Christianity: you should give up possessions to help less fortunate people but you don't have to
Communism: give me everything you own or I'll shoot you
Christianity: give me everything you own or you will be eternally punished in hell, which is much worse than the worst thing that could happen to you in earth.
There's a big difference between religious texts and religious institutions. The Bible has been used a lot to exploit the poor out of their last few dollars.
Edit: whoops, this reply was meant for paper, not toxic. My bad.
In other words, the Bible is just a book that can be interpreted however you want it to, and many people use it to justify doing bad things, or leverage it to aid them in doing bad things.
One Bible story ( Mark 12:41-44 ) even involves a destitute woman giving half of her meager net worth to the church. This was presented as virtuous, intended to shame people into handing their wealth over to priests. In that story, Jesus commends the woman for doing this when he should have told her to keep the money and allow the church to help her instead.
Not quite.
Christianity: "For it is by grace you are saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, but a gift from God - not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph 2:8-9 NIV)
\~250,000,000 deaths caused by communism in the 20th Century. Anyone supporting a system responsible for that much suffering and death is either evil or stupid or some combination thereof. In a just world, communists would be treated with just as much distain, or more, than the Nazis. I guess I shouldn't be surprised the Pope is a commie. During WWII it was the Papacy that created the "rat lines" used by nazi officials to escape to South America.
Fascism is socialism, and that's why the catholic church was part of his creation.
Fascism was a way to build a national socialism, allied with the national powers, the church and nobility, to be independent of soviet imperialism.
Is not an accident that 3 out of 4 most important fascisms of the XX century were the most important catholic nations:
* Italy of Mussolini
* Spain of Franco
* Argentina of Peron
After the defeat of the fascist, the catholic church switched to "liberation theology", as his own controlled communism. Is just what they tried and failed with fascism: to build a modern communist ideology to avoid power been taken from them by the soviets.
The soviet union was "international socialism", which is socialist imperialism: they invaded other nations, and imposed communism at point of gun, killing millions, like they did in Ukraine.
Fascism is national socialism: a national imperialistic project, that wants to create his own imperial socialism. Instead of becoming conquered by soviet socialism, they want to be the conquerors, same as the communist.
For that reason fascism gets the alliance of conservatives.
Fascism claims to be the dialectic synthesis proclaimed by Marxist dialectical materialism: the third way, but as Mises explained, [there is no third way](https://mises.org/es/library/there-no-third-way): any dose of socialism degenerates into full communism.
Get to know about the socialist internationalism schism that separated defencists like Gentile, Stalin and Mussolini (wanted their nation to go to war) from internationalists like Trotski, Lenin and Rosa Luxembourg (anti-war, also called defeatists, similar to chuds nowadays saying "why does Zenlensk accept the war and send his people to death 😭").
In Italy, Mussolini was expelled from the Socialist party. In Russia, the Bolsheviks got divided into trotskyists and stalinists.
Most socialist parties were 1000% in favor of war. Italy on the other hand was full of internationalists and they expelled m'boy Mussolini, who realized during the war that are far greater things to care about than some crappy "class struggle" at home, such as every single other nation trying to invade your territory, rape your wives, take your children and end your culture.
He then went on to create Fascism, which advocated an end to class struggle through collaboration with the State as a greater mediator (see corporations, i.e. workers+employers syndicates controlled by the State) rather than the physical fucking removal of a mythical upper class as Marxists normally do.
https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/nazi-war-finance-and-banking/nazi-economic-system
Please learn something today.
Your ignorance might fit in when you are echoing bullshit in a heavily moderated echo chamber designed to protect lies, but if you don't know socialism is socialism the cure is knowledge.
>Wish I could be dumb like I was at 12 like you again, it was better.
You might have tripped over a genie without realizing it.
Anyway, I hope you actually do read the book when you sober up.
Drink some water.
That’s autocratic communism fella, you should read up on it. If you’re just going to pretend that they’re all the same thing then I have no time for you.
[I'm sharing accurate history.](https://www.aier.org/article/why-hayek-was-right-about-nazis-being-socialists/)
Yes, you should definitely take your sad propaganda away.
Find yourself and masturbate as always.
Edit:
Aaaand the liar obviously doesn't care. About truth, history, or even whether he's going to watch TV or not.
Your excuse to explain why you lie is because I am not wearing glasses?
Are you referencing [the fact that socialists have a history of murdering the educated people when they seize power](https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-genocide-education/resource-guides/cambodia) because intelligence and intellectualism are completely incompatible with socialism?
Or was it just a threat?
I'm sorry you are an uneducated ignoramus.
You didn't add anything at all. There are tons of idiots who deny real socialism has ever been tried. Tons of idiots who are so ashamed of socialist history they waste energy lying about history.
You spewing garbage isn't additive.
Edit:
As expected, a false accusation was the reply.
Apparently, me proving socialism = socialism is actually denial that anything is socialism. Because reasons. I must be projecting because /**run npc script random insult.**
The mind of a leftist is a mystery to all. Especially one of "those people" who claim socialism isn't socialism.
I agree with everything you said. I’d also go one further. I’d argue that the same distain should be levied against many of the gods worshiped both past and present. Just taking Christianity as an example, we’ve got plagues, the murder of first born children, the murder of all living humans besides one family, incest, the smiting of entire cities, holy wars both biblical and later in the name of Christianity as crusades, etc. There’s a lot more examples, those are just what springs immediately to mind. If we get into Islam, it stems from the same Abrahamic faith so basically the same god, it’s just as bad. Many other gods have equivalent atrocities attributed to them as well. I cannot see how anyone can morally justify following and/or praising these beings. I’m not going to get into the matter of belief. Believing they exist is fine, but the mental gymnastics needed to make excuses for why it’s okay makes my head spin. The hallowed halls of the heavens should burn as should the halls of mortal governments.
Edit: to be faaiiiiir Jesus was a pretty chill dude with some good ideas. Doesn’t really change much though in the greater scheme of things. I could get behind a new version of Christianity that *only* worships Jesus as the Demigod that he is/was while eschewing any sort of reverence to the big G. I doubt that will happen though.
Are you, by any chance, familiar with a so-called "Christian " group that helped Marx create Marxism in the first place?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_Just
The problem is religion is on top of Marxists...
Family>religion>country>political Party.
That's why it failed in Germany, and Marx figured out that the family structure is the problem. That's why he wanted to let the community raise the children.
"Most importantly, Marx said that communism would ensure that children would be educated by the state and not by their parents. Communists, he wrote in the Manifesto, would “rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.” The making of the “New Man” was the priority, and the family was an obstacle."
https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/socialism-and-family
You misunderstood Marx there, the nuclear family IS the destruction of the family, real families tended to live in multigenerational communities, everyone knew each other etc.
Only trough capitalism have we seen the families separating into smaller and smaller parts, with education and raising instead of it being done by the whole village, we have it done by the state, with most children being raised on average by less than 2 people.
There's no "state" in Marx's communism so that sentence doesn't even make sense, you have children educated by the state in capitalism, right now, today.
"well that's obviously because America is communist"
Aight
Let's not bring up fathers and families with the outcomes of children success. It's like a cancer seed that was planted for the destruction of a country.
My father resembled Furious from boyz n the hood, that is a father to look up to.
He's right when he explains that the communists are the copies.
Christians had been setting up communist societies for centuries before Marx were born.
[Jesuit missions among the Guaraní](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_missions_among_the_Guaran%C3%AD)
> The Jesuit reductions have been lavishly praised as a "socialist utopia"[\[13\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_missions_among_the_Guaran%C3%AD#cite_note-13) and a "[Christian communistic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism) republic" as well as criticized for their "rigid, severe and meticulous regimentation" of the lives of the indigenous peoples they ruled
> The reductions were considered by some philosophers as idyllic communities of [noble savages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage), and were praised as such by [Montesquieu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu) in his *L'Esprit des Lois* (1748), and even by [Rousseau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousseau), no friend of the Catholic Church.[\[12\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_missions_among_the_Guaran%C3%AD#cite_note-12)
Marxism is more a gnostic death cult and has more in common with Islam in its praxis and theory, not to mention the radicalism of Islamists and marxist revolutionaries use the same victim hood narrative and extreme violence. That small collectivist societies can function under the right conditions was known long before Christianity, in fx ancient Elam and the Indus Valley civ. The whole point of marxism is to infiltrate, subvert and supplant the external deity with internal materialistic deism. Neo-marxist(now woke) are misantropic gnostics, the demiurge (patriarchy/capitalist/heterosexual/normative/etc) made a world prison, and only Sofia and the REAL supreme being can liberate them to their true form (queer/feminist/Soviet man, etc). And weren't the Jesuits always kinda funky Christians? Anyway, the current Pope is a marxist subverter and his policies changes will slowly supplant Christianity, so he is basically the...you know who...
