The Workers Dream: Socialism and Communism

Originally posted by LABTECH767
Socialism is actually a Christian concept, "if You have two coat's give one unto your brother whom has none", "Sell all of your possession's and give them to the poor and follow me",.

Hmmm that really isn't socialism.

do you think Karl Marx invented socialism, then you are deceived he berely invented Atheist socialism in part as the church of his time was not anything like the church Christ founded, "Come and break bread with me (Sharing)" but had become a tool of state and was governed by anti Christian prince's of the church.

Marx didn't invent any kind of socialism. let alone atheist socialism (whatever that is). All socialists were generally apposed to the church, and organised religion, because they saw it as the corrupt system that it is. The church is just another state sanctioned authority, and has nothing to do with Christianity. Not all socialists were, or are, atheists though.

“Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as a negation of God, has no longer any meaning, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation.” Karl Marx

Atheism and religion was not even an issue for Marx.

So remember your place and remember that communism was evil because it lacked Christian value's and socialism failed because it also lacked Christian value's but true Christian socialism is an act of faith and personal choice, just don't lie to god.

Socialism was a labour movement. It came from the industrial workers during the industrial revolution in Europe. It was a movement for worker ownership, because they saw capitalism as exploitation. It was not about giving people things, it was about access to the means to produce, so that no one had to give you anything. If the means to produce were owned in common then people would be free to produce for their needs and desires.

Hand outs do not solve the problem, it just eases peoples guilt.

reply to post by ANOK


What is your take on the Socialism that Agenda 21 of the UN wants to impose on us .

reply to post by ANOK


Sorry I didn't know that you already skirted the question on page 5 . You are either ignorant of just what Agenda 21 is saying or you are working for them . Then to you could just be one of those Archie Bunker types that knows what he knew and thats it . Then too the fact that Obamas Whitehouse Staff is loaded with Socialist and Communist just like George Soros who is said to be Obamas handler may have slipped your mind .
The people pushing this Agenda 21 already have all the money they want . They are the Banksters and have a plan that goes way back to control the world .

Originally posted by SimonPeter

What is your take on the Socialism that Agenda 21 of the UN wants to impose on us .

Agenda 21 is not socialism, where do you get this from?

Once again socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production, an economic system, not a form of government.

Socialism requires no government. Anarchism is socialism.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

If anarchism is socialism then how can it be a form of government?

"A kind of spurious socialism has arisen…that…declares all state ownership…to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon…must be numbered among the founders of socialism. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the state dies out."" Frederik Engels

Engels, as do most socialists, considered the capitalist form of production to be anarchy (chaos, not no government). Socialists wanted worker ownership and control of the means of production, not a totalitarian form of government. All forms of socialism are ultimately state free...

Free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, a community of freely associated individuals) is a relationship among individuals where there is no state, social class or authority and private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production enabling them to freely associate (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their individual and creative needs and desires. The term is used by anarchists and Marxists and is often one considered a defining feature of a fully developed communist society.

Free association (communism and anarchism)

The truth has been twisted and hidden in order to protect capitalism from the workers desire for true liberty. True liberty cannot come from someones else's wealth, it can only come from everyone having full access to the means to produce for their needs and desires.

reply to post by ANOK

So how could that function under the Constitution?
As to what countries I think of Africa ,the Congo,Nazi GermanyI could go on and on.While it's true these aren't exactly text book examples they are the ones who came the closest to executing the idea and it turned out badly.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by ANOK

 

So how could that function under the Constitution?

It already does, there are a lot of worker owned companies in America, and none of them come with totalitarian authority.

As to what countries I think of Africa ,the Congo,Nazi GermanyI could go on and on.While it's true these aren't exactly text book examples they are the ones who came the closest to executing the idea and it turned out badly.

Where is the socialism in those countries?

