Socialism will send America into a season of wealth.

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,319
5,254
45
Oregon
✟966,992.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
@GodsGrace101 , I like what you have to say, and you may be right, perhaps socialism, ran by men and people still being a fallen state, and the people themselves still being in a fallen state, and still involving money, greed, selfishness, etc, might enslave us way more so than what we currently have now maybe...?

I'm just worried that it's all going come crashing down soon is all...

And with no better alternatives...?

And I'm worried that, most especially the Republicans, are going to all but eliminate all the programs that help people in need, or when or where they might need it, in order to offset this, etc, instead of the rich, or super-rich, getting taxed a few more pennies, etc...

Anyway, I'm worried that, most especially the Republicans, are going to all but eliminate all the programs that help people in need, or when or where they might need it, cause I fall into that category, etc...

And the general lack of compassion on the Republicans parts, greatly worries me, etc...

I mean what if it was them, etc, but no one really even ever thinks of that until it is one of them, etc... I certainly didn't or did not use to, when it was not me, etc, until it was me, etc, then I did, and now I do, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,298
Tuscany
✟231,507.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
@GodsGrace101 , I like what you have to say, and you may be right, perhaps socialism, ran by men and people still being a fallen state, and the people themselves still being in a fallen state, and still involving money, greed, selfishness, etc, might enslave us way more so than what we currently have now maybe...?

I'm just worried that it's all going come crashing down soon is all...

And with no better alternatives...?

And I'm worried that, most especially the Republicans, are going to all but eliminate all the programs that help people in need, or when or where they might need it, in order to offset this, etc, instead of the rich, or super-rich, getting taxed a few more pennies, etc...

Anyway, I'm worried that, most especially the Republicans, are going to all but eliminate all the programs that help people in need, or when or where they might need it, cause I fall into that category, etc...

And the general lack of compassion on the Republicans parts, greatly worries me, etc...

I mean what if it was them, etc, but no one really even ever thinks of that until it is one of them, etc... I certainly didn't or did not use to, when it was not me, etc, until it was me, etc, then I did, and now I do, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!
I find that the Dems are always saying how THEY are for the working man.
But are they the ones that actually help the working man?
It has not seemed so to me....they raise taxes and everyone has to pay them,,,even the moderately poor.

I don't believe the Reps are heartless,,,I think that we have to realize at some point that the govt cannot care for us. It's unfortunate that our churches cannot do more since they are private...whenever we turn to the govt for help, it seems to want our soul.

I hear Bernie speak about how everything will be free...
free college
free healthcare

I live in a system where healthcare is supposed to be free.
Well, if I depend on the system, I could die before I get real help.
My family dr works out well...no problem there.
But if something serious comes along...I have to pay for a private dr or wait MONTHS before I can make an appt....this is true even for a tumor !
The stories I could tell you....

College is also free.
But there's a limit on how many students any college will accept every year...so good luck there. The Professors are in a socialist state of mind and don't help the students too much - they're pretty much on their own.

If something comes crashing down...it won't matter too much who is in power.
I don't think it'll get that bad...I just don't think it'll ever be how it was in the past....they want to call this a recession...OK...but I don't think it's a recession; it's just how things are going to be from now on.

If you can,,,try to get a job and live within your means --- everyone, not even you personally. And if you really cannot work for whatever reason,,,I'm sure the Reps will not turn a blind eye to someone in need.

Try to see things realistically and not out of worry for the future.
No one knows what is going to happen.
We only have today.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Neogaia777
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Those aren't socialist programs because the economy wasn't built on socialism and the taxes those programs drew off of were from capitalism. You seem to be confusing liberal capitalism for socialism.

They are 100% socialist programs. Socialist programs are always paid by taxes.
If only you could reclassify them properly then? Evidently you can't.

Examples of countries directly using the term socialist in their names include the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while a number of countries make references to socialism in their constitutions, but not in their names. These include India and Portugal.

