that no matter how hard you worked, everyone received the same. I've already explained in earlier posts how Socialism is very anti-economy in principle, and anit-property rights, which is also against God's laws in His Word. A modern example?
Big-C Communism, as a defined movement may not, but the principle does. I suppose you are calling that principle socialism, so I suppose we may as well use your terminology. That being the case, you are making a strawman of Socialism. The logic in your example of Jamestown is flawed; they starved because they did not have enough food. Whether this was due to laziness (as you imply) or to other conditions (as seems more likely, to me), is irrelevant to socialism. Arguably more would have starved in an alternative scenario, where those with more food than they needed to survive could eat more, while the rest would be left to die. Secondly, the failure of individuals within a socialist society to act appropriately does not reflect on the merits of the philosophy behind it, any more than counterfeiting or robbery reflects on the philosophy of capitalism.

The state of Greece has gone bankrupt in the last year because of following Socialist philosophy, for that's the principles it used for simply giving wealth away to people that wouldn't work. More people were drawing free paychecks from the state than there were people working to cover it. It eventually overburdened the economy and state coffers. The other European Union nations are angry about it too, because now the other EU nations must pick up the tab if it is to allow Greece to continue in the EU. What is especially sad is that the EU itself follows and promotes the principles of Socialism that's the ultimate cause. The EU is not a friendly system to the western European nations with promoting Socialism, as the other nations having to pick up Greece's tab are slowly discovering. Somebody's got to pay, and in Greece's case, it's the rest of the EU member nation economies, and thus its peoples. But those who choose to remain in ignorance about it will say the EU is the best thing since sliced bread.
Greece didn't have enough people working to cover the "free paychecks" because there weren't enough available jobs in Greece. If they hadn't been getting "free paychecks," perhaps Greece would have a stronger economy, but it would also have a lot of homeless, starving children. We are all equally children of God, and I don't see anything wrong with giving up some of my money and luxury so that another may live instead of die in the streets.

As for the USSR's usage of the word Republic, that was as a mask, as they instituted an outward form of government to the people with supposed free elections of a president, when the only ones allowed to run were Party members. It's kind of like Hitler holding free elections where the only ones you could vote for were Nazi Party members. If that ploy was so easy to see with the USSR's usage of principles of a republic, then why can't people see how their promotion of Communist Socialism is also a mask for but another aim?
That is, in fact, exactly what I said; that the USSR was no more legitimately socialist than it was legitimately a republic. Both were simply masks for despotism. Just because it had "elections" (which were far from free or legitimate) and implemented some "socialist" policies (which seemed to benefit those in power a lot more than they ever did the workers), does not make them either a republic or socialist. Just as you say, both were false masks for another aim. I have, in fact, been saying this entire time that the Soviet Union was Communist/Socialist in name only.

So far, I really don't see where you and I agree much on this topic, except with the idea that people who seek to rule might claim they support republican, democratic, communist, or socialist principles, while actually following something else entirely. But the educated peoples still won't be duped, because it's not at all difficult to determine whether a ruler is really following what they claim to follow. For that reason, Communists in Cambodia, Vietnam, etc., when taking power murdered many of the educated classes of people who well understood what the movement really is about, because their understanding poses a threat to the re-education of the unlearned majority. If the Communists get final control of the western Christian nations, as they plan, we'll see those purges again, this time among those in the West.
That depends on the Communists (or whatever you'd like to call them, your use of the terms "communist" and "socialist" is confusing to me, since it differs somewhat from the standard ones given to those terms) elected. If they are leaders like the Communist parties in Cambodia, the USSR, or Vietnam, I agree entirely. If they are true communists/socialists/people who like sharing more than exploiting others for personal gain, I see no reason why they would do this. You assume anyone who doesn't like the idea of making another suffer so that s/he can get richer is a brutal totalitarian, and there's really no reason to make this assumption.

All three can be included in the same phrase, because they are all about the principles of Socialist philosophy. One could even include Hitler's Nationalist Socialist label, or even Fascist label others gave to his movement. It's all based on the principle of Socialist philosophy, and it is anti-Biblical. There's no since in trying to sugar coat it just because many of the peoples in western Europe and America are now comfortable with the Socialist label, which has been Communism's plan for Europe all along per their long-range strategy against the West (per the 1960's ex-KGB defector Golitsyn in his work 'New Lies For Old'). The tie-in with European Socialism in the Americas comes from another group allied with European Socialists, like those in England which instituted an American branch of the British Round Table group operating in the U.S. under the name Council On Foreign Relations, which is linked with the British Socialist philosphy of Cecil B. Rhodes via the Rhodes Scholarship program (documentable per Georgetown history professor Carrol Quigley in his work Tragedy And Hope). Quigley actually said in his work Tragedy And Hope that the western Socialists often work with Commnism, and have no problem doing so. It makes sense, since both movements have the same aim of World Socialism.
That has nothing to do with each word having a different meaning and representing a different idea. They can be and often have been connected, and there are similarities, but this by no means makes them the same or usable interchangeably. Furthermore, I think using a KGB defector as a source is questionable at best; the potential for bias is simply immense.

That's funny. And it really shows your ignorance of what the movement of Socialism has always been about, whether it be Communist Socialism or Nationalistic Socialism (a type the EU promotes). It's about the control of all nations, peoples, multitudes, and tongues (Revelation 13:1 and 17:15). That naturally includes the control of ALL wealth too. That's why Communist Party members have often enjoyed wealth priviledges the masses under Communism have not.
Then they're not communists, are they?

Sounds like you've believed some of the lies world Socialists want us all to believe with your first statement. World Socialism, even in northern Europe, has basically choked off many powers of state sovereignty. That was the purpose of the EU, and is still the goal of today's Communist International. The fact is that Communist Socialism has ALWAYS depended upon the Capitlist West for its economic subsistance, even as Red China is now taking great advantage of. It's not by chance that western socialists like FDR used to call Joseph Stalin by the nickname "Uncle Joe", and that the U.S. Lend-lease program built up Russia during and 'after' WWII.
Is there some China I'm missing? Because the China I know of isn't particularly "red". Furthermore, Europe is still quite capitalist. You keep saying it's not, but I don't know where you're getting this from. A few socialist policies are in place, but the economy is still fundamentally capitalist in nature. The workers do not control the means of production, and it is still possible to accumulate massive amounts of personal wealth or to live in extreme poverty.

