Communism and Capitalism

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, our world, however, has some richer bougeoise. What should the builder of communism make with them, if they have most wealth of the country? Post me some quote from Manifesto, that what I've found in my marxist school book is rather...controversial ;D

Maybe on undeveloped Philipines are PCs a luxury, but in most capitalistic powers is middle class (or burjeausy; those between richest and poorest) largest and on much higher level than in communist or post-communist countries. And larger cities are still closer to western ideal.

Maybe, but I do belong to the middle class, and my PC will be considered as "average" compared to most of the other guys here... What abt. over there in Slovakia?

And even though me and my fellow Filipinos live in a capitalist system, most of the people here belong to the lower class, w/ most(but not all) of the wealth of the country belonging to the upper elite. (You must have noticed it in some documentaries or news abt. it...)

That's the developed country: where the middle class is biggest, by number of members and also by their economical power. Even Slovakia isn't fully in this status, altough I say it's closer.

[Edric O]

none of that, Edric, backs up your claims that people freely give to the state. These paragraphs merely talk about what is being forcibly abolished. They say nothing about voluntary giving. Your points are actually destroyed by this quote.

Perhaps you missed the part that says they DO NOT want to abolish "hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property". Wasn't this what you were complaining about?

All wealth goes to the hands of the whole nation where no individual has any ability whatsoever to "give freely". That quote also shows the robbery of individual free-will. This is in stark contrast to the example Jesus gave.

Again, you simply ignored the point I made with this quote and started talking about something else.

Some time ago, I told you that in the final stage of communism there would be no state in the current sense of the word, and so Marx's ideals were NOT about the state owning everything. (how could the state own anything if it doesn't exist?)

You challenged my claim and asked me to provide proof. So I did. I proved that Marx wished for all wealth to be shared equally among the people, NOT taken over by the state.

In the Communist Utopia, as i have shown you, all wealth is shared equally by all the people. Which is EXACTLY the kind of society in which the early Christians lived.

[Anathema]

Apparently Emp sympathises 19th century industrials who kept labourers as slaves and didn't want to give their workers any share of their wealth.

[emprworm]

none of that, Edric, backs up your claims that people freely give to the state. These paragraphs merely talk about what is being forcibly abolished. They say nothing about voluntary giving. Your points are actually destroyed by this quote.

Perhaps you missed the part that says they DO NOT want to abolish "hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property". Wasn't this what you were complaining about?

My SUV is hard earned, and hard won. So is my computer, and my keyboard. Who are YOU to tell me what constitues "hard earned" and "hard one".

"you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend."- Communist Manifesto

is that statement true or false, Edric?

You strip me of my freewill. Marxism is satanic for doing this. Unless I give my things freely, imposing on my will, or anyone elses will is an of hate.

[Edric O]

So you own a SUV... why am I not surprised? ::)

The law tells you what "hard earned" and "hard won" means all the time. Even now, the law says how you can or can't gain property. For example, theft is NOT a legal way to acquire goods. Do you also consider this restriction evil, Emprworm?

Perhaps you were not aware of this, but ANY type of government restricts some of your freedoms in some way. If you consider any kind of restriction to be evil, then congratulations - you're an anarchist.

As for that lovely quote of yours, it's horribly out of context. What the Manifesto says is this:

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend. [this is the sentence you took out of context]

From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property.

And also:

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.

[emprworm]

i dont care about restricting some freedoms. I care about wealth being owned by the state, preventing me from freely giving it to the church.

i care about church and state being seperate and that when Christians freely gave their posessions to the church, this was not a model for government, but a model for church (Jesus taught seperation of church and state)

i cannot possibly find a link in the Bible to suggest Jesus would approve of Marxist communism. That is just utter nonsense to me.

What basis do you have for this?

[sneezer3]

(Jesus taught seperation of church and state)

were at?

[Edric O]

That's nice how you just changed the subject and conveniently forgot about the two quotes I gave you, which prove that your view on communism (a.k.a. "damn commies stealing my property") is just dead wrong...

Not to mention the sentence in your sig being completely out of context...