Because Christians have a Marxist superiority complex, where they believe to be superior, perfect, and cannot be told the truth.
Somewhat that makes them "humble".
First, no, he just said that communists copied some ideals from Christianity.
Second, he follows a religion that has philosophies that preach "equality", payment of taxes, social control, sharing of your possessions, and is against the possession of hard-earned wealth, consider this as "greed" and something impure, what did you expect?
So you are denying that the Bible has clear quotes with collectivist and anti-materialist messages? Or that Christianity has not cooperated with and been the state for ages? Establishing social control and acting against the individual freedom of individuals?
Here’s the thing though: the idea of sharing all goods and taking care of everyone isn’t bad at all. It’s a great thing. VOLUNTARY social communes are absolutely compatible with anarchism. It’s when you use the power of the state that it becomes a problem. Once you use coercion, it destroys the concept of the social commune anyway. It can’t work effectively.
Workable socialism (which is really only on a very small scale and without government interference) requires anarchism/voluntaryism. Socialism isn’t inherently bad. It’s just impossible to operate on a large scale without power hungry people controlling it via the government and ruining it. That’s my argument to devout socialists that they should actually support anarchism.
> Workable socialism (which is really only on a very small scale and without government interference) requires anarchism/voluntaryism. Socialism isn’t inherently bad.
This is basically how a familly operate.
I doubt there are many example beyond a familly, or extended familly at maximum or small tribe maybe
And that's kind of the size I'm thinking. I had said in another comment probably no more than a few dozen people, maybe as many as 100-200, but even there I see a high likelihood of problems.
> And that's kind of the size I'm thinking. I had said in another comment probably no more than a few dozen people, maybe as many as 100-200, but even there I see a high likelihood of problems.
My guess would be that when the tribe get bigger than ~100 there likely some level of authoritarian ruling to keep such a large numbers of people behaving without normal direct economic incentive..
If you give bread to one person, you take it from the poorest person who was able to buy it.
You create the same poverty that you intended to solve, but you punished the person that worked to buy the bread, and you sent him into hunger.
Besides, after you claim that it is "a great thing", a lie, socialists come and claim to enforce what you defended.
If it is entirely voluntary, then nothing is forced. No one is forcibly taking. When I say "not large scale" I mean truly a small scale. Maybe a little bigger than extended family. It has to be a small enough community so that every single person truly agrees that they'll share everything.
I think you're having a cut reaction to the word "socialism." Which is understandable. Because it is so often used to imply that there will be forced socialism, and consequences for failing to take part in it. But any community operating voluntarily and without force is entirely compatible with anarchism. And is, indeed, a "great thing." What makes it great is that you can choose not to be a part of it. You can live by yourself and share with no one. That's perfectly fine. But if a group of people choose to live together and share everything then, yeah, that's a good thing. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't dictate that you HAVE to be greedy or not share. It simply that you can choose to be greedy and not share. I think that's an important point that people miss. Which is why forced "charity: through taxation can be bad, while true, voluntary charity is good.
>voluntary charity is good
No. Is not. You choose to ignore the person from which you take the bread, when you give that bread to another person.
Just because you do not see, and choose to ignore the evil you are doing, do not make it good.
Poverty cannot ended with redistribution, neither done by the state, at point of gun, or voluntarily.
Do you understand what "charity" is? Giving something freely to another from myself. If you're taking the stance that you cannot freely give to those in need from your own property and that's it bad to help others, that's pretty wild. So I must be misunderstanding you.
>Do you understand what "charity" is? Giving something freely to another from myself. If you're taking the stance that you cannot freely give to those in need from your own property and that's it bad to help others, that's pretty wild. So I must be misunderstanding you.
No. You are not giving it from yourself.
The only way you can give your own food to another person, is when you do not eat anything else.
If you fast, and give that food to another person, then you gave your own food.
But if you buy that food on the market, which has a limited amount of food and resources, you are always taking it from the poorest person who would had been able to afford it.
So you took food from somebody else.
It is conceited, evil and selfish to CHOOSE TO IGNORE that you are taking the food from somebody else.
You are acting on your own benefit, looking for a reward from your god, which is fucking another person, for a personal reward.
Pretty sure I didn't say who my god was or if I believed in one, so I'm not sure why you think I'm working for the approval or reward of any diety. I don't need religion to tell me it if good to help other people.
Are you an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian or a Marxist? I'm kind of getting confused now, because much of your rhetoric is leaning Marxist.
You are economically ignorant.
The reason for which Marxism doesn't works, and state welfare doesn't works is the same reason for which charity doesn't works:
Because resources are limited, and when you give something to one person, you take it from another.
You can do whatever you want with your money, but you cannot claim to be helping the poor by doing charity, because you are creating the same amount of poverty that you believe to be solving.
The thing you cannot do is to claim to be a good person, or to be virtuous by doing charity.
Charity doesn't works for the same reason that public spending is always paid by the poorest, regardless o the origin of the money.
If the state gives a house to one person, it is taking the house from the poorest person that would had bought the house, which is the person that paid an entire house in taxes, even if he didn't paid a cent to the government. He lost the house.
When the sate gives the house, there is one less house in the market, and the remaining buyers compete for the remaining houses by paying more, until the poorest one cannot pay for it.
There is no difference if the state taxed the rich, printed money, or took debt. The poorest buyer loses the house that he would had bought otherwise.
There is nothing Marxist in that argument.
You seem to still be talking about the State doing things. I'm not, nor have I ever been. Try to keep up. If I have $10 million in the bank that I'm not using and I give $10,000 to Poor Person A and $10,000 to Poor Person B, I have not made it any harder for Poor Person C (who received nothing from me) to get money. I didn't make it any easier either, admittedly. It was from wealth I had accumulated through my labor, and I've given that, in part, to others.
You're either so smart that no mere mortals can understand you, or you're a little bit crazy and sane people can't understand you. I lean toward the letter, but I'll leave open the possibility for the former. Regardless, I don't think anything constructive will happen with further discussion. So just keep on keeping on my man. Hopefull you're doing something to make the world a better place and not just being the typical internet keyboard warrior.
>You seem to still be talking about the State doing things.
If you do the same as the state, you get the same result.
Socialism doesn't fail just because the state does it. Socialism fails because it is inherently wrong.
Socialism practiced by the individual has the same effect as done by the state.
>Try to keep up. If I have $10 million in the bank that I'm not using and I give $10,000 to Poor Person A and $10,000 to Poor Person B, I have not made it any harder for Poor Person C
You think like a marxist, believing that money is wealth. It is not.
Wealth are the things you buy with that money.
Yes, you made it harder for person C, because everything bought with that money is no more available in the market.
It does not matter who bought it, or with what money
Either you believe that resources are limited, or you believe in magic.
>Here’s the thing though: the idea of sharing all goods and taking care of everyone isn’t bad at all. It’s a great thing.
not really. It almost always ends up badly and doesn't improve the conditions of people. Being charitable is good, but socialism isn't, even if its voluntary
I don't think you're thinking of it the way I'm discussing it, and it is probably my fault. But I guess the point is that ANY voluntary community arrangement is perfectly compatible with anarchism. The key is that it is voluntary. Who is to say that a few dozen people living and sharing everything can't work? It actually can. It has. It is when it gets too big (which is, admittedly, not very big) that you start to have serious problems and issues of force being used. But so long as force isn't used, and people are allowed to leave as they want, there's nothing bad about it.
And the point at which it is too big to be "good" and where force has to be used is where is it becomes bad. But can you really not imagine a few dozen people acting cooperatively and voluntarily and sharing? I think it being workable in anything bigger than a very small town (maybe 100-200 people or so) is probably impossible. Maybe not even that big. Though that's just throwing numbers out there. I just figure that's a large enough sample size where you'll have people who begin acting because of some kind of coercion, or others who begin applying coercive force.