The Nazi Party were fascists, not socialists. They called the party the workers socialist party in order to gain state power, not to support socialism. Capitalism thrived in Germany under the Nazis. Socialism can not come through force. Hitler put socialists, communists, anarchists, labour union leaders in the concentration camps.

Most prisoners in the early concentration camps were German Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Roma (Gypsies), Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and persons accused of "asocial" or socially deviant behavior.

www.ushmm.org...

So called socialist countries are not what the original socialists wanted. What you now call socialism is liberalism and....

"Liberalism is not socialism and it never will be" - Winston Churchill, 1908

You have to do the research to learn the difference. The term socialism, as you are using it, is not the way socialists use it, it is the way the right wing state uses it, and they lie to protect themselves from worker revolution.
Mainstream history is a big lie.

reply to post by ANOK


Why work if you can't own property or a car or have the nice things of life . Agenda 21 gets rid of your pravate property rights . Is that what you want??? There will always be some governing body . I don't know where you think Socialism lives but it must be La La land .

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Why work if you can't own property or a car or have the nice things of life . Agenda 21 gets rid of your pravate property rights . Is that what you want??? There will always be some governing body . I don't know where you think Socialism lives but it must be La La land .

You can own property. That is the point really. Right now property is owned by the few, and used to exploit the many.

Let me first explain that when we talk about private property we are referring to economic private property, the use of private property to hire and exploit labour. It doesn't mean your personal property. In fact it doesn't really mean property at all, but simply how property is used.

There will be no laws against anyone owning property (anarchism is socialism). Socialism is simply a different way to organise labour, workers directly owning, and running, their own work place.

If you, for example, tried to hire labour why would anyone work for you if they owned the means to produce? It would take no law or force, simply choice. Capitalism is what uses force to maintain it's nature.

reply to post by ANOK

Agenda 21 states that private property will be abolished and urban sprawl will be eliminated and you will be moved to population centers . Now your glossing over of a Socialistic Idealist government is leading up to the NWO push to ease the world into a Socialist / Communist government system .
Give me one example where a Socialist society existed and flourished with out sliding into Communism.

reply to post by ANOK


"Definition of socialism (n)

bing.com · Bing Dictionary
so·cial·ism
[ sṓshə lìzəm ]

1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles
2. movement based on socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers
3. stage between capitalism and communism: in Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need

Synonyms: collectivism, social democracy, public ownership, communism, communalism, classless society"

Okay, Anok, I just pulled this off Bing. Socialism is a political movement. Yes, it is an economic system, but the whole idea is to take private property (it is owned by a person or corporation at one point) and convert it to communal property. I am very big on definitions, so please bear with me. The definition of communal is the people. Who represents the people? The government does. For me, when we talk about socialism, it is describing the political theory in which the government controls the means of producing anything. The People have no more rights to "private property" per se. What is produced is for the "good of the community" which means is distributed to citizens by the government. They decide what you can have, when you can have it and how much of it you can have. How is this freedom?

Capitalism is the only economic model that has liberated people from years of oppression from others. If you want something, you make it. If you can't make it, then you trade for it. If you can't do either, then you do without. When it comes to necessities such as food, water, clothing, and housing, we have advanced to the point in life that these things can be mass produced cheaply under capitalism. Our farming and textiles methods have advanced greatly because of the Industrial Revolution. What mucks up the process is government getting involved in the process. Let's take the US for example... From the Declaration of Independence in 1776 to 1876, the US became the economic superpower of the world because of our economy. Countries that have been around for thousands of years couldn't match our output. You could say that slavery had something to do with that, but I don't have hard numbers to show GDP of every state that employed slavery compared to non-slave states for that year (would be worth gathering tho!). But during these years, large urban centers boomed and many factories produced many goods. People weren't coerced to work. It was an agreement between employee/employer: You work, you get paid. If the big city life wasn't for you, then pack up and move to the country where you could farm and not have to rely on anyone to produce for you.