As for the idea of the dollar, it's simply a means of exchange for goods or services. EVERY nation and people needs a method of exchange, whether it's barter goods, Indian beads, or whatever. Coke bottle caps could be used for money if the people agreed to it. It doesn't have to be something of intrinsic value like gold or silver, as can be seen with today's paper currency. So there's nothing wrong with the idea of money, it's the love of money that is the problem.
The love of money is essentially the centre of capitalism as a philosophy. That is my point.

And that's especially what the world Communists who use Socialism are out to get, the wealth of the nations, and all property. It's their aim to sieze all property, and then mete it out according to 'their' principles of Communist Socialism. The old Communist strategy was to keep the people on the edge of starvation to keep power over them, give them just enough for the bare necessities. It's always been about their political control over the masses, keeping the masses down so as to keep power over them; it's a Machivellian tactic.
Again, whoever does this is not a communist, or even much of a socialist. Those are the policies of a despot robber-baron, whatever masks they wear over that face.

As for the coming false messiah, he's not arrived yet. But as for the taking over of the majority of nations under the plans of World Socialism by Communists and their allies, the nation list of Ezekiel 38 is almost complete today. Or haven't you noticed who the radical Muslim nations have sided with today against Israel and the western Christian nations? Haven't you ever questioned how Communist nations like Russia, Red China, North Korea, etc., could ever be successful in supporting Islamic nations, since Communist philosphy is ultimately atheistic? Haven't you even wondered why Communist rulers in Russia and Red China would allow a state operated Christian Church for Christians, and why many Christians there refuse to belong to their state church?
What are you even talking about? Russia hasn't been communist (or, rather, claimed to be) in decades. I really don't get what you're saying, otherwise. None of the nations you mentioned are explicitly mentioned Ezekiel 38.

Actually, I didn't bring up the subject of Communist gulags. Someone else here did. And you're comparison of western prisons doesn't really fit the Communist gulags anyway, since the gulags in Russia were especially about imprisonment of political disidents that often was only about their open denouncement of Communism (check out Alexander Soltzenhetzen's 1970's work, since he was a political prisoner in a Russian gulag). So really, trying to compare western society's law structure of due process with a Communist state's policy of due process is in reality a joke.
My apologies for misquoting you. I believed the statement to have been in one of your posts.
My views on the subject do stand, though, for whatever it is worth. Those who violate the law of a nation disagree with its politics. There is no prison held by mortal law who is not a political prisoner. Furthermore, I believe looking at a few records can show that due process in America is a sad joke without much of a punchline, these days. Our justice system is innocence for the rich and guilt for the poor, more often than not. Justice in American can be bought and sold, sadly, it seems.

But it is gaining a like relationship, even since Obama wants to lock-up Americans that publically disagree with his politics. But isn't that an idea from Socalist Communism? Yep.
You mean like Abraham Lincoln did? Along with just about every other president since and probably a great many before?


You question the powers in America? Then you're really questioning the principles of world Socialism, for many of today's high leaders in America are western socialists tied to European socialism, since that's where the methods of the western "establishment" insiders and the Rhodes Scholarship program originates (wasn't Bill Clinton a Rhodes scholar?).
The idea that America is in any way socialist is confusing, to me. The Clinton administration was rather conservatively capitalist. Perhaps in the schema of American capitalism, it leaned more towards socialism than Reagan or Bush, but it was far closer to their policies than to socialism.


It's time to get out your Bible and really consider where we are today, and where we're headed in today's times prior to our Lord Jesus' return.
I have my Bible out, right now; I'm looking at Mark 10:21-10:25.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
I've always taken that verse to refer to actual higher powers, not those who, filled with vanity, presume themselves greater than another. The wise from whom we can learn, not the selfish tyrants to whom we are yoked. You, yourself, have attested to the acts of governments that do not punish those who do evil, but those who do His will.

Look at Bible history. It is always God Who controls the powers of rulers, whether they follow Him or something else (like Nebuchadnezzar). And when His people are rebellious against Him, He has often used rulers of the nations to chastize His people. When His people turned to Him and righteousness per His Word, He gave them power over the nations. But even then it still involved a government with rulers over His people.


The word "government" here is translated from the Greek more accurately, at least in my view, translating to "authority." While I respect the beauty of the King James translation, one must consider the personal gain to the mortals who translated it, and that the political agenda behind their translation may not have been His will, but theirs. True authority is earned, not forced, as is the "authority" of a government.

I keep hearing about some supposed political agenda of King James and the translators, but that argument is a figment of some people's imagination, most likely those who hate the idea of a monarchy. Up to the time of King James, the religious authorities in England had tried to keep God's written Word out of the hands of the majority, just as Rome had done. King James ordained God's Holy Writ to the English people, which showed an unselfish act on his part, which goes totally against ideas of some political agenda of power control over the people.


I think you misunderstand my point; you define "socialism" by how it was used by the Soviet Union, and say that this is its definition because it is the name of the Soviet Union. Yet, you define "republic" in opposition to its use in the name of the Soviet Union, rather than by its usage there. Essentially, if they misuse "republic," why would they not also be misusing "socialist"?

It's because Socialist principles the Russian Communists used come from Socialist philosophy, like lack of property rights and the welfare statism. They followed principles of a republic too, since they allowed elections. But the elections were a lie, though the idea of elected reps in a republic is not a lie. Our U.S. Constitution stands in direct opposition to that Socialist philosophy, "We the people..." remember? Under Socialist philosophy it would instead be, "We the State...".


Big-C Communism, as a defined movement may not, but the principle does. I suppose you are calling that principle socialism, so I suppose we may as well use your terminology. That being the case, you are making a strawman of Socialism. The logic in your example of Jamestown is flawed; they starved because they did not have enough food. Whether this was due to laziness (as you imply) or to other conditions (as seems more likely, to me), is irrelevant to socialism. Arguably more would have starved in an alternative scenario, where those with more food than they needed to survive could eat more, while the rest would be left to die. Secondly, the failure of individuals within a socialist society to act appropriately does not reflect on the merits of the philosophy behind it, any more than counterfeiting or robbery reflects on the philosophy of capitalism.

