AngelLynn Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) I consider myself a moderate, but then again that's most people they are somewhere in the middle. I don't consider myself compleatly liberal nor do I fit the conversative mode either. Frankly trying to stay in those labels for a lot of people seems a bit difficult and probably is the same for a lot of people. Then I again trying to watch the UK parlament on C-SPAN is confusing. I can't tell which side is conservative and which side is liberal. It feels like a big bowl of chop suey to me. Edited January 25, 2009 by AngelLynn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLynn Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 As far as the original doctrine; Marx and Engels used the Gospel as a blue print but excised any and every reference to God and spiritual life. They replaced it with reference to total devotion, alliance, faith, conscience, dedication, sharing, equality, brotherhood and similar terms but ONLY as it relate to the total submission and obedience of the individual to the state. This "perfect society" (socialism-communism) cannot and will never exist, for the altruistic ideals it expresses can only be ascertained as we desire to serve God because we understand our relationship to Him. The only perfect society: Zion. The rest of those theologies that claim such lofty goals are nothing but a counterfeit.The problem with the whole pure socalistic and communism it relies too heavily on the idealism of man. Which reminds me of a quote from Lord of the Rings about the hearts of men being easily corrupted. With the example of the former USSR, the people started out with good intentions but... power corrupts for one, people always want more than another and no matter what good intentions exist it fails.The concept of the gospel teaches that everything we have comes from God So therefore we should not have any trouble giving it up and letting the leaders of the church give our measure. However, even when the early saints tried to pratice it, it just didn't work out. Again, the nature of human beings is easily can be lead to greed. So we are living the lesser law of titing, because it is a lesser law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 The problem with the whole pure socalistic and communism it relies too heavily on the idealism of man. Which reminds me of a quote from Lord of the Rings about the hearts of men being easily corrupted. With the example of the former USSR, the people started out with good intentions but... power corrupts for one, people always want more than another and no matter what good intentions exist it fails.The concept of the gospel teaches that everything we have comes from God So therefore we should not have any trouble giving it up and letting the leaders of the church give our measure. However, even when the early saints tried to pratice it, it just didn't work out. Again, the nature of human beings is easily can be lead to greed. So we are living the lesser law of titing, because it is a lesser law.My young friend, the Bolshevik Revolution in the former USSR started with bloodshed. It led to civil war and later purges that sent to their graves millions of people. Stalin and the soviet revolutionary government in subsequent decades killed more of its own people than the WW I&II. The ideal was supplanted, and rather quickly, by the greed and cruelty of men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLynn Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) My young friend, the Bolshevik Revolution in the former USSR started with bloodshed. It led to civil war and later purges that sent to their graves millions of people. Stalin and the soviet revolutionary government in subsequent decades killed more of its own people than the WW I&II. The ideal was supplanted, and rather quickly, by the greed and cruelty of men.And the American revolution started out with blood shed as well. And not everyone in America was for the rebellion. My own family history has a tale from my father's line where they were for the monarchy. Consquently they changed their minds and supported the Republic due to the fact they were about to hang them for treason. Our own government could have easily become a dictatorship, but George Washington refused to become a monarch. Revolutions generally come with bloodshead. Men can easily become brutes when it comes to power. The thing about our own government was that our own founding fathers were afraid of power and it's inheritant in the way our government is run. Edited January 25, 2009 by AngelLynn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWyvern Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Speaking of socialist and communist societies, I think Putin said it best:Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.Essentially, socialism and communism sound good on paper but will never work so long as greed prevails in society (remember the United Order?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Speaking of socialist and communist societies, I think Putin said it best:Essentially, socialism and communism sound good on paper but will never work so long as greed prevails in society (remember the United Order?). yes.....just ask the fine people living in the Country of Georgia...I think greed rolled tanks in there to take it over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skalenfehl Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Socialism to me means the end of opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Policies implemented by the government.....would put the means of production into the hands of the working class? If the government mandates through policy, how are they removed from the picture, or are they? Who exactly are the working class? I am intrigued.....tell me more.The working class is the class of citizens that works in the factories, mines, and plants that produce the goods that we both use domestically and export overseas. Right now, production is dictated by stockholders and trade policies. In an ideal socialist