This is where most individuals that advocate socialism lose me. Our country was based on freedom to do what you please in life and self-reliance. You either succeeded or failed on your own account. But with socialism, you don't have the freedom to choose. You must produce for the "good of the community", without any kind of individuality. Everyone has individual traits and characteristics that make them unique from everyone else. When you take away the conditions to allow some to thrive based on their own knowledge and skills, don't the rest of us suffer?? Socialism has proven that it makes everyone equal; equally miserable.

To everybody, who are anti-leftwing

Explain me one thing:

If true capitalism is that good, then how is it possible that countries, who have inserted lots of left-wing ideas into their societies are doing better than most of the capitalist societies?

They are not oppressed. They are not unhappy. They are economically better-off. They are better educated and healthier on average.

Historically communistic countries have been communistic only on paper, nothing more. What does a North-Korean person get - strong education? Healthcare? Overall benefits?

For an average person with average skills, in the modern ages, some of the best countries to live at would probably be any Nordic country, which is after-all an example of left-wing, not right due to its high progressive taxes, universal healthcare, free higher education and overally very high benefits for people who have fell into the downward spiral, which we all know is not easy place to get out.

True socialism would not work, true capitalism also won´t. Although a mix between capitalism and socialism is the way to go.

World is not black and white - communism and capitalism. There is a midway which between both of them, taking good ideas from both, which benefit society altogether.




Economist article: The Nordic Countries - The Next Supermodel

If you had to be reborn anywhere in the world as a person with average talents and income, you would want to be a Viking. The Nordics cluster at the top of league tables of everything from economic competitiveness to social health to happiness.

The main lesson to learn from the Nordics is not ideological but practical. The state is popular not because it is big but because it works. A Swede pays tax more willingly than a Californian because he gets decent schools and free health care. The Nordics have pushed far-reaching reforms past unions and business lobbies. The proof is there. You can inject market mechanisms into the welfare state to sharpen its performance. You can put entitlement programmes on sound foundations to avoid beggaring future generations. But you need to be willing to root out corruption and vested interests. And you must be ready to abandon tired orthodoxies of the left and right and forage for good ideas across the political spectrum. The world will be studying the Nordic model for years to come.

I also made a thread about Nordic Model recently:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Cabin
True socialism would not work, true capitalism also won´t. Although a mix between capitalism and socialism is the way to go.

Socialism is not what is happening in Nordic countries.

Socialism is not a social safety net, that is liberalism.

Socialism is the workers ownership and control of the means of production. If the economy is based on private ownership it is capitalism. There can be liberal capitalism, and there can be conservative capitalism.

Europe is just as capitalist as the US, they're just more liberal.

reply to post by ANOK


Why are you advocating Socialism? Do you live under a Socialist Government now . Then again give me one situation where Socialism is working without sliding into Communism . One country where it is working .

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Why are you advocating Socialism? Do you live under a Socialist Government now . Then again give me one situation where Socialism is working without sliding into Communism . One country where it is working .

Socialism is not a form of government, it is an economic system. Socialism does not slide into communism as they are both the same thing. What you call communism is from so-called communist countries, that were not actually communist.

Socialism and communism are the same thing, workers ownership of the means of production. Not a form of government, not welfare, or free health care.

Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism. Thus when Marx in 1875 (as mentioned by Lenin) wanted to make the distinction referred to by the Daily Worker, he spoke of the “first phase of Communist society” and “a higher phase of Communist society.” Engels, writing in the same year, used the term Socialism, not Communism, and habitually did so afterwards. Marx also fell, more or less closely, into line with this change of names and terms, using sometimes the one, sometimes the other, without any distinction of meaning.

www.marxists.org...

Governments have called themselves many things, but very rarely do they actually practice what they call themselves. For example East Germany was called the DDR, German Democratic Republic. It was neither a republic, nor was it democratic. All governments lie.