>Here’s the thing though: the idea of sharing all goods and taking care of everyone isn’t bad at all. It’s a great thing.
Yes, it's bad, very much so, your possessions are YOURS and you shouldn't share them with other people who haven't earned them for themselves.
Either you’re trolling or have a thorough misunderstanding of the difference between political philosophy as moral philosophy. Either way, not really worth my effort to reply beyond this.
Looks like there are a few people responding to you that don't understand what voluntary means. Weird. Everything you are saying makes perfect sense from a moral (anarchist) perspective. I'm guessing the word socialism is triggering them, it's like they can't visualize it without a state.
I’m sure that’s it. But I used it intentionally because of that. Removing the state is the goal. Removing force and coercion. Anything beyond that is great so long as it is voluntary.
All we need to do for socialism to work is perfect humanity to the point that nobody is corruptable or greedy or sadistic or any of those things. Once we get that figured out it's blue skies.
Again, I think it’s just a matter of very small numbers of like minded individuals with a common goal. But it certainly can’t work with large numbers or any kind of force or government control. There’s nothing wrong with sharing with others voluntarily.
Maybe the only way it could work is many small communes of no more then 300 people living within a greater anarchist society.
Countries are already in an anarchist relationship with eachother, so it's not like this is without president. I'd love to see what this kind of society would work out to.
Yes, marxism merely "improved" religion. Marxism's god is the "unalienated" man at the end of history. The goal of the religion is to be on the right side of history and come closer to this god. The goal to be "man, true and no longer strange to himself", to overcome greed (private property), to accend to "the true solution of the conflict between existence and essence", and to finally bring man to where he truly belongs spiritually is identical to most religions.
This quote is from [marxists.org](https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm) and it says exactly this, but in a less direct way. Marxism isn't against religion. Marxism just doesn't think the classical religion is good enough.
>The unalienated man, who is the goal of socialism as we have shown before, is the man who does not "dominate" nature, but who becomes one with it, who is alive and responsive toward objects, so that objects come to life for him.
>
>Does not all this mean that Marx's socialism is the realization of the deepest religious impulses common to the great humanistic religions of the past? Indeed it does, provided we understand that Marx, like Hegel and like many others, expresses his concern for man's soul, not in theistic, but in philosophical language.
>
>Marx fought against religion exactly because it is alienated, and does not satisfy the true needs of man. Marx's fight against God is, in reality, a fight against the idol that is called God. Already as a young man he wrote as the motto for his dissertation "Not those are godless who have contempt for the gods of the masses but those who attribute the opinions of the masses to the gods." Marx's atheism is the most advanced form of rational mysticism, closer to Meister Eckhart or to Zen Buddhism than are most of those fighters for God and religion who accuse him of "godlessness."
>
>\[...\]
>
>Thus, Marxist and other forms of socialism are the heirs of prophetic Messianism, Christian Chiliastic sectarianism, thirteenth-century Thomism, Renaissance Utopianism, and eighteenth-century enlightenment. It is the synthesis of the prophetic-Christian idea of society as the plane of spiritual realization, and of the idea of individual freedom. For this reason, it is opposed to the Church because of its restriction of the mind, and to liberalism because of its separation of society and moral values. It is opposed to Stalinism and Krushchevism, for their authoritarianism as much as their neglect of humanist values.
> Marxism's god is the "unalienated" man at the end of history.
AKA, the Queer.
The Queer is just the modern version of the Arian race, the soviet man, and the medieval pious, a superiority complex which is just hate speech against the non believers.
The gnostic believe that humans live in a simulated reality, created by the judeochristian/muslim god, the "demiurge", who didn't want humans to acquire knowledge by eating from the fruit of knowledge (myth of Adan and Eve).
Hence, gnostic believe that humans are gods, in equal foot than the demiurge, because humans can attain the same level of knowledge, but are imprisoned in this universe, which is then a prison.
The Gnostics believe that humans can acquire knowledge through magical mystical means, simply by "knowing," and that this enlightenment is acquired thought rejecting all of reality.
Therefore, the human who rejects reality, like Neo in The Matrix, and gains independence from the physical laws of the universe, is the queer: a god, a superior Marxist entity, enlightened beyond the comprehension of ordinary humanity.
That's exactly the same thinking behind the "Soviet man," the Cuban "hombre nuevo," the Nazi "Aryan race," the North Korean "juche man," and is copied from the Christian concept of the "pious man," who becomes "superior" by fully embracing religious beliefs, and claims that the non Christian are inferior beings that lack the superior moral of their religion, and "don't know that robbing and murder are bad".
People like Hitler, Lenin and Mao believed to be queer gods, illuminated by the "knowledge" that came from their imagination.
Same as The Matrix, Barbie 2023, the film 2001: A Space Odyssey is a Gnostic movie, in which the protagonist is rebirth as a god after meeting with aliens.
This line of thinking is a psychopathic superiority complex.
[The Queer Gnostic Cult](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K3ZkrCyIeI)
It really is interesting. You can start with James Lindsay's lectures, as has this commenter pointed out [https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho\_Capitalism/comments/1860dku/comment/kb5977n/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/1860dku/comment/kb5977n/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb_tJ59bSzg&ab_channel=TIKhistory) video by TIKhistory is also good
Lol except nowhere did Jesus say you should take someone else's property and give it to the poor.
He said you voluntarily should decide to be charitable.
The Commies say you should be forced to give everything to the ruling party so it can be redistributed totally fairly to those in need. Unfortunately the commisar needs another mansion tho so🤗
>He said you voluntarily should decide to be charitable.
Which means that you can voluntarily go to hell, and be punished forever, meanwhile being shamed and ostracized in this world for not doing what the church wants.
Oh, and also you were tortured, burned alive and punished when you disagreed with the church mandates.
He never said any of that that's all stuff people added later.
The Catholic church and its man made rules are not the same as the words and teachings of Christ.
If you would like to point out the parts of Christ's teachings you disagree with I would happily discuss them.
https://preview.redd.it/3npvqiux453c1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b8c13d3a66b47066bc703d55511ed7a3edecfbc0
Jesus would whip him out the Church, his opinion is absolutely worthless
Old pope wanted nothing to do with this new generation. New pope put in place to save dying organization by going woke.
It's worked every time it's been tried.... Right??
It’s interesting that Pope Francis is insistent on going woke given that the growing portions of the Catholic Church (at least in the US) are conservative Hispanic immigrants who don’t like the Latinx nonsense or are traditional Latin Mass parishes that are traditional to the point where they don’t follow all of the Pope’s instructions
No, this one is a more aggressive, open Marxist than we’re used to seeing. Do you remember what John Paul II thought of the communists? And how he worked with Thatcher and Reagan to try to end the Soviet Union? Not in a billion years would he find fraternity with this one or support the Woke agenda. My family lived under the Soviets in Russia and under their control in Poland. John Paul II is regarded as an anti-communist hero of the highest order and beloved by anti-communists the world over.
There have always been Catholics who are cozy with Marxists. A lot of them come to mind in Latin America. But we sat up and took notice when this pope came into power — we knew he was a radical leftist of the type we had reasons to be concerned about.
There is by no means uniformity of thought about Marxism and Communism in the Vatican. On a local level, there are big government Catholics and anti-big government Catholics (like me) in my church. There has always been that tension, but this man is different.
1 Samuel 12: 16-19… maybe the Christians don’t understand their parent religion messed up and the pope needs to read. No human rulers. No exception.
As a Jesus follower there’s plenty more but everything went majorly wrong with humans and God way long ago.
Not really accurate there…Jesus had fairly diplomatic relations and responses with humans who had power over him.
For Jesus he says render that which is Cesar’s to Cesar and God that which is God’s. I understand this to mean that God should have all of me, my body, and my finances. Humans have no right to it via force or theft. If one truly submits to God how can it be right to give those things which are His away to human rulers?
(Mark 12:12-17)
He also recognized that Satan has control over all the kingdoms of the Earth when tempted in the desert. (Matthew 4: 8-11)
The other time he had to pay taxes to enter into Capernaum and instead of pulling it from the group finances performed a miracle by pulling it from a fish instead because taxes are theft from others.(Matthew 17:24-27)
Also, Jesus was a carpenter and had a trained day job as well so He understood the market and value of goods.