That situation at Jamestown is documented history. Go look it up. The first year they meted out to everyone the same, whether one worked or not. That's the practice of Socialism. The next year they reverted to the Biblical principle that if you didn't work you didn't eat. They had plenty the next year. The only thing that can keep the practice of Socialism afloat is capitalism, and that's why Communist states like Russia and Red China have been forced to turn to capitalism.

Greece didn't have enough people working to cover the "free paychecks" because there weren't enough available jobs in Greece. If they hadn't been getting "free paychecks," perhaps Greece would have a stronger economy, but it would also have a lot of homeless, starving children. We are all equally children of God, and I don't see anything wrong with giving up some of my money and luxury so that another may live instead of die in the streets.

I thought European Socialism was supposed to take care of all that? What happenned? It simply showed how a lot of people that WERE able to work didn't, and the rulers with the ability to create jobs failed because of welfare statist ideas which come from Socialist philosophy. Penalize those who work and take the fruits of their labor away and give it to those who won't work. Would a true leader of the people run their own households like that? No, because after a while they soon realize that you can't spend more than you got coming in. It's simple economics. So why would those same leaders not want to use that practice for their nation's economy? It's because they've been fed the lie that Socialism works when it doesn't.


That is, in fact, exactly what I said; that the USSR was no more legitimately socialist than it was legitimately a republic. Both were simply masks for despotism. Just because it had "elections" (which were far from free or legitimate) and implemented some "socialist" policies (which seemed to benefit those in power a lot more than they ever did the workers), does not make them either a republic or socialist. Just as you say, both were false masks for another aim. I have, in fact, been saying this entire time that the Soviet Union was Communist/Socialist in name only.

The USSR was purely Socialist with atheistic Marxism to boot. That's why it's needed economic boosts from the West to keep afloat, and is still needing that.


That depends on the Communists (or whatever you'd like to call them, your use of the terms "communist" and "socialist" is confusing to me, since it differs somewhat from the standard ones given to those terms) elected. If they are leaders like the Communist parties in Cambodia, the USSR, or Vietnam, I agree entirely. If they are true communists/socialists/people who like sharing more than exploiting others for personal gain, I see no reason why they would do this. You assume anyone who doesn't like the idea of making another suffer so that s/he can get richer is a brutal totalitarian, and there's really no reason to make this assumption.

Bolshevicism, Communism, Socialism, all allied philosophical principles against the idea of a free people and a government of the people and by the people, since under Socialism the rights and freedoms of the people is determined by the state apparatus and not by the people.


That has nothing to do with each word having a different meaning and representing a different idea. They can be and often have been connected, and there are similarities, but this by no means makes them the same or usable interchangeably. Furthermore, I think using a KGB defector as a source is questionable at best; the potential for bias is simply immense.

The 1960's defector Golitsyn has been very accurate with his predictions on what Communist Russia has been doing since the 1980's, including with predicting Russia would allow the Berlin Wall to come down. If it weren't for his predictions being so accurate, he wouldn't make a good source. So he's not going to be popular with the eastern "establishment" in the U.S. that has turned to Socialism and often works with Communism like Georgetown professor Carrol Quigley revealed.


Is there some China I'm missing? Because the China I know of isn't particularly "red". Furthermore, Europe is still quite capitalist. You keep saying it's not, but I don't know where you're getting this from. A few socialist policies are in place, but the economy is still fundamentally capitalist in nature. The workers do not control the means of production, and it is still possible to accumulate massive amounts of personal wealth or to live in extreme poverty.

The European Socialist system most definitely controls the means of production, just as Socialist leaders in America have been doing. Many businesses in the U.S. receive government subsidies and bailouts to keep afloat while the small mom and pop businesses don't, which if that control were in the hands of the people those corporations that are unprofitable would go under. Now the U.S. government is starting to join in ownership of those corporations they bail out, which is a practice of Socialism (i.e., General Motors).

The love of money is essentially the centre of capitalism as a philosophy. That is my point.

The 'love of money' is no more a capitalist idea than any other philosophy. Capitalism is an economic method, and that's all it is. It is the anti-thesis of Socialism because it holds to the principle of a worker enjoying the fruits of their own labor, while Socialism is about the redistribution of the fruits of a worker's labor. Capitalism is more productive as long as the worker gets to keep those fruits to sell or barter with, while Socialism promotes a weak economy because a worker does not have incentive to work as hard, since they know their fruits of labor is going to be taken away. That's why Capitalism is a sign of a free people, while Socialism is a sign of slavery, since the state must resort to tactics to prod a worker to work harder. Under Communism that often led to the threat of bodily punishment, just like the situation of the children of Israel under bondage of slavery to Egypt.

Again, whoever does this is not a communist, or even much of a socialist. Those are the policies of a despot robber-baron, whatever masks they wear over that face.

What are you even talking about? Russia hasn't been communist (or, rather, claimed to be) in decades. I really don't get what you're saying, otherwise. None of the nations you mentioned are explicitly mentioned Ezekiel 38.

Russia, Red China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc..., are still Communist nations with a Communist Party still in control. The Communist International is not dead, like they would prefer many to think. World Communism has yet to be defeated. ("Red China" with the word Red is a commonly used label for Communist mainland China in contrast to Nationalist China now called Taiwan, the island where the Nationalist Chinese fled who fought against the Communist Chinese under Mao).

In Ezekiel 38, the nation alignment that is to come upon Israel in the last days is given. Those nations involve Libya, Persia (area of Iran, Iraq), Togarmah (areas of Armenia and Turkey), Ethiopia (probably portion of Sudan, since it used be part of ancient Ethiopia), Gomer (areas of ex-Soviet satellites like Georgia), all allied under the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal (Toblisk). Today, the radical Islamic nations against Israel are allied with Russia and Red China. Thinking that Communism is dead today is foolishness, especially with the alignment of nations against Israel and the Christian West. When Israel went into Lebanon a couple of years ago to deal with Islamic terrorists, Russia sent the Lebanonese terrorists missles, and moved part of its navies to ports in Syria as a show of force.

My apologies for misquoting you. I believed the statement to have been in one of your posts.
My views on the subject do stand, though, for whatever it is worth. Those who violate the law of a nation disagree with its politics. There is no prison held by mortal law who is not a political prisoner. Furthermore, I believe looking at a few records can show that due process in America is a sad joke without much of a punchline, these days. Our justice system is innocence for the rich and guilt for the poor, more often than not. Justice in American can be bought and sold, sadly, it seems.