Go back to the original socialists, communists, and anarchists, and see what they actually said, not what people since have claimed they said. You will find you have been lied to.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

"After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference -- the fundamental one -- between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]

G.2 Why does individualist anarchism imply socialism?

Here we present a short summary of why individualist anarchism implies socialism and not capitalism. While it is true that people like Tucker and Warren placed "property" at the heart of their vision of anarchy, this does not make them supporters of capitalism. Unlike capitalists, the individualist anarchists identified "property" with simple "possession," or "occupancy and use" and considered profit, rent and interest as exploitation. Indeed, Tucker explicitly stated that "all property rests on a labour title, and no other property do I favour." [Instead of a Book, p. 400] Because of this and their explicit opposition to usury (profits, rent and interest) and capitalist property, they could and did consider themselves as part of the wider socialist movement, the libertarian wing as opposed to the statist Marxist wing.

Individualist anarchists like Tucker strongly believed that a truly free (i.e. non-capitalist) market would ensure that the worker would receive the "full product" of his or her labour. Nevertheless, in order to claim Tucker as a proto-"anarcho"-capitalist, "anarcho"-capitalists may argue that capitalism pays the "market price" of labour power, and that this price does reflect the "full product" (or value) of the worker's labour.

www.spunk.org...

How can socialism be a form of government if the original anarchists were socialists?

People have just been conditioned to believe capitalism is freedom based on the lies of what nations like the USSR, and China, were really all about. They had capitalist economies, ownership by the state, known as state-capitalism. Private ownership of the means of production is capitalism, whether it's ownership by the state or by individuals. Public ownership is not common ownership.

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked and fundamental difference.

Public ownership is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body. The persons forming this body, the politicians, officials, leaders, secretaries, managers, are the direct masters of the production apparatus; they direct and regulate the process of production; they command the workers. Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself — taken in the widest sense of all that partake in really productive work, including employees, farmers, scientists — is direct master of the production apparatus, managing, directing, and regulating the process of production which is, indeed, their common work.

Anton Pannekoek 1947

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Cabin
True socialism would not work, true capitalism also won´t. Although a mix between capitalism and socialism is the way to go.

Socialism is not what is happening in Nordic countries.

Socialism is not a social safety net, that is liberalism.

Socialism is the workers ownership and control of the means of production. If the economy is based on private ownership it is capitalism. There can be liberal capitalism, and there can be conservative capitalism.

Europe is just as capitalist as the US, they're just more liberal.

Yes, I agree this is kind of a liberalism in Nordic Countries, The most-popular parties, who have the majority of votes are usually Social Democrats though. Nordic Model is also considered to be a capitalistic version of social democracy. I never implied any of the Nordic countries had socialism, although they are more left-wing than most of the Europe and the world.

So I get to my point. Nordic countries are not socialistic. Although why is it so, that when many things are suggested that are extremely common there, which are left-wing policies(e.g. higher taxes - everybody puts more in for common good, background checks for gun owners, different environmental policies, e-country, high progressive taxes, strong alcohol/tobacco laws and high taxes on them, high taxes on gas in order to pollute less), then it is automatically associated with controlling communism( Soviets, NK) instead of the Nordic countries, who are proof that strong social safety nets/enviromental policies can work well.

Originally posted by Cabin
I never implied any of the Nordic countries had socialism, although they are more left-wing than most of the Europe and the world.

My apologies. It's just most people seem to think socialism is social programs and free healthcare.

So I get to my point. Nordic countries are not socialistic. Although why is it so, that when many things are suggested that are extremely common there, which are left-wing policies(e.g. higher taxes - everybody puts more in for common good, background checks for gun owners, different environmental policies, e-country, high progressive taxes, strong alcohol/tobacco laws and high taxes on them, high taxes on gas in order to pollute less), then it is automatically associated with controlling communism( Soviets, NK) instead of the Nordic countries, who are proof that strong social safety nets/enviromental policies can work well.

Liberalism can work well, but it's not really the answer, because it only works when capitalism is working. Liberalism only works when the country can afford it.