Now as for what you just said in your post:

First of all, we already settled the part about all wealth being supposedly owned by the state. A few posts back I proved to you that this was NOT what Marx intended at all. In his ideal society, there would be no state and the people would share all property among themselves.

Also, the fact is that the early Christians did NOT give anything to the Church, simply because there wasn't any institution of that sort. Tell me, which part of "they shared all property among themselves" don't you understand? This is the exact same society that Marx wanted.

[emprworm]

lol, fine Edric, lets deal with your quotes:

"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population;"

wrong. i think that most people here have plenty of private property.

"its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths."

uhhh.....incorrect.

"You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society."

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

[this is the sentence you took out of context]

Lol, Edric. I did NOT take it out of context. Man dude, you are really flubbing here.

According to Marx: 100% (or nearly that) of all property is owned by 10% of the population. Therefore by redistributing property by force, 100% of those who have property will have no freedom to decide where it goes and Caesar will take it for them.

How is this Biblical again?

[emprworm]

(Jesus taught seperation of church and state)

were at?

render to caesar what is his, render to God what is his. a model for the church, is not a model for government. Paul made this clear several times when he spoke of church function in contrast to worldy governments and institutions. I dont have the scripture references handy, but if you need them, I can get them.

[Edric O]

You would do well to remember that Marx lived some 150 years ago. And in his time, all those statements were true. All property WAS indeed concentrated into the hands of bourgeois industrials and landlords, while the workers (the vast majority of the population) had NOTHING.

Now, your quote is out of context because it would be better worded like this:

"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with YOUR property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend." (emphasis on your)

He is adressing the bourgeois and he is talking about doing away with THEIR property, not property in general.

Emprworm, just admit you were wrong about "commies stealing your property". I have shown you precisely what Marx's stand on the issue of property is, and as you can see it is not what you originally claimed it to be.

It seems your only remaining complaint is about the forced redistribution of bourgeois property, as advocated by Marx. The thing is, you see, that this redistribution is only the means by which to achieve the final purpose: a society in which all property is shared among all the people. And THIS is the part that agrees perfectly with the Bible.

Basically, Marx wanted the exact same kind of society that the early Christians had, the only difference being in how to get there.

Please tell me, Emprworm, why is it so hard for you to admit that you were wrong? Why are you mortally afraid of actually agreeing (heaven forbid!) with a communist?

[emprworm]

"It seems your only remaining complaint is about the forced redistribution of bourgeois property, as advocated by Marx. The thing is, you see, that this redistribution is only the means by which to achieve the final purpose: a society in which all property is shared among all the people. And THIS is the part that agrees perfectly with the Bible."

which is why it is diametrically opposed to the Bible. Sharing is always something done freely. a society in which all property is shared is one in which all people are obligated to share. someone who doesn't WANT to share will not be allowed as such. Jesus made clear that those who do not WANT to share should indeed NOT even bother sharing. to God it means nothing unless it is given heartfully.

"Emprworm, just admit you were wrong about "commies stealing your property".

I am not wrong, I"m right. Marx would want all my property forcibly taken and redistributed against my will. Contrary to the Bible.

"the only difference being in how to get there."

the end does not justify the means.

But even in this case, the end is not the Biblical model.

[Edric O]

So you would also agree that those who do not WANT to pay taxes should indeed NOT even bother paying them? After all, it's the exact same thing as sharing property, only on a smaller scale.

In every society, people willingly give up some of their freedoms in return for security, peace, welfare, etc. This is the principle of the Social Contract, first stated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. All modern governments are based on it.

The communist social order is nothing more than an advanced version of this same principle. People give up more of their freedom by sharing all property among themselves, but in return they get a society with no poverty, no misery, no unfulfillment. They get a world where no one is hungry, or cold, or suffering from an easily preventable disease.

I think it's worth it. And if they don't like it, they can always leave.

But answer me this, Emprworm: Would YOU voluntarily share your property in a society like the one I just described? No one is forcing you to do anything. You can join the Communist Utopia, or you can stay right where you are. What would YOU do?