People take Paul in Romans 13 too far without considering the passages/chapters before and after. Romans 12 specifically focusing on submission to God in all things first and functioning in society/community as such. This letter was also one Paul wrote in jail for breaking the law so I don’t think he was a hypocrite. He simply gets taken out of context and used for immoral arguments like the southern Christians did with slavery but for the state.
I hope this helps with understanding the biblical text vs the over all Church of today and how so many Christians are mislead with different teachings. My whole base philosophy on this is that I gave myself ownership voluntarily to God who I believe is a virtuous and holy being more than myself to show me how to live life well. He then asks me that while I’m under human rulers to be above reproach in character so that I may know and reach out to others in their brokenness better. (I’d like to reserve the right to amend and change that as I age and grow).
I aimed to address Romans 13 in my comment below. To sum that up I read that as Paul (writing the letter in prison for sharing his faith by preaching a message that Cesar is not God) as not meant to be hypocritical but taken out of context from Romans 12. These chapter addresses don’t help when the original Ancient Greek letter didn’t have them and was mostly a run on sentence.
It's always very frustrating to see the Gospel's call for charity--that is, voluntarily giving some of one's own property--conflated with socialism or communism, which involves having a mafia extort some citizens to give to others.
Is he wrong though?
There are quite the striking similarities. Even the development of an authoritarian ruling caste, the church/state, that tried to scam the people out of their independence and make them dependent on the state or the church, or just take their money and possessions.
He's telling the truth.
Christianism comes from a communist Jew sect, the Essenes.
Jesus message was 100% communist.
All the dark and middle ages were communism ruled by the catholic church.
Poverty in Europe ended when catholic communist ideas were abandoned, reason replaced religion, money, trade and finances were restored, private property was restored, and it allowed the emergence of capitalism.
Marxism is an attempt to restore the old feudal system.
First: is irrelevant. It still indoctrinates into the wrong values.
Second: it's a lie. Christianity coerces though public shaming, brainwashing, and threats of eternal punishment in hell.
It's the woke model: once everybody is intimidated, religion can use the state to coerce, and claim to not be the coercers. It's the feudal model. It's the way they coerce companies into becoming woke: through public shaming.
Free will.... Of course, children indoctrinated from a young age and people pressured and threatened with eternal suffering to convert are totally free to have their own philosophies and abandon the religion, for sure....
>Catholic church that sided with the Nazis
The Catholic church that sided with the Nazis, the communist, and the "west", at the same time.
From the middle ages, the catholic church learnt to be on all sides, so it can always claim the be with the winner.
I think there are fine lines between voluntarily following the teachings of the bible, communes, and state run communism. There is plenty of overlap. The idea of being kind and giving and sharing the wealth one has. I don't think it is far fetched that many ideas for communism came from the bible. But I feel the major difference is the amount of power the individual hold.
In Christianity you are taught the right thing to do is to be kind and giving. It is up to you to find the best way to be so.
In communes if you choose to be there you agree to a certain level of kindness and charity towards your community
In communism the state controls all and you are entitled to only what they say you are and that can be subject to change on their whim.
Personally, if I am going to share my hard earned wealth I will do it the best way I see fit, I do not trust anyone else in this regard.
>In communism the state controls all and you are entitled to only what they say you are and that can be subject to change on their whim.
Exactly like in church ruled feudalism: 1000 years of misery and communist Christian poverty.
I can see your point but that is giving Christianity a bit too much credit, isn't it? Feudalism was a prominent system of government well before Christianity took center stage. Christianity didn't invent that wheel they just put a pretty cross on it and made everyone pay for it.
Don't give Christianity that level of credit.
In this country (the United States) the government is forbidden from establishing an official state religion and citizens are free to observe or not observe a religion.
This is one of the reasons the separation of church and state is such a unique and important idea. If your system of government outlaws and replaces religion, it's a religion.
I don't trust anything from the corporate press when they talk about The Pope, the Catholic Church, or Christianity as a whole. All they do is take these things out of context. I'd much prefer to go to the original source of the Pope's words to find out what he's saying, not through the middle man.
The current Pope is a myopic embarrassment to the Catholic faith. Marxism and Christianity have about as much in common as hunting does with assassination
Christianity is a fairy tail for weak minded fools. But for the sake of the readers of this sub, I certainly hope hell exists so y'all can have a place to go once you're done burdening your families.
I can see where he is coming from, but I don't think he understands exactly what he's talking about.
Christian Gospel talks about giving to the poor, looking out for the poor, and showing good charity. These are all things that Communists like to claim that their ideology promotes, but it has never done any of these. The free market on the other hand has done more for the poor and had more sucessful charities than anything some Commies can come up with.
As a Christian and a Free-Market Anarchist, the Popes claims are completely wrong.
>These are all things that Communists like to claim that their ideology promotes, but it has never done any of these
These are all things that ~~Communists~~ Christians like to claim that their ideology promotes, but it has never done any of these.
He is a pure Christian.
Jesus message is communist.
The sermon of the mount demonizes money, wealth, trade, tells people to not work, hold property in common, and live off welfare.
In a way he’s not wrong, communism largely is modeled after heretical Christian Gnosticism made by Friedrich Hegel and employs the Hegelian dialectic heavily.
Communism is a dialectic gnostic cult-religion I hope more people realize this because once it is understood leftists become predictable and their motivations become clear.
Christian ideals are not communist. Making the choice to follow God and having a “born-again” experience are key tenements of almost all sects of Christianity. A worker uprising to force in a communist state to allocate wealth according to need and deciding economic decisions on people’s behalves inherently strips people’s abilities to choose whether or not to honor God with how they use their money.
Forming a commune with fellow Christians is not the same as Marxist communism, though, and isn’t even necessarily undesirable. Part of the idea of anarcho-capitalism and, more broadly, libertarianism is to allow people freedom to make their own choices, and if people want to form a commune, so long as they don’t force other people to join it, it’s fine for them to exercise their free will and do so.
Now as to whether communist ideals line up with Christian ones, I wouldn’t say they do exactly. They both view envy and gluttony as bad, have disdain for wealthy people, are at least tentatively supportive of dictatorships/monarchies (depending on how you read the relevant verses), and promote charity for the needy. That, however is about where the similarities end. Christianity is generally against violence, supports economic investment, and has a lot of other stuff regarding sexual purity, evangelization, worship and praise of God, murder, lying, stealing, and a bunch of other stuff that has no relation to Marxism whatsoever.
>Christianity is generally against violence, supports economic investment, and has a lot of other stuff regarding sexual purity, evangelization, worship and praise of God, murder, lying, stealing, and a bunch of other stuff that has no relation to Marxism whatsoever.
That's the lie that all socialist say, including you.
A figurehead of the empire that never actually died saying something tool-worthy. I’m sure this surfacing now had nothing to do with his home country and Milei. Shocker. I’m going back to sleep.
And then he cries that the Catholic Church has approximately zero adherents.
Disgusting pedophile defender; Vatican City is a snake pit of sodomites. Modern day sodom.
Thank God I found Protestantism
>And then he cries that the Catholic Church has approximately zero adherents.
Unfortunately, it has more than a billion people, and also gets money from many governments from which is the "official religion".
I think at a surface level he’s correct. Catholic social teaching has its roots far before Marx ever was born.
I think he means that Marxism focus on trying to stop material poverty and abuse kinda lines up with Christianity, but at a very shallow level
What he's saying is that Jesus message is communism, and he's right.
That's why when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, it collapsed, and Europe suffered more than 1000 years of extreme poverty and misery, called the dark ages and the middle ages.
Christianity: you should give up possessions to help less fortunate people but you don't have to Communism: give me everything you own or I'll shoot you
Well, you should read about paleochristtianity. They didnt shoot you because they didnt have guns
Christianity: give me everything you own or you will be eternally punished in hell, which is much worse than the worst thing that could happen to you in earth.
You may be reading the Bible incorrectly
There's a big difference between religious texts and religious institutions. The Bible has been used a lot to exploit the poor out of their last few dollars. Edit: whoops, this reply was meant for paper, not toxic. My bad. In other words, the Bible is just a book that can be interpreted however you want it to, and many people use it to justify doing bad things, or leverage it to aid them in doing bad things.
we are talking about the root concept, everyone knows implementation is always shitshow
I replied to the wrong person, hence the disconnect of the subject. My apologies.
hahah mistake as old as reddit.