Higher taxes are not really a left wing policy. Not in the context of the left wing I refer to. There are no left-wing governments, it's an oxymoron. The true meaning of left-wing means anti-stateist, anarchism being the extreme of that. A system of authority by definition is not left-wing, only right-wing.

Problem is left and right have been used to denote two sides of the same thing, authority, liberal and conservative.
The liberalism we have now is right-wing liberalism, not left-wing liberalism. Modern liberalism is less authoritative than conservatism, but is still authoritative, thus right not left wing.

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.[1]

www.la-articles.org.uk...

reply to post by ANOK


It is nice to see somebody who is open-minded in such politics. It is often hard to argue with some people, when the main arguments are the history and definition of communism, without considering the arguments I made.

I agree that right-wing tends to be more authority-based. Also I believe that right-wing tends to support the higher-income % a more, as the left-wing does. I see right-wing policies as natural selection, where the strongest ones win the most and the weaker ones lose a lot and have lots of trouble surviving.

On the other hand I see left-wing policies as something more collective. Certain people might have to sacrifice a bit, although the society as a whole wins from it. I am not talking about absolute equity though, this will never exist in any system, the person who does more, should also earn more, although most "anti-capitalistic" laws tend to lessen the inequity a bit.

High progressive taxing for example is one thing that capitalism as a whole does not support much. For example, a situation where extremely low-income families do not have to pay any taxes and extremely wealthy people have to pay over 60% of their salaries as taxes. It lessens the inequality quite a lot.

I personally never see much problem when something is done in order to influence people to quit bad habit, pollute less or prevent criminal activities.

Even though I am a smoker, I do not see a problem when taxes raised. Smokers might not benefit for it, although society as a whole benefits. Less kids might start smoking when laws are strict, no commercials etc. Better health, people have more money to support local enterprises.

Same is with alcohol. Anybody can afford buying something every once in a while, although alcoholism is very expensive habit due to high taxes, so it prevents alcoholism.

Background checks might need to make me need some extra paperwork, although if even some % of people with mental issues and criminals do not have access to legal weapons, it serves its purpose. The punishments are strong for illegal weapons dealers, so overally it is not easy to find a gun as a criminal here.

Cameras might invade my privacy on streets, although these prevent quite a number of crimes, which is good.

I may not be ill often or not have kids, although I have nothing against putting quite a % of my salary to universal healthcare and free higher education, as I see it is something worthy and lessens the inequality.

Gas taxes might make car trips more expensive. Although as a whole, many people decide for healthier habits. A short trip is rarely taken with a car, as it is not worth it. From the money from the gas, public transport, bicycle roads and pedestrians areas are built. People start to think before driving, whether it is better to walk the short length or take a car. That is one thing I noticed in America, people much more often take cars even for short trips (e.g. half a mile). I personally never take a car unless I need to go somewhere out of town, more than 10 miles. Anywhere in the city public transport/walking/bicycle is enough. Overally the laws have made it so that often public transport is much faster way to move around than by car. The air quality wins a lot from it and it is better for the society, better to breathe without all the gas in the air.It is one of the best air here among the cities I have been to. The worst air quality was in Manhattan and central areas of Paris & Warsawa during rush hours.

Due to speedbumps and low speed limits in suburbian the kids have more room to play in the suburbs without the need to consider cars. For example in certain suburbian districts and parking lots always pedestrians have the right against cars. They can walk on the road whenever they want. Although by law they need to consider cars, so not to stop the traffic, although when a kid steps on the road unexpectedly in pedestrian area 100% of times the car is guilty as by law they have to see such things ahead.