Socialist programs: (Just the N's)
0% Capitalism
0% Communism
% perhaps some private funding.

 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Site Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,865
798
✟532,443.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If anyone looks at Daniel critically, specifically Daniel , one might wonder if Socialism will prevail at some point here
They are 100% socialist programs. Socialist programs are always paid by taxes.
If only you could reclassify them properly then? Evidently you can't.

Examples of countries directly using the term socialist in their names include the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while a number of countries make references to socialism in their constitutions, but not in their names. These include India and Portugal.

Socialist programs: (Just the N's)
0% Capitalism
0% Communism
% perhaps some private funding.

Plenty of countries which may be more appealing to you then which you are free to search out (at least so far),
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LovesOurLord
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If anyone looks at Daniel critically, specifically Daniel , one might wonder if Socialism will prevail at some point here

Plenty of countries which may be more appealing to you then which you are free to search out (at least so far),
I have zero complaints. I love our system. Thanks for thinking of me though.
 
Upvote 0

LovesOurLord

Active Member
Jun 19, 2018
242
151
Denver
✟23,274.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
They are 100% socialist programs. Socialist programs are always paid by taxes.
If only you could reclassify them properly then? Evidently you can't.

Examples of countries directly using the term socialist in their names include the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while a number of countries make references to socialism in their constitutions, but not in their names. These include India and Portugal.

They're not socialist programs because private ownership of the means of production hasn't been abolished. It's very clear in the dictionary:

Definition of SOCIALISM

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


I realize a lot of countries run by socialists like to try to rehabilitate what socialism is by pretending that social programs and infrastructure by taxation from private capital is socialism, but clearly it isn't. Perhaps those who advocate social programs by use of capitalist taxation should pick another word with which to call their vision because as shown above, socialism isn't it.

If having social programs was socialism, the United States would be socialist. The United States is not socialist. The sanctity of private property is protected in the United States Constitution.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

LovesOurLord

Active Member
Jun 19, 2018
242
151
Denver
✟23,274.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I find that the Dems are always saying how THEY are for the working man.
But are they the ones that actually help the working man?
It has not seemed so to me....they raise taxes and everyone has to pay them,,,even the moderately poor.

It's not just that. Dems are trying to claim they're pro-American worker by continuing to support offshoring of millions of jobs and importation of millions more cheaper laborers to undercut local wages. Dems are not pro-worker. Trump is more pro-worker than they are. He's the only one trying to cut back both.

I don't believe the Reps are heartless,,,I think that we have to realize at some point that the govt cannot care for us. It's unfortunate that our churches cannot do more since they are private...whenever we turn to the govt for help, it seems to want our soul.

Younger people tend to not be religious so that avenue of charity is failing. Younger people tend to want government to fill the role voluntarism and charity should fill so consequently people like Bernie Sanders are popular. These people want confiscatory economic redistribution, not volunteer work and charity. They lack a sense of duty to community that goes much beyond voting for a guy to do it for them by taking other peoples' money.

I hear Bernie speak about how everything will be free...
free college
free healthcare

Bernie's 2020 platform has a lot of similarity to standard Marxist platforms, such as the Socialist Workers Party that he associated with in the 1980s. Neither call for an outright overthrow of capitalism, but they do call for a litany of free stuff and SJW social causes. Here is the Socialist Workers Party 2020 platform.