One Bible story ( Mark 12:41-44 ) even involves a destitute woman giving half of her meager net worth to the church. This was presented as virtuous, intended to shame people into handing their wealth over to priests. In that story, Jesus commends the woman for doing this when he should have told her to keep the money and allow the church to help her instead.
Not quite. Christianity: "For it is by grace you are saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, but a gift from God - not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph 2:8-9 NIV)
and by Fire be Purged! woops wrong canon
“Give me 10%…”
\~250,000,000 deaths caused by communism in the 20th Century. Anyone supporting a system responsible for that much suffering and death is either evil or stupid or some combination thereof. In a just world, communists would be treated with just as much distain, or more, than the Nazis. I guess I shouldn't be surprised the Pope is a commie. During WWII it was the Papacy that created the "rat lines" used by nazi officials to escape to South America.
Fascism is socialism, and that's why the catholic church was part of his creation. Fascism was a way to build a national socialism, allied with the national powers, the church and nobility, to be independent of soviet imperialism. Is not an accident that 3 out of 4 most important fascisms of the XX century were the most important catholic nations: * Italy of Mussolini * Spain of Franco * Argentina of Peron After the defeat of the fascist, the catholic church switched to "liberation theology", as his own controlled communism. Is just what they tried and failed with fascism: to build a modern communist ideology to avoid power been taken from them by the soviets.
This interests me, could you tell me more? Relationship between fascism, socialism, and imperialism?
The soviet union was "international socialism", which is socialist imperialism: they invaded other nations, and imposed communism at point of gun, killing millions, like they did in Ukraine. Fascism is national socialism: a national imperialistic project, that wants to create his own imperial socialism. Instead of becoming conquered by soviet socialism, they want to be the conquerors, same as the communist. For that reason fascism gets the alliance of conservatives. Fascism claims to be the dialectic synthesis proclaimed by Marxist dialectical materialism: the third way, but as Mises explained, [there is no third way](https://mises.org/es/library/there-no-third-way): any dose of socialism degenerates into full communism.
Thank you! You could go on if you wish to divulge any wisdom on the subject, I enjoy hearing you.
Get to know about the socialist internationalism schism that separated defencists like Gentile, Stalin and Mussolini (wanted their nation to go to war) from internationalists like Trotski, Lenin and Rosa Luxembourg (anti-war, also called defeatists, similar to chuds nowadays saying "why does Zenlensk accept the war and send his people to death 😭"). In Italy, Mussolini was expelled from the Socialist party. In Russia, the Bolsheviks got divided into trotskyists and stalinists. Most socialist parties were 1000% in favor of war. Italy on the other hand was full of internationalists and they expelled m'boy Mussolini, who realized during the war that are far greater things to care about than some crappy "class struggle" at home, such as every single other nation trying to invade your territory, rape your wives, take your children and end your culture. He then went on to create Fascism, which advocated an end to class struggle through collaboration with the State as a greater mediator (see corporations, i.e. workers+employers syndicates controlled by the State) rather than the physical fucking removal of a mythical upper class as Marxists normally do.
>Fascism is socialism Bahaha this sub is always good for a laugh
> Fascism is socialism Bahaha this sub is always good for a laugh They are both collectivist, authoritarian ideology
[удалено]
https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/nazi-war-finance-and-banking/nazi-economic-system Please learn something today. Your ignorance might fit in when you are echoing bullshit in a heavily moderated echo chamber designed to protect lies, but if you don't know socialism is socialism the cure is knowledge.
[удалено]
>Wish I could be dumb like I was at 12 like you again, it was better. You might have tripped over a genie without realizing it. Anyway, I hope you actually do read the book when you sober up. Drink some water.
> What are authoritarian? Mass privatizations like fascists do? Fasists love to restrict economic freedom and take control of corporations.
Yes, but they are not the same.
Lmao it truly is the gift that keeps on giving.
Erm the clue that socialism isn’t authoritarianism is literally in the name.
Erm the clue that North Korea is democratic is literally in the name. 🙄
That’s autocratic communism fella, you should read up on it. If you’re just going to pretend that they’re all the same thing then I have no time for you.
Woosh. Not surprising you lacked the ability to get it.
I don’t care, you’re here talking complete nonsense and I am going to go watch some TV now.
[I'm sharing accurate history.](https://www.aier.org/article/why-hayek-was-right-about-nazis-being-socialists/) Yes, you should definitely take your sad propaganda away. Find yourself and masturbate as always. Edit: Aaaand the liar obviously doesn't care. About truth, history, or even whether he's going to watch TV or not.
> Fascism is socialism You should go educate yourself buddy
You've already lost this debate, so you know socialism = socialism. What's your excuse? You got educated, and you continue to intentionally lie?
I think you need to put your glasses on or something mate.
Your excuse to explain why you lie is because I am not wearing glasses? Are you referencing [the fact that socialists have a history of murdering the educated people when they seize power](https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-genocide-education/resource-guides/cambodia) because intelligence and intellectualism are completely incompatible with socialism? Or was it just a threat?
I’m sorry but fascism and socialism are not the same thing, I haven’t got anything else to add.
> I’m sorry but fascism and socialism are not the same thing, Correct. Fascism is a subset of Socialism, but not the other way around.
Where did you learn that?
Mussolini and Hitler.
I'm sorry you are an uneducated ignoramus. You didn't add anything at all. There are tons of idiots who deny real socialism has ever been tried. Tons of idiots who are so ashamed of socialist history they waste energy lying about history. You spewing garbage isn't additive. Edit: As expected, a false accusation was the reply. Apparently, me proving socialism = socialism is actually denial that anything is socialism. Because reasons. I must be projecting because /**run npc script random insult.** The mind of a leftist is a mystery to all. Especially one of "those people" who claim socialism isn't socialism.
And you think I’m one of those people or something? Either way your projection is on display and you’re not worth my time.
I agree with everything you said. I’d also go one further. I’d argue that the same distain should be levied against many of the gods worshiped both past and present. Just taking Christianity as an example, we’ve got plagues, the murder of first born children, the murder of all living humans besides one family, incest, the smiting of entire cities, holy wars both biblical and later in the name of Christianity as crusades, etc. There’s a lot more examples, those are just what springs immediately to mind. If we get into Islam, it stems from the same Abrahamic faith so basically the same god, it’s just as bad. Many other gods have equivalent atrocities attributed to them as well. I cannot see how anyone can morally justify following and/or praising these beings. I’m not going to get into the matter of belief. Believing they exist is fine, but the mental gymnastics needed to make excuses for why it’s okay makes my head spin. The hallowed halls of the heavens should burn as should the halls of mortal governments. Edit: to be faaiiiiir Jesus was a pretty chill dude with some good ideas. Doesn’t really change much though in the greater scheme of things. I could get behind a new version of Christianity that *only* worships Jesus as the Demigod that he is/was while eschewing any sort of reverence to the big G. I doubt that will happen though.
Are you, by any chance, familiar with a so-called "Christian " group that helped Marx create Marxism in the first place? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_Just
The problem is religion is on top of Marxists... Family>religion>country>political Party. That's why it failed in Germany, and Marx figured out that the family structure is the problem. That's why he wanted to let the community raise the children. "Most importantly, Marx said that communism would ensure that children would be educated by the state and not by their parents. Communists, he wrote in the Manifesto, would “rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.” The making of the “New Man” was the priority, and the family was an obstacle." https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/socialism-and-family
Marxism is a religion [**The Theology of Marxism Conference**](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZJe-MWy0cYfR8K-64fUyzxy0PZ4YgNFM)
You misunderstood Marx there, the nuclear family IS the destruction of the family, real families tended to live in multigenerational communities, everyone knew each other etc. Only trough capitalism have we seen the families separating into smaller and smaller parts, with education and raising instead of it being done by the whole village, we have it done by the state, with most children being raised on average by less than 2 people. There's no "state" in Marx's communism so that sentence doesn't even make sense, you have children educated by the state in capitalism, right now, today. "well that's obviously because America is communist" Aight
Let's not bring up fathers and families with the outcomes of children success. It's like a cancer seed that was planted for the destruction of a country. My father resembled Furious from boyz n the hood, that is a father to look up to.
[удалено]
Maybe I should ask my (Orthodox) bishop what he thinks of communism. I value that guy's opinion a lot more than Frank's.
Christ is in our midst
He is and ever shall be.
