"Socialism is not Communism"

the first sentence is wrong, the second is right Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Explain, please.

You should have kept my name out of your whore mouth. You started it. Remember? The answer is NO, I won't voluntarily go into your re-education camp I guess this means we are not going to have a beer?


] Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Whiskey for my men , Beer for the horses.

Sorry, nope his first sentence is correct. In the early church, followers were expected to sell all of their possessions and contribute all of the proceeds to the church. Read the book of Acts. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

ive read it closely

you must have cursorily

there was no communism

they shared out of their individual desire to share, there was no compulsion or requirement. this was at the outset and persecution was rampant and sharing was done out of love, but there was no teaching of communism

you use the word "expected", by whom? no that would be opposed to the entire teachings of Jesus, any compulsion.

they were a small poor beleaguered sect, they shared things out of a desire to, no other reason, as they might have individually been convicted to do, there is no teaching, no such doctrine, no continuing belief or requirement or commandment. if Jesus taught that, you can be sure it would be taught today by at least some sect or denomination.

there is no commandment to Christians by Jesus, or revelation to Paul or any such thing to engage in communism, or any thing even close to that. there is a teaching of love, that's the teaching and people get individually convicted to exhibit love.

in addition COG stated Jesus taught communism, not once did he.
What Jesus did teach was to put God first, and all other things will fall into line. That's about as close as you will get

the reason ananias and sapphira died wasn't from not sharing, it was due to lying. the anxiety that arose out of the exposure of the lies probably caused some sort of heart attack but who knows

even now Christians share, out of individual conviction not any communistic commandment or teaching, many of the institutions we have today, hospitals, universities etc, are a result of this conviction that arises on an individual basis.

I think most of the so called "communist" country's, as well as anything thing with "people's republic" or "democratic republic" in the name are really just "Thugocracys".

Mmmmmm yum yum a man after my own heart. The English monarchy has always been a favorite area of study, and of course one cannot appreciate the English monarchy without studying the Tudor dynasty.

I don't suppose you ever watched the Showtime series The Tudors? I was pleasantly surprised by it. They mangle the timeline of Henry VIII's life pretty badly at times, but overall I thought it was very good. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Actually yes. The show gave me greater insight to better understand the Pilgrimage of Grace, and I thought the show's portrayal of Anne having Protestant views that influenced Henry was innovative.

You're getting paid to know about More?

What a taker! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Learning about Sir Thomas More was a step integrally 'associated' with earning a MA, you Hitler worshiping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM. Subsequently, the MA translated into earning more, you Hitler worshiping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

BTW -- what is an "Assiciated Masters Degree?" Is that what you get after your GED? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Your illiteracy is showing, you Hitler worshiping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, that is not what was typed.

At least you learned the preferred spelling for worshipping. Your Funk And Wagnalls needs upgrading, along with your Associated Masters Degree! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You're the one who needs to upgrade your Funk and Wagnalls to improve your literacy, you Hitler worshiping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, that is not at all what was typed.

And here's an FYI for your stupid ass, you Hitler worshiping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM: worship·ping also worship·ing

Furthermore, you Hitler worshiping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, "worshiping" is the spelling preferred by ECCIE's spell check.

That might be the most unbelievable crock of shit I've ever heard. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Thus you're admitting that you haven't read a single damn thing you have ever posted, you Hitler worshiping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

There is an Indian tribe in the mountains outside of Tepic, Mexico, which is truly a "communistic" society in the sense that there exists no individual property ownership and everything in the nature of property (nonhuman) is collectively owned by the community. By definition they cannot "steal," because they each own everything in the community.

There is an Indian tribe in the mountains outside of Tepic, Mexico, which is truly a "communistic" society in the sense that there exists no individual property ownership and everything in the nature of property (nonhuman) is collectively owned by the community. By definition they cannot "steal," because they each own everything in the community. Originally Posted by LexusLover

And its not in anyway desirable for the world, how about its down falls, share those?

And its not in anyway desirable for the world, how about its down falls, share those? Originally Posted by thebuffmantraples

I'm not advocating one way or the other.

For them it is fine. It has been all they know.

Thank you both WTF and IB, yes I do actually know exactly what I was talking about. My point was very simple. Human nature is and has always been very creative. Socialists would like us to believe that by creating some Utopian society, the creative energies of that society can then be expressed. The problem is, we don't need socialism for that to happen. Cave men drew on cave walls, carved images out of stone and ivory, learned to bake clay figurines, invented the wheel, learned to use fire, and so on.