These were just examples I could take, which are often considered as communistic/step to controlling communism in some countries. Although actually it is far from it. People still have the rights to do anything, although certain bad habits are made more expensive, less comfortable for a certain % who like them, although everybody wins from it as a whole.

reply to post by ANOK


Well what I want to know is who is paying you to push Socialism and Communism on this site . Most people do not want the state to say what they do , where they live and what they will have . Only people who have no inituative want tobe taken care of .
The New World Order wants Communism. The People will always be run over by the rich . But in Social/communism you get no rewards for trying . I suggest you go to Cuba where you can see first hand what you are talking about . Take George Soros with you .

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Certainly. I don't disagree. Every society will have its misfits.
You're not exampling anything that isn't endemic in any system.

The definition of ownership itself is only defined by the willingness of those more powerful and capable of taking something by force to not do so.

Private ownership of anything, including a such things as a mate through marriage, is just an illusion allowed by all those with the power to take it, whatever "it" might be, away by force.

No solution is perfect. There will always be criminals, malcontents, maladjusted, greedy, selfish, warped, and unstable people waiting on the sidelines and fringes to take advantage.

This is where any and every society enacts laws, just as we adhere to right now, enforced by a police and judicial system, just as is done now, all to facilitate social cohesion as a measure against those who care not for anything like playing nice.

You only example a condition that's persistent across all forms of government, in every culture, across the entire history of mankind.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

There are two ways to look at this statement of yours.

One is very good, and the other is very bad.

Very good, when one realizes that everyone has everything that they do have because of God; and that we should take the good and also the bad with God, with full appreciation at all times; but this is also because we know His plan is for the greater good, and He is perfect, and His will is perfect, and He will succeed, and has.

Very bad, when one attempts to say that your definitions apply to human beings. You are utterly mad if that is the case. Ownership comes from God; not from the state, neither from our supposed leaders, not from anybody. Jesus said it best to Pontius Pilate, when Pilate reminded Jesus that he had authority over whether Jesus should die or not; "Whatever you are able to do, it is because it is given to you from above to you, for you could do nothing unless it were given to you."

Now this should bring many here to wisdom. When communism rules in this country, which it will, but not under the same name (and I believe Druscilla has clearly pointed out that it is the agenda of the communists to bring that communism to all places, but under any number of different names - for those that argued with me on this point in other threads), it will be because God allowed it. Remember that. You're fighting against something inevitable. The only reason it has been pushed back this far is to give us a little more freedom, a little more of a chance, to give people the option to hear wisdom because they have freedom, not because they are suffering.

But once the enslavement begins, many of you will open your eyes to the realities that you have fought against. It MUST happen. Yes, communism destroyed many people and many countries, and still does. But there is a good that comes of it. When the state is putting forth massive amounts of atheist propaganda, while enslaving your families and friends, and you see the false churches putting forth dogma that is clearly anti-Christian (and it has already begun), then you will start to see. Even you atheists will have no choice but to say, "Wow. The only people that are brave, and that I actually like, are the Christians. It is as if Communism pulled the veil away from my eyes about who is honest and who is not. I can see. I don't know if there is a God or not, but if He is there, He is surely with those good, poor people, that stand up and speak truth knowing they will certainly suffer severely for it."

How foolish can you possibly be!!! In the words of Richard Wurmbrand, it will NOT be Hell; for in Hell, there is no water. But how could someone wish this judgment upon themselves?? Why can you people not just wake up to the truth without having to suffer so horribly? But that is how we are. We are slow, weak, pathetic, selfish, horrid, hypocrites. We have become a world that is sustained by pharmaceuticals; for if surely everyone quit their pharmaceuticals out of spite, without healing from God, more than half the world would drop dead this moment. More than half of this world is held together by sorcery! (That's what pharmaceuticals are by the way. Look up the etymology of the word "pharmacy".)

And those pharmaceuticals are in place also to keep the mad madder, and the mellow mellower. For only reasonable people are capable of seeing the realities!