The only real difference between "Democratic Socialists" and "Communists" is that the former want to bring in the same end game result as the latter but they want to try to do it without wholesale mass murder - or at least so they claim. Now of course this isn't possible and the best thing the "Democratic Socialists" can do in countries they've been elected in is turn the countries into massive welfare handout states with high tax rates. The high rate of taxation is a surrogate of sorts for outright total confiscation of private property they can't yet get away with. Thus, without the willingness (or at least apparent willingness unless these people are simply lying in wait for a more opportune time which I think many, including Bernie Sanders are doing) to engage in revolutionary violence to overthrow government and being lining up capitalists and dissisents against the walls, "Democratic Socialism" will go nowhere outside of bloating entitlements within a still-capitalist economy. Truth is, in my opinion, they're just waiting until the time is ripe before the knives come out.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: GodsGrace101
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,319
5,254
45
Oregon
✟966,992.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Before the Tower of Babel, I believe they had a kind of socialist or tribal system, with no monetary system, (see some prior posts)... The people's names were connected to who they were or what they produced (for the community as a whole) or what their job or profession was, or what they did or provided, etc, cause names in Hebrew were always tied to that, or very, very much were before, after the Tower of Babel, etc, the name was the thing, or the person, "meant the thing" or person, or was the thing that did, (the word did) (defined or meant the thing, etc, or person, etc), or was very much greatly tied to who they were, or who they were to be, or become, or do, or provide, etc...

Also the things themselves, the names or words used for them also, were also greatly tied to what they were, or did, and or provided, or were used for, and/or I guess you could say "was" basically, etc, or at least that's the way they "saw things" (and people) back then, etc, and this came out, and/or was in and/or was directly reflected in their "language", etc...

After the Tower of Babel that all changed, but that was how it was before that, etc, and is still somewhat reflected still in and with the Hebrews after that still somewhat, with how God would name a thing or person or change their names, etc, or a Hebrew person would name an altar or place or thing, etc, and/or is still even somewhat reflected in the Hebrew language today, albeit still not the exact same as it was before the Tower of Babel though...

And they made sure the whole community was taken care of, if say, a person was disabled or elderly or could no longer work or produce, etc, or also if there was either no place found for them to produce a thing, or just "no need for them to", etc, they were (all) still taken care of, and no one was ever without at least their most basic needs being met ever, etc...

I don't know how anything like this could work today, and I honestly don't think it could anymore, we have the idea and concept of "money" now, etc, and everything is tied to that now, etc...?

I don't know how it would not end in some kind of "class system" either...? Maybe everyone's bare or basic needs or "absolute basic necessities" or needs could be met and/or provided for, by the minimal requirements of those who were able to produce, or with whom a need was found for them to provide or produce, etc, anyway, maybe those able to produce or provide a thing, or need was found for them to, or be able to, (provide a thing, etc) (goods or services, etc), after they had met the "minimal requirements" maybe (to take care of the community or the rest of the others, etc) anyway, whatever was "beyond that" maybe, they might be able to trade in for more "bigger and better things" maybe, or more "luxury items" maybe, etc, I don't know...?

Like I said I don't think it could work anymore now, but also my point was also about those who before the Tower of Babel in the Bible and "reversing Genesis", etc (see prior posts)...

Anyway,

God Bless!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,319
5,254
45
Oregon
✟966,992.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Before the Tower of Babel, I believe they had a kind of socialist or tribal system, with no monetary system, (see some prior posts)... The people's names were connected to who they were or what they produced (for the community as a whole) or what their job or profession was, or what they did or provided, etc, cause names in Hebrew were always tied to that, or very, very much were before, after the Tower of Babel, etc, the name was the thing, or the person, "meant the thing" or person, or was the thing that did, (the word did) (defined or meant the thing, etc, or person, etc), or was very much greatly tied to who they were, or who they were to be, or become, or do, or provide, etc...

Also the things themselves, the names or words used for them also, were also greatly tied to what they were, or did, and or provided, or were used for, and/or I guess you could say "was" basically, etc, or at least that's the way they "saw things" (and people) back then, etc, and this came out, and/or was in and/or was directly reflected in their "language", etc...

After the Tower of Babel that all changed, but that was how it was before that, etc, and is still somewhat reflected still in and with the Hebrews after that still somewhat, with how God would name a thing or person or change their names, etc, or a Hebrew person would name an altar or place or thing, etc, and/or is still even somewhat reflected in the Hebrew language today, albeit still not the exact same as it was before the Tower of Babel though...

