Talk:Socialism: Difference between revisions
| Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
{{Template:Injustice}} | {{Template:Injustice}} | ||
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." <Ref name=Why Socialism>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.</Ref> | |||
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 done 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 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, who ever 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 fellowman [[socialism]] is the [[religion]] you get when you have no [[religion]]. | |||
In socialism who ever or what ever "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". That power is not gone but held by the collective. The majority can now rule over the minority. | |||
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." <Ref name=Why Socialism></Ref> | |||
— Albert Einstein, "Why Socialism?" | |||
It is 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 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 others burdens and the sharing of troubles that binds a family and makes man 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]]. | |||
== Footnotes == | == Footnotes == | ||
Revision as of 08:51, 1 December 2016
Claim 1
Someone on what claims to be a Christian Anarchist group stated:
- "A human being who is a socialist believes that the most harmonious state of affairs would be for all to get security and the fruits of success even at the expense of others who have already achieved some financial success."
- "...Certainly a reliable source operating on fair definitions." (Misplaced Sarcasm)
I did not remember ever seeing that definition before, and I do not think it reliable at all. Evidently he got it from a page I wrote some time ago.
http://www.preparingyou.com/wiki/Socialist
But the page was quoting the opinion of those who were called Human Beings, which was defined by the Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1948 Edition. as 'A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.'
The very next paragraph says "This belief [of "human beings"] is motivated by the individuals own selfishness, sloth, envy and jealousy." So it is clear that the author does not agree with the definition.
I did find the definition:
- "A human being who believes that the most harmonious state of affairs would be for all to get a fair shot at financial sucess. This belief is not motivated by his own selfishness as a capitalist would have you think, but is in actuality an honorable difference of opinion." The Urban dictionary
So that is not very reliable either, if for no other reason that they were unable to spell "success" correctly and because of the Urban Dictionary's own definition of themselves.[1] Urban Dictionary may have been the original source of the Human Being definition.
A standard definition of Socialism, which is found at the first paragraph of the same Socialist page, is a noun defined as a "political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
While a standard definition of "Capitalism is an economic system in which capital assets are privately owned and goods and services are produced for profit in a market economy." [2]
There is no mention of greed in this definition of Capitalism, although the choice to be greedy remains intact along with the choice to be charitable. When a man plants a potato to obtain seven more, we do not call it greed. When an individual plants an apple orchard to obtain more apples than he can eat, we do not call it greed, but we may call it capitalism. If everyone who did not plant, fertilize, prune, water and cultivate the orchard wants even one of his apples without asking him, that would be coveting the goods he produced.
The first capital of mankind is the labor of a man, and without it all other capital is meaningless.[3]
If you take away or infringe upon the right of a man to redistribute his own labor, you have taken away the life of a man. As brothers in humanity we should share what we produce with others in need, but as free souls under God we should have an exclusive right to make that choice. Socialism in all forms must take away that right.[4] Americans have become socialists a long time ago, and that is why we are failing as a nation. To desire the benefits of a socialist state is to covet, and to consume those benefits is to bite our neighbor.
Any : “Redistribution is immoral... it allows one person to treat another as no more than a means...”[5] The welfare state is the enemy of pure religion.[6]When pure religion diminishes, socialism flourishes.
Jesus was not a socialist. He certainly wanted us to care for the needy in a way that strengthened them, and not like Sodom and Gommorah or Nimrod and Mystery Babylon, but he also did not want us to covet our neighbor's goods.
If we are to be free souls under God, instead of slaves, we must grant that right to other men and women as well. It does not say thou shalt not covet unless he is rich.
I think most Modern Christians have little knowledge of what the early Church was doing, and we have to believe they had a better understanding of what "God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit's plan of redemption looks like". They took care of all social welfare through faith, hope and charity and the perfect law of liberty.
Early Christians would not apply or pray to government authorities for the free bread and benefits of Herod or Rome. By their fruits you will know them.
Early Christians practiced Pure Religion, not Public religion and its Covetous Practices, which is a snare that makes men Merchandise and a surety for debt.
It is time to repent and seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.
Join the Network. Become a congregant in a free assembly
Join us:
If you need help:
- Or want to help others:
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
Response 1
Someone responded to the above information with:
- "Jesus came to establish His Kingdom in the hearts of people, not set up a Government. He's of no political ideology, only the way truth and life. " MD
Actually Jesus did come to set up a government and did so and we see him doing it right in the text.
He said he would take the government away from the pharisees and appoint it to his little flock who would bear fruit.
- Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
- Luke 12:32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
He then did that and told them not to be like the government of other nations.
- Luke 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
And we see that government functioning through a network of people who had the real gospl of the kingdom of God spiritually meshed into their hearts and minds.
They set up a daily ministration with funds given every week to ministers who provided for the needy of their society and even for others who showed the humility, forgiveness and sacrifice required by Christ.
They supplied major relief for whole groups of people in other nations all across the Roman empire.
That cannot be done without the Freewill offerings of unselfish people. But Modern Christians who just imagine they have a kingdom heart still go to the Benefactors who exercise authority and not the Church because their churches have accepted a Damnable heresies and pray to the Fathers and Conscripted fathers of the earth for their welfare and benefits.