God treats the nations as He always has. When the nations seek and follow Him and His Ways, they become blessed. But when they rebel, He punishes them through evil leaders and conquerers of other nations. But even with those they still will use the law to keep order, while there can exist laws that put the people in bondage. Suffering in America is ultimately because of what the people are following, and who they are listening to and believe on. The plan for a one world government by Satan's host is not a plan to destroy the world and all its peoples. It's a plan to establish a false messiah saviour to the world, in place of Christ Jesus. They can't be successful in that by destroying whole peoples. God is not going to allow it, which is why when Satan's host learn how God and His elect will disrupt that plan, they will seek to come upon God's people in retaliation, and that's when Christ will step in to stop them. That's what Ezekiel 38-39 is about, which ushers us into Christ's thousand years Milennium reign on earth.


You mean like Abraham Lincoln did? Along with just about every other president since and probably a great many before?

Yeah, he did mistreat Indians that rebelled because of the treaty broken with them, and even had a Marine officer locked up who refused to serve under his administration. But how does that compare with the millions of executions by Communist states like Russia, Red China, Vietnam, and Cambodia?


The idea that America is in any way socialist is confusing, to me. The Clinton administration was rather conservatively capitalist. Perhaps in the schema of American capitalism, it leaned more towards socialism than Reagan or Bush, but it was far closer to their policies than to socialism.

You're kidding, right? Reason for one of the latest turnovers in elected representatives by the American people is because of how the people are getting tired of the internationalist and European Socialist policies being pushed upon Americans by Leftist leadership.


I have my Bible out, right now; I'm looking at Mark 10:21-10:25.


Mark 10:24
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
(KJV)

Can't just apply that Scripture any way you want. Our Lord was very specific that He was speaking of those who "trust in riches", i.e., materialists that don't believe in God (i.e., Communism which is from Marxist ideas of materialism), i.e., the greedy who usurp the rights of the worker to enjoy the fruits of their own labor, i.e., those who care not for the poor, the fatherless, or widow.


Isa 65:21-24
21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of My people, and Mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.
24 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
(KJV)






 

TexUs

New Member
Nov 18, 2010
1,197
37
0
Like I said before, Communism in it's purest state has never been tried except in Monasteries
First, why do you think it is? Because it's never worked long enough to come to fruition.

Secondly, I see no voluntarily submitted basis for Communism, which is exactly what Monasteries are, so please stop comparing the two- as they do not run on Communism.
 

deprofundis

New Member
Dec 3, 2010
135
4
0
Look at Bible history. It is always God Who controls the powers of rulers, whether they follow Him or something else (like Nebuchadnezzar). And when His people are rebellious against Him, He has often used rulers of the nations to chastize His people. When His people turned to Him and righteousness per His Word, He gave them power over the nations. But even then it still involved a government with rulers over His people.
"Therefore,if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men?"
If one is a follower of Christ's law, and one has died with Christ, there is no place or need for mortal law. Further, to serve the state is to serve two masters. I have only one Master, only one King, for there is only One True King. I don't mean to accuse those who disagree of idolatry, merely

I keep hearing about some supposed political agenda of King James and the translators, but that argument is a figment of some people's imagination, most likely those who hate the idea of a monarchy. Up to the time of King James, the religious authorities in England had tried to keep God's written Word out of the hands of the majority, just as Rome had done. King James ordained God's Holy Writ to the English people, which showed an unselfish act on his part, which goes totally against ideas of some political agenda of power control over the people.
You are right, it isn't my place to judge, for I was not there. Nonetheless, the word translated as "government" in the King James version is more aptly rendered from the Greek as "authority," which is how I have always understood it.

It's because Socialist principles the Russian Communists used come from Socialist philosophy, like lack of property rights and the welfare statism. They followed principles of a republic too, since they allowed elections. But the elections were a lie, though the idea of elected reps in a republic is not a lie. Our U.S. Constitution stands in direct opposition to that Socialist philosophy, "We the people..." remember? Under Socialist philosophy it would instead be, "We the State...".
The entire point I'm arguing is that the socialist principles of the Soviet Union were essentially as much a lie as the republican principles of the Soviet Union. A socialist constitution would by no means necessarily say "We the state" rather than "We the people" and there's not really any reason to think that. Have you read any actual socialist philosophy, or just criticisms of it written by those who oppose it? I don't mean that in a bad way, I mean to authentically ask.

That situation at Jamestown is documented history. Go look it up. The first year they meted out to everyone the same, whether one worked or not. That's the practice of Socialism. The next year they reverted to the Biblical principle that if you didn't work you didn't eat. They had plenty the next year. The only thing that can keep the practice of Socialism afloat is capitalism, and that's why Communist states like Russia and Red China have been forced to turn to capitalism.
So, wait, are Russia and "Red" China communist or capitalist? You can't have it both ways. Also, the Russian GDP per capita, at constant prices, decreased considerably with the introduction of capitalism into Russia.
Jamestown's still not a terribly good example; there were less people to feed the next year, they knew more about growing crops and how much they would need to eat, etc. Also, I don't remember where the Bible says to let people starve to death. I remember where it says to give all your worldly possessions to the poor.

I thought European Socialism was supposed to take care of all that? What happenned? It simply showed how a lot of people that WERE able to work didn't, and the rulers with the ability to create jobs failed because of welfare statist ideas which come from Socialist philosophy. Penalize those who work and take the fruits of their labor away and give it to those who won't work. Would a true leader of the people run their own households like that? No, because after a while they soon realize that you can't spend more than you got coming in. It's simple economics. So why would those same leaders not want to use that practice for their nation's economy? It's because they've been fed the lie that Socialism works when it doesn't.
People who were able to work weren't able to find jobs. It's not "simple economics," in fact, the situation is the result of very complex economics to do with international trade and politics. I don't get where you get the idea the the first rule of socialism is to always spend more money than you make. If anything, our recent financial crisis shows that to be a tenet of capitalism, and, in fact, investment in U.S. banks who acted for their own personal, capitalist gain heavily influenced the economic crashes in Greece and especially Iceland. The situation in Greece isn't "lazy people refuse to work, the government pays them, nobody has any money." That's a grossly oversimplified and reductive version of a view that's still inaccurate. There weren't enough jobs available, so rather people were willing to work or not, they couldn't get them.