And they made sure the whole community was taken care of, if say, a person was disabled or elderly or could no longer work or produce, etc, or also if there was either no place found for them to produce a thing, or just "no need for them to", etc, they were (all) still taken care of, and no one was ever without at least their most basic needs being met ever, etc...

I don't know how anything like this could work today, and I honestly don't think it could anymore, we have the idea and concept of "money" now, etc, and everything is tied to that now, etc...?

I don't know how it would not end in some kind of "class system" either...? Maybe everyone's bare or basic needs or "absolute basic necessities" or needs could be met and/or provided for, by the minimal requirements of those who were able to produce, or with whom a need was found for them to provide or produce, etc, anyway, maybe those able to produce or provide a thing, or need was found for them to, or be able to, (provide a thing, etc) (goods or services, etc), after they had met the "minimal requirements" maybe (to take care of the community or the rest of the others, etc) anyway, whatever was "beyond that" maybe, they might be able to trade in for more "bigger and better things" maybe, or more "luxury items" maybe, etc, I don't know...?

Like I said I don't think it could work anymore now, but also my point was also about those who before the Tower of Babel in the Bible and "reversing Genesis", etc (see prior posts)...

Anyway,

God Bless!
Trade may have not even really existed before the Tower of Babel, at least not trade with other tribes or nations or other peoples different from them, etc, the things produced or made or provided were just turned into the government for distributing and providing for the people, or the whole community, etc, and it was not a "poor system", they were actually much richer than any other tribes or nations (that they maybe had not encountered or run into yet), that maybe did have monetary systems or did engage in trade with other peoples, or tribes and/or nations or peoples, different from them, etc, (that they may not have met or run into yet, etc)...

But they were very "rich" really, and extremely prosperous, among their own selves, and among their own people and/or land(s), and own kind anyway...

Everyone, "EVERYONE", was very much well provided for, and taken care of, etc, even if no need was found for them to do or provide anything, etc, or they were elderly or disabled, etc, all very well taken care of and/or provided for, etc, no one ever in any kind of lack or need ever, not a single one, especially not ever severe lack or need ever, etc, and even the people who provided or produced did not have to "slave" to do it or do so either, it was a very "cushy" life and existence for them all, etc... Lot's of "free time" for them all, etc... People who did "work" (to provide or produce, etc) did so cause they "wanted to", etc, and not because they "had to", etc...

And there may have even been a certain kind of "pride" involved in those with whom there was a need found for them to do so, so that they "wanted to" and enjoyed it and loved it, etc... Might have been a certain amount of "prominence" or "fame" or "notoriety" involved in it as well, and their children sometimes followed and walked in that also, etc... So that they were very glad they could do it for the whole community and were "proud" that they could do it and/or "be it" (names again) and/or provide it, etc...

The people who did "quote/unquote" "work", also saw it it as what they were created and/or born for or meant to do, and is was 100% in line with their natural dispositions, or own natural inborn talents/passions or predispositions, etc, and not a single one of them ever regretted that ever, or ever came to hate it/that at all ever at all, etc... They were honored to be chosen for a thing, if they were one of the ones chosen for a thing, etc, etc, etc...

No one was a slave to anything at all, ever, not a single one, they were an extremely "free people", etc, and everyone, EVERYONE, every single one lived a very, very good life and all was well taken care of and provided for, etc, no lack of anything at all, for anyone at all, "ever", etc... I could go on, but think I'll stop there for now... Very free people, etc, all of them, etc, no one ever in lack or need, etc, and none of them were slaves in any kind of way, to anything, ever, etc...

(But then we saw what they did or tried to do with that kind of freedom in the end though didn't we, right?)

Anyway, I wouldn't even know where to start of begin to be able to be going back to it or that kind of thing, etc...?

I don't think it would work now or anymore, etc, or it just can't cause we can't even conceive of it now or anymore, etc... Maybe with Christ's leadership and rulership maybe...? But not apart from that or Him, I don't think, etc...