[emprworm]

So you would also agree that those who do not WANT to pay taxes should indeed NOT even bother paying them? After all, it's the exact same thing as sharing property, only on a smaller scale.

sure they should. but i wouldn't dare call it a Biblical Model for the Church when the tax collectors come around to collect .

In every society, people willingly give up some of their freedoms in return for security, peace, welfare, etc. This is the principle of the Social Contract, first stated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. All modern governments are based on it.

yup. but this is a long way from saying that "this is what Jesus would do"

when you invoke the name of Jesus and apply it to a human government, we have some problems.

The communist social order is nothing more than an advanced version of this same principle. People give up more of their freedom by sharing all property among themselves, but in return they get a society with no poverty, no misery, no unfulfillment. They get a world where no one is hungry, or cold, or suffering from an easily preventable disease.

fine, but its not a Biblical model.

I think it's worth it. And if they don't like it, they can always leave.

lol. leave their homes, their families...and go where? Where will they go? you make it sound so easy Edric. Where does a disheartened Romanian go when Nikolai is oppressing him? He just waltz into Germany for a new life? It isn't that easy my friend.

But answer me this, Emprworm: Would YOU voluntarily share your property in a society like the one I just described?

no.

now you answer me this:

Would YOU forcibly take my property to build the society like the one you just described?

No one is forcing you to do anything. You can join the Communist Utopia, or you can stay right where you are. What would YOU do?

so, when the people of my country vote in on it, I can simply tell them (when they come knocking on my door) "sorry, I'm not participating" and then I can keep all my property and my inheritance for my children and continue to buy/sell as I see fit?

[Edric O]

fine, but its not a Biblical model.

Oh, so a world with no poverty, no misery, no unfulfillment, where no one is hungry, or cold, or suffering from an easily preventable disease... is NOT what Jesus wanted?

lol. leave their homes, their families...and go where? Where will they go? you make it sound so easy Edric. Where does a disheartened Romanian go when Nikolai is oppressing him?

Oppression? No, Emprworm, that which I just described is anything BUT oppression. It is a world with no pain and no sorrow - it is Utopia. The only reason anyone would wish to leave is because he himself wants to oppress someone, to gain immense wealth at the expense of the poor.

now you answer me this:

Would YOU forcibly take my property to build the society like the one you just described?

Me? What would I want with your property? No, Emprworm, it will be the poor, the starving, the thirsty and the shivering who will ask you to share your wealth. Not me.

What will you say to them?

no.

This says a lot about you, Emprworm. First and foremost, it says that you put your own personal greed, your own lust for wealth above the most basic needs of those who can't even afford to buy a piece of bread for themselves.

In other words:

"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;

for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;

I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'

Matthew 25:41-43

[emprworm]

fine, but its not a Biblical model.

Oh, so a world with no poverty, no misery, no unfulfillment, where no one is hungry, or cold, or suffering from an easily preventable disease... is NOT what Jesus wanted?

nope, otherwise it would be the case now. God wants something greater than that. Spiritual redemntion and human freedom to choose or reject God. God wants man to have freedom above material food and physical food. A society with no poverty, and hunger yet no freedom is not what God wants. And you think their wont be misery in your society? lol, think again! the cure to HUman misery is not a marxist communistic society. man u livin a dream world bro.

Oppression? No, Emprworm, that which I just described is anything BUT oppression. It is a world with no pain and no sorrow - it is Utopia.

we are way off base. so now your society contains no human misery...sorrow...or depression? wow, dude. Its even BETTER than Jesus's church!

::)

you need some doctrinal reform my friend.

[Avrillian_Sard01]

I think it should go something like this:

Requirements for a satisfying afterlife:

God's Kingdom - Perfect or better

Person who deserves the satisfying afterlife

Just my 2 cents abt. this quote:

Quote:

Oppression? No, Emprworm, that which I just described is anything BUT oppression. It is a world with no pain and no sorrow - it is Utopia.

we are way off base. so now your society contains no human misery...sorrow...or depression? wow, dude. Its even BETTER than Jesus's church!

[Edric O]

Please don't bump old topics...

This discussion was over long ago. I have said everything I had to say.

(some of it has been completely misunderstood by Emprworm, but that's not my problem)