The USSR was purely Socialist with atheistic Marxism to boot. That's why it's needed economic boosts from the West to keep afloat, and is still needing that.
Where do you get your information on socialism or Marxism? I really have no idea how you come to these sorts of ideas. The USSR was a pretty poor representation of socialist philosophy (for reasons you, yourself, bring up later), and certainly a terrible one of Marxist philosophy. Secondly, the USSR doesn't need any economic boosts from anyone to stay afloat, because it no longer exists. I really cannot tell whether or not you know this, but I promise, the Soviet Union hasn't been around for a decade or so. Really. Promise.


Bolshevicism, Communism, Socialism, all allied philosophical principles against the idea of a free people and a government of the people and by the people, since under Socialism the rights and freedoms of the people is determined by the state apparatus and not by the people.
What? Communism and socialism are both supposed to have governments by and of the people, specifically of the workers, not the rich who exploit them for profit.


The 1960's defector Golitsyn has been very accurate with his predictions on what Communist Russia has been doing since the 1980's, including with predicting Russia would allow the Berlin Wall to come down. If it weren't for his predictions being so accurate, he wouldn't make a good source. So he's not going to be popular with the eastern "establishment" in the U.S. that has turned to Socialism and often works with Communism like Georgetown professor Carrol Quigley revealed.
Russia is not communist anymore. You even said they were capitalist now. What other predictions has he made? The Berlin Wall coming down was a political inevitability and apparent as such for a long time.

The European Socialist system most definitely controls the means of production, just as Socialist leaders in America have been doing. Many businesses in the U.S. receive government subsidies and bailouts to keep afloat while the small mom and pop businesses don't, which if that control were in the hands of the people those corporations that are unprofitable would go under. Now the U.S. government is starting to join in ownership of those corporations they bail out, which is a practice of Socialism (i.e., General Motors).
You miss the point entirely. The government isn't supposed to control the means of production, the workers are supposed to control the means of production. That doesn't mean the state, that means a factory should be run by those who work in it according to their principles and to the general interests of everyone involved.

The 'love of money' is no more a capitalist idea than any other philosophy. Capitalism is an economic method, and that's all it is. It is the anti-thesis of Socialism because it holds to the principle of a worker enjoying the fruits of their own labor, while Socialism is about the redistribution of the fruits of a worker's labor.
No, capitalism holds to the principle of a worker being exploited while their overseers enjoy the fruits of their labour. When you buy a pair of shoes, who's getting the money, children working in sweat shops or the CEO? Capitalism is the system where the means of production are privately controlled for personal profit, and in which profit is considered to be social responsibility of the corporation.


Capitalism is more productive as long as the worker gets to keep those fruits to sell or barter with, while Socialism promotes a weak economy because a worker does not have incentive to work as hard, since they know their fruits of labor is going to be taken away. That's why Capitalism is a sign of a free people, while Socialism is a sign of slavery, since the state must resort to tactics to prod a worker to work harder. Under Communism that often led to the threat of bodily punishment, just like the situation of the children of Israel under bondage of slavery to Egypt.
Or children in other countries effectively under bondage of slavery to Nike. Now imagine if those children, who actually make the shoes made all the profits earned by their work. That's what socialism is.


Russia, Red China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc..., are still Communist nations with a Communist Party still in control. The Communist International is not dead, like they would prefer many to think. World Communism has yet to be defeated. ("Red China" with the word Red is a commonly used label for Communist mainland China in contrast to Nationalist China now called Taiwan, the island where the Nationalist Chinese fled who fought against the Communist Chinese under Mao).
The Russian political party currently in the majority position is United Russia (Единая Россия), which is a centre-right party (that means centrist conservative) and has more than double the seats of their Communist party. Russia doesn't even claim to be communist anymore, all the others claim to be but no more follow the principles of communism than they do the other claims they make. The People's Republic of China isn't communist, a republic, or owned by the people.

I have no interest in discussing prophesy any further. We can theorize about it all we want, but we're not going to know until it happens.

Yeah, he did mistreat Indians that rebelled because of the treaty broken with them, and even had a Marine officer locked up who refused to serve under his administration. But how does that compare with the millions of executions by Communist states like Russia, Red China, Vietnam, and Cambodia?
How do the millions of executions by so-called-communist states compare with Obama? Insofar as I know, he's well short of executing a million Americans, thus far, although he has admittedly done his share of killing people in other countries.

You're kidding, right? Reason for one of the latest turnovers in elected representatives by the American people is because of how the people are getting tired of the internationalist and European Socialist policies being pushed upon Americans by Leftist leadership.
No, it was because disenfranchised, young liberals traditionally do not vote in midterm elections, while older and more conservative voters often do. Also, if they were angry with the Obama administration's policies, which they have a right to be and which I am, they weren't angry at socialism, they were angry at capitalism, because make no mistake, Obama is certainly a capitalist. There isn't really any way to describe giving billions to corporations (and thus largely their CEOs) when the workers are homeless or even starving as anything but capitalism.


Mark 10:24
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
(KJV)

Can't just apply that Scripture any way you want.
Nor can you just ignore other parts of it; Mark 10:21 "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." Christ tells him to take the fruits of his labours, his wealth, and to give it all up to the poor. Jesus advocates the rich man give his money to the poor, so, giving from one who has the ability to those who are in need.

Our Lord was very specific that He was speaking of those who "trust in riches", i.e., materialists that don't believe in God (i.e., Communism which is from Marxist ideas of materialism), i.e., the greedy who usurp the rights of the worker to enjoy the fruits of their own labor, i.e., those who care not for the poor, the fatherless, or widow.
Historical materialism is different than philosophical materialism. Marx was an atheist, and I've said this, but that doesn't mean the basic principle of sharing and of not exploiting people just because you can is inherently evil.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
First, why do you think it is? Because it's never worked long enough to come to fruition.

Secondly, I see no voluntarily submitted basis for Communism, which is exactly what Monasteries are, so please stop comparing the two- as they do not run on Communism.


You are comparing communism in monasteries with despotism masquerading as communism in the outside world. True communism is simply sharing goods and services - that is how monasteries are run.
 

[email protected]

Choir Loft
Apr 2, 2009
1,635
127
63
West Central Florida
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
The human attempt at Communism is despotism and yes, it is evil - just like consumerism is evil. Like I said before, Communism in it's purest state has never been tried except in Monasteries and the early church. In monasteries it has work very well for the past 1500 years,

Consumerism is evil?