Like I said "reversing Genesis", etc... I think Christ will be doing that, taking us all the back to the Garden of Eden, or the Earthly/Heavenly Paradise, where Heaven and Earth were "joined at the hip" and were "One", etc...

God Bless!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TheNorwegian

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2015
595
523
Norway
✟96,776.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If I work for the state and am paid $100, and from that I pay $40 tax, how much have I contributed to the treasury? Minus $60!
To contribute tax money to the treasury, I first need to earn that money from some other source.

State workers are an expense that is paid for solely by the taxes of those who work in private enterprise.
That's why the smallest sensible government should be pursued, and all wasteful projects banned.

There is a counter-argument to this: If a state employed person contributes something that is of net worth to society he is not a net cost to the community. For instance, a police officer is a net cost from your perspective. However, if that police officer protects private businesses and individuals from crime, he does offer a positive financial contribution.

The same may apply to teachers, health workers, military etc. So, it does not follow that the best financial decision is to have as few Government workers as possible. What should be done is to minimize the amount of unnecessary/unhelpful Government
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neogaia777
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,319
5,254
45
Oregon
✟966,992.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Trade may have not even really existed before the Tower of Babel, at least not trade with other tribes or nations or other peoples different from them, etc, the things produced or made or provided were just turned into the government for distributing and providing for the people, or the whole community, etc, and it was not a "poor system", they were actually much richer than any other tribes or nations (that they maybe had not encountered or run into yet), that maybe did have monetary systems or did engage in trade with other peoples, or tribes and/or nations or peoples, different from them, etc, (that they may not have met or run into yet, etc)...

But they were very "rich" really, and extremely prosperous, among their own selves, and among their own people and/or land(s), and own kind anyway...

Everyone, "EVERYONE", was very much well provided for, and taken care of, etc, even if no need was found for them to do or provide anything, etc, or they were elderly or disabled, etc, all very well taken care of and/or provided for, etc, no one ever in any kind of lack or need ever, not a single one, especially not ever severe lack or need ever, etc, and even the people who provided or produced did not have to "slave" to do it or do so either, it was a very "cushy" life and existence for them all, etc... Lot's of "free time" for them all, etc... People who did "work" (to provide or produce, etc) did so cause they "wanted to", etc, and not because they "had to", etc...

And there may have even been a certain kind of "pride" involved in those with whom there was a need found for them to do so, so that they "wanted to" and enjoyed it and loved it, etc... Might have been a certain amount of "prominence" or "fame" or "notoriety" involved in it as well, and their children sometimes followed and walked in that also, etc... So that they were very glad they could do it for the whole community and were "proud" that they could do it and/or "be it" (names again) and/or provide it, etc...

The people who did "quote/unquote" "work", also saw it it as what they were created and/or born for or meant to do, and is was 100% in line with their natural dispositions, or own natural inborn talents/passions or predispositions, etc, and not a single one of them ever regretted that ever, or ever came to hate it/that at all ever at all, etc... They were honored to be chosen for a thing, if they were one of the ones chosen for a thing, etc, etc, etc...

No one was a slave to anything at all, ever, not a single one, they were an extremely "free people", etc, and everyone, EVERYONE, every single one lived a very, very good life and all was well taken care of and provided for, etc, no lack of anything at all, for anyone at all, "ever", etc... I could go on, but think I'll stop there for now... Very free people, etc, all of them, etc, no one ever in lack or need, etc, and none of them were slaves in any kind of way, to anything, ever, etc...

(But then we saw what they did or tried to do with that kind of freedom in the end though didn't we, right?)

Anyway, I wouldn't even know where to start of begin to be able to be going back to it or that kind of thing, etc...?

I don't think it would work now or anymore, etc, or it just can't cause we can't even conceive of it now or anymore, etc... Maybe with Christ's leadership and rulership maybe...? But not apart from that or Him, I don't think, etc...

Like I said "reversing Genesis", etc... I think Christ will be doing that, taking us all the back to the Garden of Eden, or the Earthly/Heavenly Paradise, where Heaven and Earth were "joined at the hip" and were "One", etc...