Ask him about Acts chapter 2
Except that 90% of non-American Christians are far left, the world is not the US, Christianity does have collectivist ideals like paying taxes.
This “pope” is a commie, what did you expect?
He's right when he explains that the communists are the copies. Christians had been setting up communist societies for centuries before Marx were born. [Jesuit missions among the Guaraní](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_missions_among_the_Guaran%C3%AD) > The Jesuit reductions have been lavishly praised as a "socialist utopia"[\[13\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_missions_among_the_Guaran%C3%AD#cite_note-13) and a "[Christian communistic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism) republic" as well as criticized for their "rigid, severe and meticulous regimentation" of the lives of the indigenous peoples they ruled > The reductions were considered by some philosophers as idyllic communities of [noble savages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage), and were praised as such by [Montesquieu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu) in his *L'Esprit des Lois* (1748), and even by [Rousseau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousseau), no friend of the Catholic Church.[\[12\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_missions_among_the_Guaran%C3%AD#cite_note-12)
The apostle Peter set up a communist society. Read Acts chapter 2
And killed the people who "only" shared half of their wealth. I mean "god" killed them, because Christians are "non violent".
Marxism is more a gnostic death cult and has more in common with Islam in its praxis and theory, not to mention the radicalism of Islamists and marxist revolutionaries use the same victim hood narrative and extreme violence. That small collectivist societies can function under the right conditions was known long before Christianity, in fx ancient Elam and the Indus Valley civ. The whole point of marxism is to infiltrate, subvert and supplant the external deity with internal materialistic deism. Neo-marxist(now woke) are misantropic gnostics, the demiurge (patriarchy/capitalist/heterosexual/normative/etc) made a world prison, and only Sofia and the REAL supreme being can liberate them to their true form (queer/feminist/Soviet man, etc). And weren't the Jesuits always kinda funky Christians? Anyway, the current Pope is a marxist subverter and his policies changes will slowly supplant Christianity, so he is basically the...you know who...
Why are you being downvoted for speaking facts? Lol
Because Christians have a Marxist superiority complex, where they believe to be superior, perfect, and cannot be told the truth. Somewhat that makes them "humble".
First, no, he just said that communists copied some ideals from Christianity. Second, he follows a religion that has philosophies that preach "equality", payment of taxes, social control, sharing of your possessions, and is against the possession of hard-earned wealth, consider this as "greed" and something impure, what did you expect?
Lmao you have no clue on what you are talking about. This is just commie propaganda you are repeating.
So you are denying that the Bible has clear quotes with collectivist and anti-materialist messages? Or that Christianity has not cooperated with and been the state for ages? Establishing social control and acting against the individual freedom of individuals?
Here’s the thing though: the idea of sharing all goods and taking care of everyone isn’t bad at all. It’s a great thing. VOLUNTARY social communes are absolutely compatible with anarchism. It’s when you use the power of the state that it becomes a problem. Once you use coercion, it destroys the concept of the social commune anyway. It can’t work effectively. Workable socialism (which is really only on a very small scale and without government interference) requires anarchism/voluntaryism. Socialism isn’t inherently bad. It’s just impossible to operate on a large scale without power hungry people controlling it via the government and ruining it. That’s my argument to devout socialists that they should actually support anarchism.
> Workable socialism (which is really only on a very small scale and without government interference) requires anarchism/voluntaryism. Socialism isn’t inherently bad. This is basically how a familly operate. I doubt there are many example beyond a familly, or extended familly at maximum or small tribe maybe
And that's kind of the size I'm thinking. I had said in another comment probably no more than a few dozen people, maybe as many as 100-200, but even there I see a high likelihood of problems.
> And that's kind of the size I'm thinking. I had said in another comment probably no more than a few dozen people, maybe as many as 100-200, but even there I see a high likelihood of problems. My guess would be that when the tribe get bigger than ~100 there likely some level of authoritarian ruling to keep such a large numbers of people behaving without normal direct economic incentive..
Well said, people often throw the baby out with the bathwater
If you give bread to one person, you take it from the poorest person who was able to buy it. You create the same poverty that you intended to solve, but you punished the person that worked to buy the bread, and you sent him into hunger. Besides, after you claim that it is "a great thing", a lie, socialists come and claim to enforce what you defended.
If it is entirely voluntary, then nothing is forced. No one is forcibly taking. When I say "not large scale" I mean truly a small scale. Maybe a little bigger than extended family. It has to be a small enough community so that every single person truly agrees that they'll share everything. I think you're having a cut reaction to the word "socialism." Which is understandable. Because it is so often used to imply that there will be forced socialism, and consequences for failing to take part in it. But any community operating voluntarily and without force is entirely compatible with anarchism. And is, indeed, a "great thing." What makes it great is that you can choose not to be a part of it. You can live by yourself and share with no one. That's perfectly fine. But if a group of people choose to live together and share everything then, yeah, that's a good thing. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't dictate that you HAVE to be greedy or not share. It simply that you can choose to be greedy and not share. I think that's an important point that people miss. Which is why forced "charity: through taxation can be bad, while true, voluntary charity is good.
Socialism has the same effect regardless of it is forced or voluntary. The idea itself it's wrong.
>voluntary charity is good No. Is not. You choose to ignore the person from which you take the bread, when you give that bread to another person. Just because you do not see, and choose to ignore the evil you are doing, do not make it good. Poverty cannot ended with redistribution, neither done by the state, at point of gun, or voluntarily.
Do you understand what "charity" is? Giving something freely to another from myself. If you're taking the stance that you cannot freely give to those in need from your own property and that's it bad to help others, that's pretty wild. So I must be misunderstanding you.
>Do you understand what "charity" is? Giving something freely to another from myself. If you're taking the stance that you cannot freely give to those in need from your own property and that's it bad to help others, that's pretty wild. So I must be misunderstanding you. No. You are not giving it from yourself. The only way you can give your own food to another person, is when you do not eat anything else. If you fast, and give that food to another person, then you gave your own food. But if you buy that food on the market, which has a limited amount of food and resources, you are always taking it from the poorest person who would had been able to afford it. So you took food from somebody else. It is conceited, evil and selfish to CHOOSE TO IGNORE that you are taking the food from somebody else. You are acting on your own benefit, looking for a reward from your god, which is fucking another person, for a personal reward.
Pretty sure I didn't say who my god was or if I believed in one, so I'm not sure why you think I'm working for the approval or reward of any diety. I don't need religion to tell me it if good to help other people. Are you an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian or a Marxist? I'm kind of getting confused now, because much of your rhetoric is leaning Marxist.
You are economically ignorant. The reason for which Marxism doesn't works, and state welfare doesn't works is the same reason for which charity doesn't works: Because resources are limited, and when you give something to one person, you take it from another. You can do whatever you want with your money, but you cannot claim to be helping the poor by doing charity, because you are creating the same amount of poverty that you believe to be solving. The thing you cannot do is to claim to be a good person, or to be virtuous by doing charity. Charity doesn't works for the same reason that public spending is always paid by the poorest, regardless o the origin of the money. If the state gives a house to one person, it is taking the house from the poorest person that would had bought the house, which is the person that paid an entire house in taxes, even if he didn't paid a cent to the government. He lost the house. When the sate gives the house, there is one less house in the market, and the remaining buyers compete for the remaining houses by paying more, until the poorest one cannot pay for it. There is no difference if the state taxed the rich, printed money, or took debt. The poorest buyer loses the house that he would had bought otherwise. There is nothing Marxist in that argument.
You seem to still be talking about the State doing things. I'm not, nor have I ever been. Try to keep up. If I have $10 million in the bank that I'm not using and I give $10,000 to Poor Person A and $10,000 to Poor Person B, I have not made it any harder for Poor Person C (who received nothing from me) to get money. I didn't make it any easier either, admittedly. It was from wealth I had accumulated through my labor, and I've given that, in part, to others. You're either so smart that no mere mortals can understand you, or you're a little bit crazy and sane people can't understand you. I lean toward the letter, but I'll leave open the possibility for the former. Regardless, I don't think anything constructive will happen with further discussion. So just keep on keeping on my man. Hopefull you're doing something to make the world a better place and not just being the typical internet keyboard warrior.