Be careful buddy.

Your hypocrisy is showing through the computer you are using to write the words, your subscription to internet services, and your connection to the local power grid to light the whole thing up.
Not to mention whatever you are using for a desk/table and chair to sit your hypocritical butt on.

ALL OF THESE ARE CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.

Capitalism isn't perfect and consumerism isn't either, but they are light years ahead of communism.

Do yourself a service and get your facts straight.
If you refuse, then at least speak straight from your side of the argument.
 

deprofundis

New Member
Dec 3, 2010
135
4
0
That's not really a fair criticism. For one, there is a difference between what "consumerism" denotes and any cursory participation in advanced capitalism. Consumerism articulates the philosophies of encouraging massively unnecessary consumption, of "keeping up the Joneses", conspicuous consumption, and other such systems in which material wealth and gain are primary motivators for action and largely the way one's social worth is judged in a consumerist society. Mainstream America is a largely consumerist society, but not all those who live in America are consumerists (as your seeming definition, "anyone who has ever bought anything" would indicate), nor even necessarily anyone with any sort of luxury. Consumerism is where one routinely buys new computers just to show off the fact that one can, buying a new car when one's old car runs perfectly fine, and so on.

Nobody has still been able to explain to me what's so morally wrong about sharing, giving what you can to those who are in need, and workers not being exploited by those above them who do not work. I'd really like to know.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
"Therefore,if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men?"
If one is a follower of Christ's law, and one has died with Christ, there is no place or need for mortal law. Further, to serve the state is to serve two masters. I have only one Master, only one King, for there is only One True King. I don't mean to accuse those who disagree of idolatry, merely

Might want to get out your Bible and read it more, instead of just listening to men's traditions...

1 Tim 1:9-11
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
(KJV)

When you get in your car (if you drive), you automatically place yourself under the authorities who govern rules of the road. That authority is not to put us in bondage, but to protect people. That's the idea of Paul's message in Romans 13 when he said we are to be subject to the higher powers God has placed over us. In most cases, it's for our own good, to protect good people from those who are lawless. God's laws are still if effect today, even for Christians that turn away from Christ and rebel because of ignorance of listening to His enemies. Christ did not nail all of God's law upon His cross like many have been wrongly taught, and it should be obvious from what Paul told Timonthy in the above Scripture. Paul covered in Galatians how those in Christ should understand how God's laws are still manifest today, when he said to walk by The Spirit and you won't be subject to the law. He applied a condition for Christians not being under the law.


You are right, it isn't my place to judge, for I was not there. Nonetheless, the word translated as "government" in the King James version is more aptly rendered from the Greek as "authority," which is how I have always understood it.

Sadly, some people have a problem even with the 'idea' of authority. Some think it's cool to rebel against authority. The devil and his servants are always ready to oblige anyone who wants to think like that. So whether the word authority or government is used, still the same principle.

The entire point I'm arguing is that the socialist principles of the Soviet Union were essentially as much a lie as the republican principles of the Soviet Union. A socialist constitution would by no means necessarily say "We the state" rather than "We the people" and there's not really any reason to think that. Have you read any actual socialist philosophy, or just criticisms of it written by those who oppose it? I don't mean that in a bad way, I mean to authentically ask.

Your question on why Communist Socialism has been forced to adopt a form of Capitalism should have answered that question. Communist Socialism, or even pure Socialism, doesn't work. And yes, I studied philosophy in my younger days, including Greek and Oriental philosophy. But without looking at history, that study by itself is useless and nothing but 'academics' as some would say. I'm a Vietnam vet, I have first-hand witness accounts of how Communist Socialism has treated its people.


So, wait, are Russia and "Red" China communist or capitalist? You can't have it both ways. Also, the Russian GDP per capita, at constant prices, decreased considerably with the introduction of capitalism into Russia.
Jamestown's still not a terribly good example; there were less people to feed the next year, they knew more about growing crops and how much they would need to eat, etc. Also, I don't remember where the Bible says to let people starve to death. I remember where it says to give all your worldly possessions to the poor.

Your statement reveals a problem many have when subjected to propaganda by those who support Communist Socialism. Reality and history of Communist Socialism is one thing, its philosophical lies is another. What you apparently have missed is that Socialism is simply a lie to begin with, whether used by Marx, Lennin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol-pot, Mao, Castro, etc. And that's exactly why what happenned at Jamestown with the pilgrims is a prime example of the failure of Socialism, because it didn't work. Nor has it worked with those other nations who have used it that continually were forced to seek foreign aid from the Christian West.

Concerning Communism in Russia and Red China adopting a form of capitalist economy, they still are not practicing pure capitalism, for the major corporations are still owned by the state, and the means of production is still controlled primarily by the state. In the West, our leaders are adopting more principles of Socialism in order to meet those Communist states, that's the plan for one world government. That has been part of the long-range plan of the Communists since 1958 when the plan to join East and West was devised (per Golitysn). So far, Golitsyn has been right on about that plan.

One of these days many will wake up to understand how Communist Socialist philosophy is nothing but a tool to gain power over the world, and that its philosophy was never meant to be a reality, but only a device to trick some people's minds into thinking it could be good. Anyone who has read Marx's and Lennin's writings should have realized that, since part of the proposed philosophy of Communist Socialism was that once it was well established among the people, the need and existence of a government would fade away. Instead, the governments of the Communist nations rule over the people with a doubly iron fist, abusing simple human rights that all peoples are given by God.

II Th 3:10
10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
(KJV)

That's not preaching "starvation" as you say. It's preaching work ethic. Someone who is able to work that won't, give 'em a little time. They get hungry enough they won't starve, they'll start working.


People who were able to work weren't able to find jobs. It's not "simple economics," in fact, the situation is the result of very complex economics to do with international trade and politics. I don't get where you get the idea the the first rule of socialism is to always spend more money than you make. If anything, our recent financial crisis shows that to be a tenet of capitalism, and, in fact, investment in U.S. banks who acted for their own personal, capitalist gain heavily influenced the economic crashes in Greece and especially Iceland. The situation in Greece isn't "lazy people refuse to work, the government pays them, nobody has any money." That's a grossly oversimplified and reductive version of a view that's still inaccurate. There weren't enough jobs available, so rather people were willing to work or not, they couldn't get them.