And even then, many reasonable people will deny that this is an act of God, and instead say it is an act of men. But you delude yourselves. Where millions of people are suffering, God is CERTAINLY THERE. Begging us with his quiet voice, "I told you. I told you over and over. Why, child, did you not hear me

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by ANOK

 

Well what I want to know is who is paying you to push Socialism and Communism on this site . Most people do not want the state to say what they do , where they live and what they will have . Only people who have no inituative want tobe taken care of .
The New World Order wants Communism. The People will always be run over by the rich . But in Social/communism you get no rewards for trying . I suggest you go to Cuba where you can see first hand what you are talking about . Take George Soros with you .

Really? It doesn't have to be paid. Hah. No, you see, communism is human nature. Don't you get it?

Communism is what is natural, INDEED. Well... in this world, anyway. Because that is the way the world is.

You see, in communism, nobody understands the phrase, "Why do you try to remove the speck out of your brother's eye, when you are blind because of the plank hanging out of your eye? First remove the plank out of your eye, and then you will be able to see to remove the speck out of your brother's eye!"

Because that phrase alone sums up what is wrong with all of us. We want to change EVERYONE around us; but if we take a good look at ourselves, we have a much bigger flaw in us that we must fix!

And that flaw is being without God.

Without God, communism is what is inevitable.

You see, God sustains our capitalism. It doesn't make sense to you, but it is true. For where the capitalism is, at least everyone has a chance.

But in communism, nobody has a chance.

In capitalism, people can and do take responsibility for themselves.

In communism, everybody only takes responsibility for everyone else.

In capitalism, he thrives who works harder and smarter.

In communism, he who works harder and smarter, becomes the mule; for there is no gain in working harder when everyone else is paid according to their rank instead of according to their work.

(And you see, that is a reason that salary is so bad. And salary is what really has torn this country apart financially. Because people wish to receive for which they did not work. And maintaining a salary requires little to no effort much of the time. Just ask anybody who works for a salary and busts their tail, and sees another earning the same salary and watches porn on their iPhone all day while facebooking with the chaps and hee-hawing and what not.) But even that example, yes, there is a semblance of capitalism there. Because those people can eventually be fired, be hired somewhere else, can go home and do crafts, or go get a different education, and choose to go somewhere else. So still there is a semblance of choice here, which will not exist for much longer. Oh no.

In capitalism, those who fail are supposed to fail. Only socialists bail out. So Druscilla has well spoken in saying that socialism is definitely a part of our society.

In capitalism, there is not royalty or bloodlines; there is sweat of the brow, bruise of the flesh, taxed minds, and broken hearts. In communism, there is all of this, too - but without one's due reward.

You see, the United States of America was a chance for people to remember how Israel used to be long ago. Especially when it was ruled by Judges. (But just like Israel, the people desired a king. And so then a king was given to them; the first president). And still yet, the USA has literally been, for a few hundred years, similar to that of old Israel in its purity. Despite many problems, and a short life, this has been the only place to produce the level of freedom and love and humor and learning; much better than any place the world has ever seen.

America has been a little SLIVER of proof of just how free people might possibly be.

And like a bunch of rabid, spoiled-rotten, teenage fools, we began to complain about really stupid little things. All of Americans turned into kings and queens each other. This wouldn't be a bad thing if they executed their offices properly. "My pillow isn't soft enough!" "My car isn't nice enough!" "My lawn isn't as green as theirs! URRG I'm so mad over stupid crap!"

Yeah, mate. Let's flog you with a hydra. Let's see how you feel about your life then you spoiled meat-head.

You know?

So we spit on the amazing things God gave us. We demanded more and more and more and more and more;

And now God has said, "ENOUGH! Learn again what it is to suffer you spoiled fools!"

And so it will come. Communism. The nature of what mankind does when God does not maintain what He has given us.

Did men think that the economy failed because of men? How silly. IT was taken. "In God we Trust." Yup. But when you stop trusting, then, well, how can your money have any value, if it was founded upon God? Faith based system you said. Well, what did you expect?

It's judgment. Learn now before it comes.