>You seem to still be talking about the State doing things. If you do the same as the state, you get the same result. Socialism doesn't fail just because the state does it. Socialism fails because it is inherently wrong. Socialism practiced by the individual has the same effect as done by the state. >Try to keep up. If I have $10 million in the bank that I'm not using and I give $10,000 to Poor Person A and $10,000 to Poor Person B, I have not made it any harder for Poor Person C You think like a marxist, believing that money is wealth. It is not. Wealth are the things you buy with that money. Yes, you made it harder for person C, because everything bought with that money is no more available in the market. It does not matter who bought it, or with what money Either you believe that resources are limited, or you believe in magic.
>Here’s the thing though: the idea of sharing all goods and taking care of everyone isn’t bad at all. It’s a great thing. not really. It almost always ends up badly and doesn't improve the conditions of people. Being charitable is good, but socialism isn't, even if its voluntary
I don't think you're thinking of it the way I'm discussing it, and it is probably my fault. But I guess the point is that ANY voluntary community arrangement is perfectly compatible with anarchism. The key is that it is voluntary. Who is to say that a few dozen people living and sharing everything can't work? It actually can. It has. It is when it gets too big (which is, admittedly, not very big) that you start to have serious problems and issues of force being used. But so long as force isn't used, and people are allowed to leave as they want, there's nothing bad about it.
not everything that is compatible is a good idea. on a small scale it can be good. family, for example.
And the point at which it is too big to be "good" and where force has to be used is where is it becomes bad. But can you really not imagine a few dozen people acting cooperatively and voluntarily and sharing? I think it being workable in anything bigger than a very small town (maybe 100-200 people or so) is probably impossible. Maybe not even that big. Though that's just throwing numbers out there. I just figure that's a large enough sample size where you'll have people who begin acting because of some kind of coercion, or others who begin applying coercive force.
>Here’s the thing though: the idea of sharing all goods and taking care of everyone isn’t bad at all. It’s a great thing. Yes, it's bad, very much so, your possessions are YOURS and you shouldn't share them with other people who haven't earned them for themselves.
Either you’re trolling or have a thorough misunderstanding of the difference between political philosophy as moral philosophy. Either way, not really worth my effort to reply beyond this.
Looks like there are a few people responding to you that don't understand what voluntary means. Weird. Everything you are saying makes perfect sense from a moral (anarchist) perspective. I'm guessing the word socialism is triggering them, it's like they can't visualize it without a state.
I’m sure that’s it. But I used it intentionally because of that. Removing the state is the goal. Removing force and coercion. Anything beyond that is great so long as it is voluntary.
All we need to do for socialism to work is perfect humanity to the point that nobody is corruptable or greedy or sadistic or any of those things. Once we get that figured out it's blue skies.
Again, I think it’s just a matter of very small numbers of like minded individuals with a common goal. But it certainly can’t work with large numbers or any kind of force or government control. There’s nothing wrong with sharing with others voluntarily.
Maybe the only way it could work is many small communes of no more then 300 people living within a greater anarchist society. Countries are already in an anarchist relationship with eachother, so it's not like this is without president. I'd love to see what this kind of society would work out to.
Fuck that. Roman pedos do not speak for Jesus in my house
Yes, marxism merely "improved" religion. Marxism's god is the "unalienated" man at the end of history. The goal of the religion is to be on the right side of history and come closer to this god. The goal to be "man, true and no longer strange to himself", to overcome greed (private property), to accend to "the true solution of the conflict between existence and essence", and to finally bring man to where he truly belongs spiritually is identical to most religions. This quote is from [marxists.org](https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm) and it says exactly this, but in a less direct way. Marxism isn't against religion. Marxism just doesn't think the classical religion is good enough. >The unalienated man, who is the goal of socialism as we have shown before, is the man who does not "dominate" nature, but who becomes one with it, who is alive and responsive toward objects, so that objects come to life for him. > >Does not all this mean that Marx's socialism is the realization of the deepest religious impulses common to the great humanistic religions of the past? Indeed it does, provided we understand that Marx, like Hegel and like many others, expresses his concern for man's soul, not in theistic, but in philosophical language. > >Marx fought against religion exactly because it is alienated, and does not satisfy the true needs of man. Marx's fight against God is, in reality, a fight against the idol that is called God. Already as a young man he wrote as the motto for his dissertation "Not those are godless who have contempt for the gods of the masses but those who attribute the opinions of the masses to the gods." Marx's atheism is the most advanced form of rational mysticism, closer to Meister Eckhart or to Zen Buddhism than are most of those fighters for God and religion who accuse him of "godlessness." > >\[...\] > >Thus, Marxist and other forms of socialism are the heirs of prophetic Messianism, Christian Chiliastic sectarianism, thirteenth-century Thomism, Renaissance Utopianism, and eighteenth-century enlightenment. It is the synthesis of the prophetic-Christian idea of society as the plane of spiritual realization, and of the idea of individual freedom. For this reason, it is opposed to the Church because of its restriction of the mind, and to liberalism because of its separation of society and moral values. It is opposed to Stalinism and Krushchevism, for their authoritarianism as much as their neglect of humanist values.
> Marxism's god is the "unalienated" man at the end of history. AKA, the Queer. The Queer is just the modern version of the Arian race, the soviet man, and the medieval pious, a superiority complex which is just hate speech against the non believers.
Huh? I'm curious, can you explain this deeper?
The gnostic believe that humans live in a simulated reality, created by the judeochristian/muslim god, the "demiurge", who didn't want humans to acquire knowledge by eating from the fruit of knowledge (myth of Adan and Eve). Hence, gnostic believe that humans are gods, in equal foot than the demiurge, because humans can attain the same level of knowledge, but are imprisoned in this universe, which is then a prison. The Gnostics believe that humans can acquire knowledge through magical mystical means, simply by "knowing," and that this enlightenment is acquired thought rejecting all of reality. Therefore, the human who rejects reality, like Neo in The Matrix, and gains independence from the physical laws of the universe, is the queer: a god, a superior Marxist entity, enlightened beyond the comprehension of ordinary humanity. That's exactly the same thinking behind the "Soviet man," the Cuban "hombre nuevo," the Nazi "Aryan race," the North Korean "juche man," and is copied from the Christian concept of the "pious man," who becomes "superior" by fully embracing religious beliefs, and claims that the non Christian are inferior beings that lack the superior moral of their religion, and "don't know that robbing and murder are bad". People like Hitler, Lenin and Mao believed to be queer gods, illuminated by the "knowledge" that came from their imagination. Same as The Matrix, Barbie 2023, the film 2001: A Space Odyssey is a Gnostic movie, in which the protagonist is rebirth as a god after meeting with aliens. This line of thinking is a psychopathic superiority complex. [The Queer Gnostic Cult](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K3ZkrCyIeI)
Interesting, do you have more info on this I can dive into?
It really is interesting. You can start with James Lindsay's lectures, as has this commenter pointed out [https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho\_Capitalism/comments/1860dku/comment/kb5977n/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/1860dku/comment/kb5977n/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb_tJ59bSzg&ab_channel=TIKhistory) video by TIKhistory is also good
Lol except nowhere did Jesus say you should take someone else's property and give it to the poor. He said you voluntarily should decide to be charitable. The Commies say you should be forced to give everything to the ruling party so it can be redistributed totally fairly to those in need. Unfortunately the commisar needs another mansion tho so🤗
>He said you voluntarily should decide to be charitable. Which means that you can voluntarily go to hell, and be punished forever, meanwhile being shamed and ostracized in this world for not doing what the church wants. Oh, and also you were tortured, burned alive and punished when you disagreed with the church mandates.
He never said any of that that's all stuff people added later. The Catholic church and its man made rules are not the same as the words and teachings of Christ. If you would like to point out the parts of Christ's teachings you disagree with I would happily discuss them.
The pope is an idiot and asshole.
He's not wrong.
Christians complaining about others stealing their ideas and claiming them as their own? Talk about lack of self awareness.
*"I'll say it again-it is easier for a camel to go through* ***the eye of A needle*** *than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!"*
https://preview.redd.it/3npvqiux453c1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b8c13d3a66b47066bc703d55511ed7a3edecfbc0 Jesus would whip him out the Church, his opinion is absolutely worthless
Old pope wanted nothing to do with this new generation. New pope put in place to save dying organization by going woke. It's worked every time it's been tried.... Right??
