Why Socialism

From PreparingYou
Jump to: navigation, search

Why Socialism

So you want to try Socialism again? Listen to the audio broadcast on Why Socialism?

"Why Socialism?"[1] is an article written in May 1949 that appeared in the first issue of the socialist journal "Monthly Review". It was written by Albert Einstein who fled the democratic socialist regime of Germany.

He imagined that the competition and profit motive of a capitalist society leads to cycles of booms and depressions and encourages selfishness instead of cooperation.

The truth is the boom and bust is often the result of artificial stimulating capital supply in the form of debt notes which are not really capital at all.

While selfishness may always rear its ugly head through the spirit of Cain and Nimrod, the socialist state offers no immunity nor natural resistance to selfishness.

He also thought that the educational system of a capitalist society would be severely undermined because people will educate themselves only to advance their careers. The truth is any "educational system" provided by socialism only educates for the advancement of socialism, which, by its nature, encourages guarantees without earning them.

Taking away the individual's right to choose results in the "crippling of individuals" and the erosion of human creativity which Albert did not understand socialism does by its very nature.

Excerpt from Why Socialism?

  • "I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."[1]

The "establishment of a socialist economy" may state that "the means of production are owned by society itself", but the ownership is collective rather than done individually. This can only be accomplished at the cost of individual liberty. It is assumed that "the education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success".

What  Albert fails to realize is that the earlier definition of religion includes "responsibility for his fellow men". Albert was already deceived into thinking that religion was "what you think about a supreme being."

The first half of the earlier definition of religion included your duty to God. The most significant aspect of a duty to God - whoever you think He is - is that you are not first. The glory does not go to you but to Him. So, understanding the definition of Pure Religion and its practice gives the individual a "sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success" of self.

This occurs in society when the individual must depend upon freewill offerings, or what we call charity, for his social welfare. Since religion, according to the earlier definition of religion, was not your opinion about who or what God is but how you provided welfare for your fellow man. Socialism is the religion you get when you have no religion.

In socialism, whoever or whatever "authority" makes the choice as to who works and what is distributed, who is worthy of what reward and what is fair, becomes the new god of society deciding good and evil.

Individual liberty is the "power of choice". In socialism, that power is not gone but held by the collective. The majority can now rule over the minority. The Roots of the Welfare State feed the tree of tyranny through Public religion.

The collective in a direct democracy or representative government will now rule over the minority at best, or the wealthy and powerful will seize control of the powers of government through bribery and ambuscade.

Albert goes onto say:

  • "Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights."[1]

It might be true that a "division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones", but that does not have to create oligarchies. Large work projects can also be accomplished through cooperative efforts. All that people need to do is not forsake the gathering together.

Of course people gather together in the socialist state but those bonds are contractual and centralize the power of choice in the hands of the majority, which historically has created an unseen oligarchy of power which "inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education)".

What bonds could bind society together that are not contractual and do not limit the individual liberty which is the "power of choice"?

There are no greater bonds than those bonds of love between living souls who care about others as much as they care about themselves. It is the carrying of each other's burdens and the sharing of troubles that binds a family and makes men become a band of brothers rather than a mob. This is done in the practice of Pure Religion through a network of Tens willing to come together in faith, hope and charity through the perfect law of liberty.

This is why Jesus appointed a kingdom/government to his apostles but instructed them not to be like the rulers of other governments who exercise authority one over the other. The Church is suppose to provide all the social welfare of the people who gather together. Eventually the selfishness that breeds in a socialist state makes private welfare illegal, which was the Christian conflict under Rome.

Albert makes it clear that a successful socialist state is "quite impossible". It should be noted that creating offices of power centralizes power and men who seek power will seek office. He warned that "a planned economy" will include an "all-powerful" bureaucracy that leads to the "complete enslavement of the individual". These, and the judges who secure their power over the people, are the "gods many" Paul spoke of in the New Testament and Justice William O Douglas wrote about.[2]

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of" Pure Religion in the hearts and minds of the people by the God of Creation. That is only done by repenting and seeking a voluntary government based on righteousness.

The prodigal son did not come back to his father's house to be sovereign but to be a servant. If people will not come together in a righteous and voluntary network of charity, why would their Father forgive them or give to them? If the prodigal son only came back to be free, his father would not have welcomed him nor celebrated his return.

If you will not gather in a network of charity, diligently seeking and striving in The Way of righteousness, giving and forgiving, then you will not and should not be free.


Socialist
Socialism | Not so Secure Socialism | Welfare_types | Bread and circuses | Dialectic |
Liberalism | Classical liberalism | Transcendentalist | Deist | Social contract |
Polybius | Plutarch | Corban | Was Jesus a socialist | Perfect law of liberty | Lady Godiva |
Nimrod | Corvee | Nicolaitan | Benefactors | Fathers | Citizen‎ | Community |
Section 666 | Mark of the Beast | Christian conflict | Diocletianic Persecution | Mystery Babylon |
Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark
I paid in | Goats_and_Sheep | Shepherds | Free Keys | Why Socialism |
Roots of the Welfare State | Live as if the state does not exist |
Departed | Authority | James Scott | Guru theories | Larken Rose |
Capitalism | Covet | Dominionism | Weightier matters | FEMA | Network


Join The Living Network of The Companies of Ten
The Living Network | Join Local group | About | Purpose | Guidelines | Network Removal
Contact Minister | Fractal Network | Audacity of Hope | Network Links

Footnotes

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Einstein, A. (2009). "Why Socialism?". Monthly Review. 61 (1): 55–61. doi:10.14452/MR-061-01-2009-05_7. HTML version available at the Monthly Review website: "Why Socialism?". May 1949. Retrieved 18 January 2014.
  2. “We must realize that today’s Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution… the truth is that the vast bureaucracy now runs this country, irrespective of what party is in power.” Justice William O Douglas