"The way truth and life" includes enough caring to set up the same daily ministration operating by faith , Hope and charity we see in the early church instead of by the Benefactors who exercise authority one over the other..
If people are not striving daily to do what the early church did after being taught and appointed directly by Christ then they are not really seeking the kingdom very hard and I see little fruit of God establishing His Kingdom in their hearts.
Response 2
Someone else asked:
- Message: "Your article stimulated great interest requiring a lot of prayer & study.
But what about Acts 2:44 and 4:32. Was the Holy Spirit a socialist? "
That was voluntary giving.
Socialism is forced giving by someone in authority.
Thwse practices of socialist was growing popular in the world during the time of John the Baptist but he said we were to take care of one another by charity not force.
Jesus said the same thing about the benefactors of the world governments who exercise authority one over the other and praying to the Fathers of the earth.
We are warned about the covetousness of socialism and systems of welfare that become a snare.
It is not community but communal-ism or what is called "one purse".
http://www.preparingyou.com/wiki/One_purse
Proverbs 1:14 Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:
The common or one purse concept of society is one rooted in the philosophy of Socialism. It is about benefiting from society having a common wealth where people elect or subject themselves to rulers who exercise authority over everyone's purse or wealth. It is where someone has the power to redistribute wealth of the individual because they have the exercising authority to do so. They usually obtain that power by consent or participation and application claiming to be Benefactors of the people.
One problem with this is that it is a Welfare that often becomes a snare. It also makes the people dependent. But the worst part is that it is a covetous practice which will curse the Children and make Merchandise of the people as surety for the debt these systems create. A debt which is Bondage.
See also
- ...that common[8] possessions of Christ in the Communion and Eucharist of its
- 11 KB (1,771 words) - 16:30, 13 November 2015
- ...ings in common.[9]
- 22 KB (3,848 words) - 14:33, 6 September 2016
- ...ou forsaken all and share with the brethren that believe as you do and have all things common? Do you lay up gold, silver, guns and property for yourself and your family Acts 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had ALL THINGS common;
- 76 KB (13,378 words) - 05:42, 2 September 2016
Hue and cry |
Go and cry |
Hammond |
The Occupy Refuge Movement |
Militia |
Land issues |
Mark Taylor |
Bret Bohn |
Justina |
Polybius |
Plutarch |
Nimrod |
Self-Sacrifice |
Forgive |
In need of forgiveness |
Welfare |
Dialectic |
Public religion |
Covetous Practices |
Biting one another |
Divide |
Christian conflict |
Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs |
Merchandise |
Curse children |
Bondage |
Law |
Natural Law |
Legal title |
Common Law |
Jury |
Consent |
The Ten Laws |
Protection |
Weightier_matters |
Social_contract |
Live as if the state does not exist |
Fathers |
Conscripted fathers |
Benefactors |
Divide |
Cry out |
Pure Religion |
Charitable Practices |
Cities of refuge |
Corban |
Was Jesus a socialist |
Supreme being |
Mark of the Beast |
Perfect law of liberty |
The Way |
Lady Godiva |
Network |
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." Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; invalid names, e.g. too many
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 done 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 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, who ever 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 fellowman socialism is the religion you get when you have no religion.
In socialism who ever or what ever "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". That power is not gone but held by the collective. The majority can now rule over the minority.
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." Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; invalid names, e.g. too many
— Albert Einstein, "Why Socialism?"
It is 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 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 others burdens and the sharing of troubles that binds a family and makes man 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.
Footnotes
- ↑ "A place formerly used to find out about slang, and now a place that teens with no life use as a burn book to whine about celebrities, their friends, etc., let out their sexual frustrations, show off their racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-(insert religion here) opinions, troll, and babble about things they know nothing about."
- ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
- ↑ Understanding “American labor, which is the capital of our workingmen.” Grover Cleveland Annual Message Dec., 1885. we should take a look at our own part in the covetous events of 1933.
- ↑ Occupying the Chessboard of the Dialectic
http://www.hisholychurch.org/news/articles/dialectic.php - ↑ The Kantian ethic of capitalism. Harold B. Jones, Jr.
- ↑ State Welfare Spending and Religiosity, A Cross National Analysis by Anthony Gill and Erik Lundsgaarde
- ↑ Richard John Neuhaus, 1936 – 2009, prominent American clergyman.
- ↑ Acts 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; ... them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
- ↑ Acts 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; ... them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
About the author
Subscribe
HELP US at His Holy Church spread the word by SUBSCRIBING to many of our CHANNELS and the Network.
The more subscribers will give us more opportunity to reach out to others and build the network as Christ commanded.
Join the network.
Most important is to become a part of the Living Network which is not dependent upon the internet but seeks to form The bands of a free society.
You can do this by joining the local email group on the network and helping one another in a network of Tens.
His Holy Church - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/user/hisholychurch
Bitchute channel will often include material that would be censored.
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/o6xa17ZTh2KG/
Rumble Channel gregory144
https://rumble.com/user/gregory144
To read more go to "His Holy Church" (HHC) https://www.hisholychurch.org/
Brother Gregory in the wilderness.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJSw6O7_-vA4dweVpMPEXRA
About the author, Brother Gregory
https://hisholychurch.org/author.php
PreparingU - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9hTUK8R89ElcXVgUjWoOXQ
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/HisHolyChurch