Maybe you should mention that to those other EU nations that are going to have to foot their bill for spending more than they had produced? Lack of jobs means lack of production. It's about simple economics too. But why not look at Communist nations like Red China today that have a free trade agreement with the West, and ask why China doesn't seem to have a lack of jobs, nor problem selling many of their goods to the West? I would much rather buy products from nations that are our allies in Christ, instead nations like Russia and Red China that have declared their aim to destroy us.

Wait a few years more, and you'll really have a question ready for our own leaders that have allowed the removal of much of our manufacturing base to nations like Russia and Red China. The idea is called 'global economy'. But obviously, it's at the expense of the western peoples in order to develop the poorer nations outside the West. Might see more western nation's economies suffer more for it in the future too. Will you still blaim that on capitalists then? Probably, when it's not the practice of capitalism at all, but the practice of world Socialism, removing the wealth of one nation, and giving it to another poorer nation. We shouldn't worry about Greece's economy though, the western nations will just have to PRINT more money to bail them out, which of course means the money in your pocket becomes worth less. And then maybe, just maybe, when other nations see how easy the practice of Socialism makes it to spend other people's money, they'll go for broke too and get their very own BAILOUT! Then we can all get rich together under Socialism!


Where do you get your information on socialism or Marxism? I really have no idea how you come to these sorts of ideas. The USSR was a pretty poor representation of socialist philosophy (for reasons you, yourself, bring up later), and certainly a terrible one of Marxist philosophy. Secondly, the USSR doesn't need any economic boosts from anyone to stay afloat, because it no longer exists. I really cannot tell whether or not you know this, but I promise, the Soviet Union hasn't been around for a decade or so. Really. Promise.

You like many in the West have bought the lie that Communism is dead, when it is definitely not dead, as Gorby himself declared (documented in The Peristroika Deception). The Communists are still in power in Russia, Red China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. Or haven't you paid attention to the news?

Communist-Marixst-Socialist philosophy is nothing but a mask. That's all it's ever been. If those who developed the idea can get you to believe in their proposed philosophy of it, then they've got your support for instituting their real aim they only use Socialism as a tool for, and that aim is the takeover of all nations and peoples. I'm not mocking your intelligence when I say that either, because those like Whitaker Chambers who held high positions in the U.S. State Dept. that were caught as Communist spies were intelligent people that also bought into the philosophical lie of Communism, while not fathoming its philosophy is only propaganda for supporting another aim. Those behind the philosophy of Communism and Socialism well know that one's 'mind' must be endoctrinated to accept the philosophy to get them to work for the real aim of those who developed the idea.


What? Communism and socialism are both supposed to have governments by and of the people, specifically of the workers, not the rich who exploit them for profit.

And all along I thought you had studied the initial philosophy of Communism and Socialism. Marx's proposal was that the existence of the state would eventually no longer exist under Communist Socialism. They've had almost 100 years to prove that theory, but doesn't appear to be happenning yet. It's because it's a lie to begin with, just like Socialism is a lie to begin with. The Communist Party is STILL in control in Communist nations today.

I think you know better than to infer the governments in Communist nations are by the people, when it's by the Party of Communist members, regardless of what the majority of those people want. Who was it in Red China that was in the news recently, because he's serving a 11 year prison term for publishing discontent against the idea of a ONE PARTY system in Communist Red China? Those in the U.S. can publish discontent against our Constitution, its party system, and government leaders, etc., as American Communist party members have often done, and they don't go to prison for it.


Russia is not communist anymore. You even said they were capitalist now. What other predictions has he made? The Berlin Wall coming down was a political inevitability and apparent as such for a long time.

Yes, Russia is still a Communist nation, with the Communist Party still in control. And they still have spies in America, probably even more since the Berlin Wall came down. Their adoption of 'some' capitalist forms has not changed that, because they eventually learned Socialism doesn't work economically.


You miss the point entirely. The government isn't supposed to control the means of production, the workers are supposed to control the means of production. That doesn't mean the state, that means a factory should be run by those who work in it according to their principles and to the general interests of everyone involved.

It's you that has missed the real point of Communist-Socialist philosophy, and are now talking around in circles about it.


No, capitalism holds to the principle of a worker being exploited while their overseers enjoy the fruits of their labour. When you buy a pair of shoes, who's getting the money, children working in sweat shops or the CEO? Capitalism is the system where the means of production are privately controlled for personal profit, and in which profit is considered to be social responsibility of the corporation.

That's such a lie by Communists that capitalism exploits its workers. Under Capitalism, the worker can enjoy the fruits of their labor BASED on how hard they work. They can change what work they want to do, but not so under Communist-Socialism which determines what the worker gets and even WHAT kind of work they do.

More of those Communist-Socialists principles of controlling the worker's wealth has been adopted in the West in the past before you and I were even born, when it didn't use to be how it is today in the U.S.. So you CAN find examples even in America of Socialism being pushed and used by today's government, but it has nothing to do with the philosophy of Capitalism. One of the heaviest moves to Socialism in the United States was through Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930's. The start of progressive taxation was another move in the U.S. by world Socialism. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 allowing a PRIVATE centralized banking system to control the U.S. monetary policy was another move towards Socialism in the U.S. In 1971 the Federal Reserve finally removed the U.S. Dollar off the gold standard totally, allowing them to create money out of thin air not backed by anything. That is what has caused the value and buying power of the U.S. Dollar to drop, removing the power of money from the people's hands, and putting it into the hands of the few in power who follow the eastern U.S. establishment system of Socialism.



Or children in other countries effectively under bondage of slavery to Nike. Now imagine if those children, who actually make the shoes made all the profits earned by their work. That's what socialism is.

Why would the Socialists in control of those poorer nations want to change to the freedom of Capitalism that lets a worker enjoy the fruits of their labor? Those Socialists already have the very system they want of removing the wealth of the peoples to give it to others they determine, and that's the system planned by the world Socialists. Those nations have already reached their goal. But it's nations in the West like the U.S. where people still enjoy much more of the fruits of their own labor that world Socialists still have work to do in. Or haven't you paid attention to Presidents like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama that have said it's time for change and the redistribution of wealth in America?


The Russian political party currently in the majority position is United Russia (Единая Россия), which is a centre-right party (that means centrist conservative) and has more than double the seats of their Communist party. Russia doesn't even claim to be communist anymore, all the others claim to be but no more follow the principles of communism than they do the other claims they make. The People's Republic of China isn't communist, a republic, or owned by the people.

