It is that time of the year again!
It is the time of the year to mock Socialism again. Â Not the socialists, many of them are good people at heart. Â They are just misled by a false belief. Of course, you may say that so am I. Â The proof of the pudding, however, is in the eating.
As I have said before, there are two gospels in the modern world. The gospel of Jesus Christ is “IT IS MORE BLESSED TO GIVE”. Â The gospel of Satan is “YOU DESERVE BETTER”. Â I think it is pretty obvious what side socialism is on.
The New Testament says: If anyone has two shirts, he should share with him who has none. Â Socialism says: If anyone has no shirt, he should take one from him who has two. Â To the casual observer, this looks much the same: Â They still end up with one shirt each. Â But in one case they also end up as friends, in the other case as enemies. Â When they die, the shirt remains on earth but their friendship or enmity follows them to the next world. Therefore, socialism only makes sense if you are also a materialist and an atheist in the strictest sense, who has no belief in anything higher than the world of animals.
Now, without Christianity – or something very similar – socialism could not have arisen in the first place. The shirtless would simply not have had the hope of getting that shirt, much less the conviction that they deserved it. Only if the practice of sharing shirts were common enough that people started to expect it, but not common enough that everyone actually got one, would there be room for the rise of a reverse Christianity based on forced charity.
We Christians can blame ourselves – collectively, I mean, it may not apply to you personally – for not having shared voluntarily. Â If we did, back when most of the nation consisted of Christians, there would have been no room for socialism, since we would already have a more egalitarian society without the bureaucracy and bitterness that follows with an intrusive state taking on the role of God.
Even now that we are living in a partially socialist state (and I don’t think there is any nation in the world that does not fit that description anymore), we should not give in to bitterness. Otherwise we will become like those who strayed before us. Â It may be that we could have used our money more wisely than bureaucrats – how much does that take, really? – but most of it is still used for reasonably harmless purposes, some even outright good and useful. The nation may have gone astray – and I would claim that it did so before it turned to the Left as it did – but we still need not have the spirit of envy in our heart.
It may not be obvious, but the “capitalist” consumer society is actually powering the Left. Day after day people’s minds and souls are filled with needless desires from the relentless onslaught of advertising. Â Using every trick in the book, experts in psychology are making you feel that you need and deserve something you don’t have. Â As long as there are rich people, this desire will make you envy them and wish to take what is theirs, unless you consciously choose to immerse yourself in love that gives and fasten your eyes on that which lasts beyond this lifetime.
Of course, we could just “eat the rich”, but history shows that this is not a good way for a nation to feed its populace. Â When socialism is taken to the extreme, poverty ensues for the whole people. This should come as no surprise. Socialism is based on blaming the successful for your failures. When the successful are removed and only the failures remain, things are going downhill fast.
Conversely, if everyone was looking to make others happy already in this life, then the whole nation would rapidly become prosperous. Why is that? Because we would be looking out for what other people needed, and fulfilling needs is what creates prosperity. To use a worn old metaphor, baking the cake rather than dividing it. Â We can neither be happy nor prosperous by everyone taking from each other, this is obvious. Â But when people compete in giving the best service and the highest quality, the wealth of a nation rises rapidly.
Sure, we can compete based on greed, as long as we get to keep enough of the reward (as opposed to have to share it equally with others). But competing to do good from a loving heart makes you happier. Â Try it and see for yourself. It actually is pretty blessed to give, especially when you can do it voluntarily.
The word “socialism” has no meaning. Some would use it to describe Stalinist views. Others would use it to describe universal heatlhcare.
It is like asking what a true Scotsman is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
And there is no poverty in Europe, since the poor in North Korea are so much worse off. Still, there are people who are relatively poor, and there are people who are relatively socialist.
If you don’t want to do what is right or good unless others do it too, then you are a socialist in practice.
“And there is no poverty in Europe”
Nonsense.
Did you understand what I said? You use socialism as if it were a swear word. The word has been thrown around and the meaning has been twisted.
The point I was trying to make is that everyone has their own definition of socialism.
Not a swear word. Just a bad thing, like poverty or sickness or other things that cause misery. You can be more or less sick and more or less poor, and you can be more or less socialist. Don’t tell me that socialism does not exist just because we can’t define it in a way that everyone agrees with. In real life, it is almost impossible to define things. Gays can’t agree who is gay, Christians certainly can’t agree who is Christian, and likewise even Socialists don’t agree who is a real Socialist. But they agree that it is a good thing. I disagree.
My example about poverty was simply to say that things may differ from one country to another but still be very real. The poor in Norway would not be seen as poor in North Korea, but that does not mean poverty is a meaningless word. Likewise Norwegian Socialism is Capitalism, if not Fascism, in North Korea, but it is real to us.
When did I claim there was no proverty in Europe?
What is your definition for socialism?
Basically, Socialism is an economic system where society (in practice government) owns the means of production to some degree. This was controversial from the start, but understandable in a way. Now that the means of productions are mostly the human mind, it is downright chilling.
I never claimed that you said was wrong. All I said that socialism is not the best word to describe it.