God Bless!
What did "all the other people do" that were not chosen for a thing for the community, IDK, maybe they did things around their houses, spent time with their families and children, cooked foods, etc, local gardening, etc, maybe some of them dabbled in arts and crafts in the hopes that they might one day be chosen to provide or produce a thing for the community one day, maybe they helped or assisted the other who were or did, etc, but none of them were ever required or forced to, etc, and they did not have to if they did not want to, etc, and they were not bound to it if they did, etc, I'm sure at least some of them were farmers, etc, and maybe had animals too maybe, etc, or maybe their were only certain chosen ones for that as well, IDK...

But whatever they did, they got to thoroughly enjoy their lives, all of them, and in pretty relative ease, etc, and no one regretted or was angry or jealous of the "cards they were dealt", etc, not a single one, etc...

But then their "brilliant leader", or government, had an "idea", etc, and got all the people in on it, etc...

Anyway,

Anyway, and the rest, as they say, is "history", etc...

We shall rival the gods! And build ourselves a Tower that reaches the Highest Heavens, and seat ourselves upon it, etc, and become gods and be God, etc, overthrow Him if He is there, etc, for we are greater than He is, and they are, etc, and set up and establish our own kingdom there, etc, we've done everything here, we have proven ourselves worthy, etc, etc, etc...

Yeah... Smart, real Smart...

Pride and Ego and Arrogance always comes before a fall, etc... Even with a people that were as blessed as they were, etc, or maybe even especially so maybe, etc...

Descendants of Adam, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They're not socialist programs because private ownership of the means of production hasn't been abolished. It's very clear in the dictionary:

Definition of SOCIALISM

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


I realize a lot of countries run by socialists like to try to rehabilitate what socialism is by pretending that social programs and infrastructure by taxation from private capital is socialism, but clearly it isn't. Perhaps those who advocate social programs by use of capitalist taxation should pick another word with which to call their vision because as shown above, socialism isn't it.

If having social programs was socialism, the United States would be socialist. The United States is not socialist. The sanctity of private property is protected in the United States Constitution.

You seem unable to classify the programs I have listed and I called pure socialism:

(just the O's.)
Liberal Capitalism 0%
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We all can see there is a difference.
....

There is no difference. The system of Communism which Marxist-Leninists proposed was a system of World Socialism. The ONLY difference was they proposed use of violence to bring it about if needed to end capitalism (i.e., the end justifies the means Marxist philosophy).

What their system means is...

1. abolition of personal property
2. abolition of the idea of God-given rights; the rights of the people are instead determined by the state apparatus.
3. abolition of freedom of speech.
4. abolition of illegal search & seizure.
5. abolition of freedom of religion; if you want to be a Christian, you MUST join the state-operated church system.
etc.

That kind of philosophy has already started to be applied to the once-free western Christian nations. You can now go to jail for exercising your 1st Amendment rights of freedom of speech; it's called 'hate speech', a philosophy instituted by the U.N. upon free nations.

Socialism does not work economically. The early settlers in the 1607 Jamestown, USA found this out the hard way. Their first year they placed all ownership in common, i.e. Socialism. No matter how hard you worked, you got the same as one who didn't work as hard. Many starved that first year. The next year, the policy changed to Capitalism, i.e., if you didn't work you didn't eat; and you got to keep any extra you labored for, to trade or sell. That year there was an over-abundance, no one starved.

This reveals that Socialism promotes an unbalanced economic system. There is LESS incentive to work, because workers know they will not reap the fruits of their labor. This is why Communist states like Russia and Red China have turned more towards a Capitalist economic system. Yet their policy over their nations and peoples is STILL Communism.

This below is how God intended for His people, and will be so in the new heavens, and new earth. World Socialism be damned.