environment, stockholders would be taken out the equation altogether and trade would be regulated to a degree that would provide a better balance to our output vs. demand for our products. And yes, the government can implement such policies. Production would work much like a small business, with the people on the ground calling the shots rather than an unemployed millionaire (stockholder is a title, not a job description) sitting in a corporate office. If the government fails to take this action, then it may be necessary for the workers to seize control themselves. Yes, this is all utopian fantasy, but it is also an essential part of the socialist picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertP Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Socialism to me means high taxes, the government pretending it has the capacity to take care of your and my problems, through a charity fund that seems to have a higher amount going to overhead than going to help the people it claims to serve. I think the opportunity for greed can and does just as easily show up in the governing class of this classless type of society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 I was just thinking of the socialistic implications of these songs lyrics:I would be my brother's keeper; I would learn the healer's art.To the wounded and the wearyI would show a gentle heart.I would be my brother's keeper-Lord, I would follow thee. Savior, may I love my brotherAs I know thou lovest me,Find in thee my strength, my beacon,For thy servant I would be.Savior, may I love my brother-Lord, I would follow thee. What gives? These words are running counter to a dog-eat-dog non-socialist way of being. Doesn't that make them subversive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 The law of consecration, and charity, are far different from socialism and communism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLynn Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 I was just thinking of the socialistic implications of these songs lyrics:I would be my brother's keeper; I would learn the healer's art.To the wounded and the wearyI would show a gentle heart.I would be my brother's keeper-Lord, I would follow thee. Savior, may I love my brotherAs I know thou lovest me,Find in thee my strength, my beacon,For thy servant I would be.Savior, may I love my brother-Lord, I would follow thee. What gives? These words are running counter to a dog-eat-dog non-socialist way of being. Doesn't that make them subversive?Well there is a difrrence between willingly giving and being forced to give by your own government. Although I really not compleatly happy about the Free Market and Captalistic model as it encourages greed and corruption as well. But then again there are probably flaws in all the Economic models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWyvern Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 The law of consecration, and charity, are far different from socialism and communism.How so? I've always thought that a pure United Order society is as close to theoretical communism as any group in the United States has ever been. It bears no resemblance to how communism has been put into practice (the USSR was more of a dictatorship, it never really was a pure communistic society, but it was at least built on those values). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Communism is forced upon you, the law of consecration is completely voluntary and based on Christ-like love for one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWyvern Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Communism is forced upon you, the law of consecration is completely voluntary and based on Christ-like love for one another.Yeah, but that's all implementation, not theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Tell that to the Chinese. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLynn Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Tell that to the Chinese.The Chinese have been corrupted by the captalistic model in some respects. However, the top goverment practices a compleat authoritarian regime. For example, parts of Obama's speech were conviently censored out when Obama mentioned Facism and Communism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Well there is a difrrence between willingly giving and being forced to give by your own government. Although I really not compleatly happy about the Free Market and Captalistic model as it encourages greed and corruption as well. But then again there are probably flaws in all the Economic models. In our country there will always be greed....it starts with all of our wonderful politicians....and In other countries you can see greed from their leaders.....the power goes to their heads.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 The Chinese have been corrupted by the captalistic model in some respects. However, the top goverment practices a compleat authoritarian regime. For example, parts of Obama's speech were conviently censored out when Obama mentioned Facism and Communism. I do believe they have always censored speeches by our President's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 The Chinese have been corrupted by the captalistic model in some respects. Wal-Mart strikes again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 In our country there will always be greed....it starts with all of our wonderful politicians....and In other countries you can see greed from their leaders.....the power goes to their heads....Correction: In EVERY country there will ALWAYS be greed and corruption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Correction: In EVERY country there will ALWAYS be greed and corruption. yes I know that.....I was just being nice when I only mentioned our country...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Correction: In EVERY country there will ALWAYS be greed and corruption. Correction: In every generation and people there will ALWAYS be greed and corruption. :)The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.