Where did you find that info, in Communist publications like the old The Daily Worker? Communism has always used the word 'people's' in their naming as a mask. It's still Communist Socialism. And for the last decade, Communist Red China has declared they expect eventual war with the United States. But obviously, some U.S. politicians like Al Gore think they can just buy Red Chinese Communists through free trade agreements, right? Why don't you ask those in Taiwan that Communist Red China fire missles at a few years ago if Communism is dead? Better yet, ask the South Koreans who have recently been under artillery attack by Communist North Korea if Communism is dead?


I have no interest in discussing prophesy any further. We can theorize about it all we want, but we're not going to know until it happens.

Well, some have been given eyes to see, and others have not. Our Lord Jesus gave us the signs of the end of this world to be watching, so I'm not going to stop watching, nor stop warning others. You can do what you want.


How do the millions of executions by so-called-communist states compare with Obama? Insofar as I know, he's well short of executing a million Americans, thus far, although he has admittedly done his share of killing people in other countries.

Maybe you've forgotten about abortions.


No, it was because disenfranchised, young liberals traditionally do not vote in midterm elections, while older and more conservative voters often do. Also, if they were angry with the Obama administration's policies, which they have a right to be and which I am, they weren't angry at socialism, they were angry at capitalism, because make no mistake, Obama is certainly a capitalist. There isn't really any way to describe giving billions to corporations (and thus largely their CEOs) when the workers are homeless or even starving as anything but capitalism.

If anyone is angry with American government today, then they're actually angry with its Socialist practices that are unconstitutional which are anti-Capitalist practices.

I'm disregarding your Scripture quote, because it is NOT about the idea of Communist-Socialism at all. Christians are no longer under the Old Covenant system ot tithes either, but that's still a good thing if brethren want to practice it WITHIN the Church. When apostle Paul told Christians in one area to gather up alms before he came to visit, he explained that the act of giving was between the giver and God, and that the giver should not suffer in that giving to where the receiver had more abundance. That was between brethren in the Churches, not within all peoples in a state. Under state Communism, the people were only allowed just the base necessities, with even their homes and lands taken away, and that's nowhere near the same principle of tithes or alms that The Bible teaches. The Biblical doctrine of giving is always UP TO THE PERSON, and not up to the State under Communist-Socialist doctrine.

The comparison Communists try to make with The Biblical doctrine of sharing with the philosophy of Communist Socialism is a propaganda lie. If Communists can get people to believe that Communist philosophy aligns with The Bible, then naturally that might produce converts to Communist thinking, and that's the only reason The Bible is brought into the subject by Communist propagandists.

I'm all for the idea of a 10% flat tax that everyone should pay except the poor. That would be close to the Old Testament ways God setup among His people Israel. Progressive taxation, which is the system U.S. citizens have been subjected to by Socialist policy since the 1930's, is the practice of Socialism. A 10 percent flat tax for everyone is more just.





 

deprofundis

New Member
Dec 3, 2010
135
4
0
Sorry, but, I'm done with this. I feel like you aren't actually responding to anything I say with anything but tautologies ("My view is right because it is right"). I feel like you aren't even listening enough to my posts to understand we are using the terms differently and actually address my points instead of call me a liar and a sinner, say that communism is not what communism is explicitly defined to be (or, even, recognize the definition I am using when I say communism, ignoring me repeat that if the state, rather than the workers, controls the means of production, the term I use is state capitalism, because that type of economy is not a form of communism and could be a form of socialism in only the loosest sense), and make claims which are not even internally consistent about the nations which are supposedly communist.
I have explained, based on the tenets of both communism and socialism how the countries you name follow the principles of neither, and you use this to attack my viewpoint as ignorant of what communist nations do. I know what "communist" nations do, how they are run, and so on, but I also know that they have about as much to do with communism as they do with democracy, or about as much to do with communism as Jim Jones or the Spanish Inquisition had to do with Christianity. Their people and workers are still kept in chains and exploited by their masters, the only difference is that it is simply the state, rather than corporations, which exploit them for personal profit. The "communist" nations you name, economically, run exactly the same as capitalist countries, merely with the state replacing the role of private corporations; the workers do not control the means of production, and this is the most central tenet of communism.
Finally, you ignore any element which you cannot refute with circular tautologies or calling me a liar; first, my question about whose labour it is that makes your shoes, and whose wealth comes from their sale; then you disregard my quote from the scripture. Those work do the work to make things very rarely are the ones who make the profits, being offered a portion far less than their work in even the best cases; the quote, said by Christ, doesn't say to give ten percent of one's wealth to the state, it says to sell everything and give the money away to the poor.

I don't think this debate is going anywhere, and I don't feel that you're really listening to anything I'm saying.

I have one question, after your answer to which, I won't check this thread again. It's pointless and will only create animosity and division.

What is morally wrong about sharing, giving up unneeded wealth to those in poverty, and workers being treated fairly? This is the essence of what I'm arguing, and you keep telling me it is evil. Without conspiracy theories as to who is or isn't communist, bringing up Hitler, or talking about how Obama is a socialist, please explain to me how sharing is evil. That's all I want to know, because all I have been saying this entire time is that sharing is not evil.
 

TexUs

New Member
Nov 18, 2010
1,197
37
0
The problem with communism is the nature of man.

Greedy Joe #1 won't share with Greedy Joe #2 unless they are forced to.
 

deprofundis

New Member
Dec 3, 2010
135
4
0
I hear that a lot, but I don't know if I believe it. I don't think being greedy is human nature, I think it's something we learn from what's around us.
 

TexUs

New Member
Nov 18, 2010
1,197
37
0
I hear that a lot, but I don't know if I believe it. I don't think being greedy is human nature, I think it's something we learn from what's around us.
Dude, Greed happened when "what's around us" was what God had put there... Man desired MORE than he had been given.
Communism will never work for that reason. Ever.

I'd even say in the new heavens and new earth, there won't be communism, as what means of production do we see? It seems to be the production comes from Christ, not the body.

Communism is nothing more than a pipe dream that'll never happen once you understand the nature of man.

Even monasteries I question because at some point someone must make a decision that will affect the others around them, they do not depart from the depravity of man. I think part of this is the outside looking into these more secretive places it looks legit but looking close I think you'd find more internal struggle than what it seems at the surface (much like Islam).