Isa 65:22-23
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.
KJV
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LovesOurLord

Active Member
Jun 19, 2018
242
151
Denver
✟23,274.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You seem unable to classify the programs I have listed and I called pure socialism:

There's nothing to "classify." Not one of those programs are in an economy where the means of production have been abolished from private ownership so by definition not a one of them is socialist. "Programs" are not socialism. An economy itself is what makes a country socialist or not. Nowhere does the dictionary state that socialism is capitalist tax-funded government programs or government departments. This is an arbitrary definition which I never encountered until years after the end of the Cold War and I grew up in the 1980s. This new spin definition is one I've seen made by anticapitalists since the latter part of the 90s or so to warm people up to the idea of collectivist economics and as an anticapitalist, that's why Sanders plays that card.

You're running on an invented definition of socialism. It's not even in the dictionary. You can't just go around making up definitions of words or copying those who do. The same definition-twisting that has happened with the word 'gender' (in any dictionary older than 20 years you'll see it merely is a synonym for one's sex) is happening with the word 'socialism' due to political interests who want to manipulate language and thought in their favor. I would suggest not going along with them and instead using words accurately. It's beyond me why you keep doubling-down intent on ignoring the dictionary. Whoever taught you to do this was wrong.

If tax-funded programs in a capitalist country with private-owned means of production were socialism, then the US would be socialist.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: GodsGrace101
Upvote 0

LovesOurLord

Active Member
Jun 19, 2018
242
151
Denver
✟23,274.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Socialism does not work economically. The early settlers in the 1607 Jamestown, USA found this out the hard way. Their first year they placed all ownership in common, i.e. Socialism. No matter how hard you worked, you got the same as one who didn't work as hard. Many starved that first year. The next year, the policy changed to Capitalism, i.e., if you didn't work you didn't eat; and you got to keep any extra you labored for, to trade or sell. That year there was an over-abundance, no one starved.

I'm not so sure there's much to say to young people who insist on ignoring the dictionary and don't understand the games with redefining words that political radicals have been doing.

The Bible, like the Bible-inspired US Constitution, enshrines the right to private property as inviolate and as such, no Christian should be associating with, let alone promoting, socialism. And that doesn't count Sanders' open anti-Christian bigotry.
 
Upvote 0

LovesOurLord

Active Member
Jun 19, 2018
242
151
Denver
✟23,274.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Absolutely, and what's more those who work for the state, locally or nationally, do not contribute any tax dollars to the US treasury. (Cue outrage from hard working state employees.)

If I work for the state and am paid $100, and from that I pay $40 tax, how much have I contributed to the treasury? Minus $60!
To contribute tax money to the treasury, I first need to earn that money from some other source.

State workers are an expense that is paid for solely by the taxes of those who work in private enterprise.
That's why the smallest sensible government should be pursued, and all wasteful projects banned.

I work for law enforcement agency and what we contribute is keeping the maximum amount of criminal rabble off the streets that is possible. Consider the hit to the economy that would be going on if such people ran scot-free and could rob and steal at whim. In that regard, I'd say our contribution to the economy is trillions yearly. A stable economy cannot exist in chaos.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GodsGrace101
Upvote 0

LovesOurLord

Active Member
Jun 19, 2018
242
151
Denver
✟23,274.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
5. abolition of freedom of religion; if you want to be a Christian, you MUST join the state-operated church system.

Classical Marxism doesn't allow for religion, period. They want it all abolished as they do the traditional family unit, seeing it as an instrument of oppression. "The opiate of the masses" is what Marx called religion.

The Bolsheviks closed churches and butchered clergy.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Classical Marxism doesn't allow for religion, period. They want it all abolished as they do the traditional family unit, seeing it as an instrument of oppression. "The opiate of the masses" is what Marx called religion.

The Bolsheviks closed churches and butchered clergy.

Yet the Big Plan is World Socialism for the coming "one world government", and that will be the coming kingdom of the Antichrist who will play Messiah in Jerusalem. He will be the head of a one-world religion, i.e., mandatory worship of himself. Thus World Socialism or Communism, is but a tool to bring that about.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0