From the days when we lived in caves, all the way to modern times, human kind has been creative, inventive, and curious. While government can encourage or stifle creativity and inventiveness, no governmental structure is needed to unlock the creative potential of humans. We do pretty well at that all on our own, under any and all systems of government.

That is the point I was making. You have confused political structure - theocracy, with economic structure, but that is ok. Pick any structure you like - monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy, democracy - creativity and art will flourish in all forms. The idea that socialism is a magical panacea that is especially conducive to creativity where other forms of government are not is ridiculous. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

So who's sitting next to you as you type?

Socialism is an economic system, communism is a political system. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Glad you learned something from me.

The idea that socialism is a magical panacea that is especially conducive to creativity where other forms of government are not is ridiculous. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Who said it is? (Only inquisitive. Not argumentative.)

Communism is actually the purest form of democracy Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Actually, no. I agree with a lot of what you wrote above, but I think you are a bit off here.

Communism was based on a "dictatorship of the proletariat". There were to be no elections once communism took over. That is the opposite of democracy.

Also pure democracy - which is what you may be thinking of - is outright evil. And the founders of this country knew that.

Under pure democracy, only the majority's will counts. Therefore, 51% of the people can vote to piss in the cornflakes of the other 49% and THAT'S OK! Because it was done democratically, right?

In fact, political majorities need to be restrained by laws to protect political minorities. That is why power is divided up in a republican form of government. Which is what we have.

We haven't actually seen an example of true communism. What the USSR had was not communism, nor is North Korea, nor any other so-called communist regime in the world. We haven't seen a true form of communism since we lived in caves Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

And you never will see an example of "true communism". Because that is an example of holding up some idealized fantasy that exists only in your mind. It can NEVER be created on this earth because all governments are made up of people and all people are flawed. So all forms of government will always be flawed.

A republican form of government - one that limits the power of government - that is elected through a democratic process performs better than the alternatives because no one has all the power and bad governments can be replaced peacefully rather than through violence.

Hey NGIAT, you're describing utopian communism. It arose from the love and devotion of the believers. Of course it was not forced, that is antithetical to Jesus' teachings. I think this is an issue of semantics more than anything else.

Modern communism, as practiced, is not communism at all. It is tyranny. The only way for utopian communism to develop is for people to be free to make their own choices. At some point, love and compassion will win the day. But that is a long way off.

It walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, Looks like a duck, acts like a duck,... I bet its a duck

Who said it is? (Only inquisitive. Not argumentative.) Originally Posted by LexusLover

I was referring to the definition copied and pasted by HoustonSpamAlotDebbie in her original post.

Actually, no. I agree with a lot of what you wrote above, but I think you are a bit off here.

Communism was based on a "dictatorship of the proletariat". There were to be no elections once communism took over. That is the opposite of democracy.

Also pure democracy - which is what you may be thinking of - is outright evil. And the founders of this country knew that.

Under pure democracy, only the majority's will counts. Therefore, 51% of the people can vote to piss in the cornflakes of the other 49% and THAT'S OK! Because it was done democratically, right?

In fact, political majorities need to be restrained by laws to protect political minorities. That is why power is divided up in a republican form of government. Which is what we have.



And you never will see an example of "true communism". Because that is an example of holding up some idealized fantasy that exists only in your mind. It can NEVER be created on this earth because all governments are made up of people and all people are flawed. So all forms of government will always be flawed.

A republican form of government - one that limits the power of government - that is elected through a democratic process performs better than the alternatives because no one has all the power and bad governments can be replaced peacefully rather than through violence. Originally Posted by ExNYer

In my posts I have variously discussed communism in the purely theoretical sense - ie that it is the purest form of democracy, and have also talked about real world examples of so-called communism - the USSR, NK, Cuba, etc. Again, the USSR was never communist. It was a totalitarian oligarchy, where power was held by the few, with the vast majority of citizens having little political recourse, and little input into the decision making process.

In theory, in a pure communal setting, there would be no individual property, no leadership structure, no money in any form. All property, goods, materials, and supplies are shared equally among the entire group, and all decisions are made by collective consent. There are numerous reasons why such a society could not function in the real world, the number one being that coercion is anathema to the communal structure. Thus, as soon as there is a 49% that objects to what the 51% wants to do, the communal structure breaks down.

This is why I said we haven't seen an example of pure communism since we lived in caves. Such a structure could only function within a very small population, and within a relatively simple community. The more people you add, the more difficult it is to reach consensus on decision making, and the more complex society becomes, the more varied opinions, agendas, and goals become. None of which can be sustained in a communal setting.

Perhaps my earlier posts would have been clearer if I had stated that I was venturing into political theory and leaving behind real world examples since none exist to demonstrate communism in the theoretical sense.