You can usually tell when that happens because it's preceded by a memo or otherwise transmitted message to stop using one definition and begin using another.
Spontaneous changes happen without any instructions.
I understand your reasoning but that does not actually address the differences, particularly in the context of spiritual warfare. To be clear, propaganda is about turning positives into negatives and negatives into positives, or making them appear neutral, so that no positives or negatives can be discerned between a lie and the truth.
An obstacle to overcome is that in an east/west left/right dichotomy both sides have subjective negatives and positives that are opposite in the opposing subjective view (just like in a mirror), and therefore both are seen as equally valid in the objective view. Having said that, there are ways the True positive in a North/south dichotomy can be discerned because there's a difference between a lie being introduced to the gullible and the Truth being introduced to the deceived.
The reasoning you are using does not take the above circumstances into account. For example, the spirit of the devil in the world is propagating his image of god, (a vain spirit in terms of glory and honor), using subtle linguistics in the thoughts happening in our mind, and people might think it's spontaneous when in fact it's not. And therefore, those propagating the Christ Image of God (The Altruistic Spirit in the terms of glory and honor) might in due diligence send a memo making sure everyone is qualifying the terms correctly so as to negate the latest false premise, because they want to guard against inadvertently projecting a false image.
It's certainly not....but we are talking about people who have, for all effective purposes, joined a religious movement that believes in their own underserved righteousness and in the evil of those who have been more successful than them. While the religion strives constantly to perfect a blueprint for revolution....it never once tries anything remotely similar for the creation of the supposedly equitable society their revolution serves. In fact, there quite simply is no blueprint for this equitable society....it's assumed to be a trifle, something easily achieved, and the only thing standing in it's way is this evil upper class that's only living for greed.
Sweep them away....either violently or not....and the betterment of all can begin.
Machiavelli once wrote (and I'm paraphrasing here) that's there's nothing more perilous, less likely to succeed, than a new way of doing things....and if one is resolved to undertake such an effort, they should proceed with great caution and care.
If we can just for a moment assume Machiavelli is correct...then it would be prudent for Marxists to understand everything they can about the current way of doing things....and planning out the new way....well before any revolution is ever planned. Indeed, if one was concerned about the poor...this is obviously what they should do....for the poor will be hurt first by sweeping away the old order. This never actually happens though. Marxists think first of overthrowing the old order....and if any genuine concern for the poor exists, it's an afterthought at best. I've met Marxists smart about a lot of things...but I've never seen one that actually understood markets, basic economics, or the actual processes that create our economies. Capitalism is just the name used to broadly describe these things. They see it only as a mysterious enemy....so they know nothing about it. Only once they've destroyed it completely is their folly revealed....and in order to maintain power, an absurd farce has to play out where innocents are blamed for failures, and only ruthless tyrants can maintain control through violence.
I agree with your intended sentiment above, but respectfully your articulation shows you need to work on your psycholinguistics so that your sentiments will project faith and not cynicism ( Faith in brotherly Love... aaaand ---> that brotherly Love is God's Spirit in us bestowed according to His grace, rather than a product of one's personal effort). Example: You said:
"....we are talking about people who have, for all effective purposes, joined a religious movement that believes in their own underserved righteousness and in the evil of those who have been more successful than them".
"Righteousness" is a gift from God and is not deserved/earned by any creature (to think otherwise promotes vanity). So, when you say a "religious movement that believes in their own undeserved righteousness" it projects that there is a righteousness that is deserved/earned. And when you say "and in the evil of those who have been more successful than them", it projects that success equates with wealth which equates with righteousness, when in fact righteousness equates with taking care of the poor, not accruing wealth. It therefore also projects cynicism by doubting the motives of "these people".
Ok....so something like the Amish or more primitive?
Not exactly. The Amish have a good motive, but advances in technology and industry should not be discounted as a practical means of achieving sustainability.
That would require the slaughter of around 7 billion people.
To be sustainable, we would have to eliminate all products that cannot be grown or replaced at a pace at least equivalent to that which they can be replenished. Essentially, a pre-industrial society.
And it's worth pointing out any such society would almost immediately become subjugated by a modern industrial society.
I don't believe any of this is true. The fact is without a sustainable life-style we create a dysfunctional society. So we can't think in terms that say it's not possible. We need to have love, faith, hope.
Capitalism has nothing to do with greed.
Nor does putting the needs of the poor first.
He suggested a progressive tax system to avoid monopolies or other situations of market collusion which corrupt the process of economics by ending competition within a market.
These are the thoughts I am referring to:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess …. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
~~Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Yeah it's kind of funny how similar that sounds to "from each according to his ability" and if compared together it seems apparent to me that Marx not only convinced people he understood economics by ripping off Smith....but his best criticisms of Capitalism are also ripped off from Smith. It seems almost certain that Marx was fully aware he was nothing more than a huckster. His idea of "class consciousness" is a full blown denial of what Smith called "rational self interest".
But there is an authoritative Truth that we learn and are subject to and it's not a rip off to repeat it and teach it.
When I say failed....I mean it failed immediately. It fails in real time. It fails as it's implemented. All freedom has to be stripped from society to create equity....and once you realize that you will never better yourself or those you love beyond the same state as those who contribute nothing at all....you have no reason to strive or work for anything. Gunpoint labor follows shortly after. If it doesn't....the level of degradation and inhumanity that ensues makes fascists look almost kind by comparison.
I understand your sentiment above. In spiritual warfare, one has to distinguish the difference between being lazy by wanting everything handed to you, and being lazy by controlling the necessities and exploiting others as a cash cow. I see the spirit of the devil as using semantics to play both ends against the middle in these dichotomies, democracy/autocracy, socialism/capitalism.
What is polarization? It's two dogs leashed together spending all their energy choking each other to death because they can't agree, only because when they face each other left/right and right/left appear as opposite directions in their linguistics even though they would not disagree on what is North/south in their intended sentiments.