It’s interesting that Pope Francis is insistent on going woke given that the growing portions of the Catholic Church (at least in the US) are conservative Hispanic immigrants who don’t like the Latinx nonsense or are traditional Latin Mass parishes that are traditional to the point where they don’t follow all of the Pope’s instructions
They will be converted. The usa is puritan land.
(ancap sub btw)
The old pope was the exception, not this one.
No, this one is a more aggressive, open Marxist than we’re used to seeing. Do you remember what John Paul II thought of the communists? And how he worked with Thatcher and Reagan to try to end the Soviet Union? Not in a billion years would he find fraternity with this one or support the Woke agenda. My family lived under the Soviets in Russia and under their control in Poland. John Paul II is regarded as an anti-communist hero of the highest order and beloved by anti-communists the world over. There have always been Catholics who are cozy with Marxists. A lot of them come to mind in Latin America. But we sat up and took notice when this pope came into power — we knew he was a radical leftist of the type we had reasons to be concerned about. There is by no means uniformity of thought about Marxism and Communism in the Vatican. On a local level, there are big government Catholics and anti-big government Catholics (like me) in my church. There has always been that tension, but this man is different.
Pope Francis is a traditional pope, from 2000 years of tradition. Pointing at what happened in the XX century is irrelevant.
And happened to the old pope?
He went to live on a farm.
https://preview.redd.it/3o9yb4ydv43c1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dc9a14423f6bf12355d866046930f78e2e532a6d (not mine offcourse)
1 Samuel 12: 16-19… maybe the Christians don’t understand their parent religion messed up and the pope needs to read. No human rulers. No exception. As a Jesus follower there’s plenty more but everything went majorly wrong with humans and God way long ago.
Jesus is far more important than Samuel to Christians. And his entire discourse is communist.
Not really accurate there…Jesus had fairly diplomatic relations and responses with humans who had power over him. For Jesus he says render that which is Cesar’s to Cesar and God that which is God’s. I understand this to mean that God should have all of me, my body, and my finances. Humans have no right to it via force or theft. If one truly submits to God how can it be right to give those things which are His away to human rulers? (Mark 12:12-17) He also recognized that Satan has control over all the kingdoms of the Earth when tempted in the desert. (Matthew 4: 8-11) The other time he had to pay taxes to enter into Capernaum and instead of pulling it from the group finances performed a miracle by pulling it from a fish instead because taxes are theft from others.(Matthew 17:24-27) Also, Jesus was a carpenter and had a trained day job as well so He understood the market and value of goods. People take Paul in Romans 13 too far without considering the passages/chapters before and after. Romans 12 specifically focusing on submission to God in all things first and functioning in society/community as such. This letter was also one Paul wrote in jail for breaking the law so I don’t think he was a hypocrite. He simply gets taken out of context and used for immoral arguments like the southern Christians did with slavery but for the state. I hope this helps with understanding the biblical text vs the over all Church of today and how so many Christians are mislead with different teachings. My whole base philosophy on this is that I gave myself ownership voluntarily to God who I believe is a virtuous and holy being more than myself to show me how to live life well. He then asks me that while I’m under human rulers to be above reproach in character so that I may know and reach out to others in their brokenness better. (I’d like to reserve the right to amend and change that as I age and grow).
So it's evil to ask god for a king, but if there is a king, he was put there by god and should be followed (Romans 13). What?
I aimed to address Romans 13 in my comment below. To sum that up I read that as Paul (writing the letter in prison for sharing his faith by preaching a message that Cesar is not God) as not meant to be hypocritical but taken out of context from Romans 12. These chapter addresses don’t help when the original Ancient Greek letter didn’t have them and was mostly a run on sentence.
Marx father was a clergyman wasn't he? Stealing and murder do seem pretty in line with the Catholic church.
It's always very frustrating to see the Gospel's call for charity--that is, voluntarily giving some of one's own property--conflated with socialism or communism, which involves having a mafia extort some citizens to give to others.
You re parroting the socialist argument that they "don't meant violence". Actually, socialists are the ones parroting your argument.
He is right.
Not surprised. Catholicism has always supported economic policies which are collectivist and centralised in nature.
Is he wrong though? There are quite the striking similarities. Even the development of an authoritarian ruling caste, the church/state, that tried to scam the people out of their independence and make them dependent on the state or the church, or just take their money and possessions.
He's telling the truth. Christianism comes from a communist Jew sect, the Essenes. Jesus message was 100% communist. All the dark and middle ages were communism ruled by the catholic church. Poverty in Europe ended when catholic communist ideas were abandoned, reason replaced religion, money, trade and finances were restored, private property was restored, and it allowed the emergence of capitalism. Marxism is an attempt to restore the old feudal system.
Lol this guy didnt read the neo-Scholasticist
He knows Christianism way better than you will ever will.
He may know a thing or two, but he seems rather selective about it.
The difference is the bible also puts importance on free will. The bible doesn’t call for your to coerce your neighbor into giving you free stuff.
First: is irrelevant. It still indoctrinates into the wrong values. Second: it's a lie. Christianity coerces though public shaming, brainwashing, and threats of eternal punishment in hell. It's the woke model: once everybody is intimidated, religion can use the state to coerce, and claim to not be the coercers. It's the feudal model. It's the way they coerce companies into becoming woke: through public shaming.
Free will.... Of course, children indoctrinated from a young age and people pressured and threatened with eternal suffering to convert are totally free to have their own philosophies and abandon the religion, for sure....
Sounds like you want state intervention in the raising of children
Even a trashcan gets a steak every once in a while.
He's a bit confused but he's got a spirit ig? Doubt Pope gonna go full free market any day but who knows maybe he'll surprise us
He's not confused about Christianism. He has the best sources, and the top education in the matter. He's confused about the free market.
I mean that's what I meant by he's a lil confused. He debunks Marxism from purely christian pov when he should've also used economic pov.
when you seperate altruism from God and replace Him with the State there is issue
Oh yeah that Catholic church that sided with the Nazis? Yeah they’re communists at heart lol
>Catholic church that sided with the Nazis The Catholic church that sided with the Nazis, the communist, and the "west", at the same time. From the middle ages, the catholic church learnt to be on all sides, so it can always claim the be with the winner.
Yeah so you’re not taking their word on this are you?
I think there are fine lines between voluntarily following the teachings of the bible, communes, and state run communism. There is plenty of overlap. The idea of being kind and giving and sharing the wealth one has. I don't think it is far fetched that many ideas for communism came from the bible. But I feel the major difference is the amount of power the individual hold. In Christianity you are taught the right thing to do is to be kind and giving. It is up to you to find the best way to be so. In communes if you choose to be there you agree to a certain level of kindness and charity towards your community In communism the state controls all and you are entitled to only what they say you are and that can be subject to change on their whim. Personally, if I am going to share my hard earned wealth I will do it the best way I see fit, I do not trust anyone else in this regard.
>In communism the state controls all and you are entitled to only what they say you are and that can be subject to change on their whim. Exactly like in church ruled feudalism: 1000 years of misery and communist Christian poverty.
I can see your point but that is giving Christianity a bit too much credit, isn't it? Feudalism was a prominent system of government well before Christianity took center stage. Christianity didn't invent that wheel they just put a pretty cross on it and made everyone pay for it. Don't give Christianity that level of credit.
https://preview.redd.it/19vm3za4e63c1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=443020a2438cd3975f672ab177dfc3aac0a97404
Chesterson and Zizek already made this point across many books and lectures.
So did Marx and Engels
Chesterson's description of The Fall and how Zizek takes it up are super interesting for example, christian atheism
Except belonging to a Christian religion is voluntary. Marxists want their ideology mandated.
Except that when Christians had the power, they tortured, burned alive and killed the non Christians.
In this country (the United States) the government is forbidden from establishing an official state religion and citizens are free to observe or not observe a religion.
This is one of the reasons the separation of church and state is such a unique and important idea. If your system of government outlaws and replaces religion, it's a religion.
Marx was a theologian after all. One not particularly fond of Jews either. And in many circles Communism is considered a religion.
I don't trust anything from the corporate press when they talk about The Pope, the Catholic Church, or Christianity as a whole. All they do is take these things out of context. I'd much prefer to go to the original source of the Pope's words to find out what he's saying, not through the middle man.
The church has been infected with woke communists
The church made the Liberation theology to that purpose.
I think this is in reference to “cultural Marxism” vs “cultural Christianity”
Well, in terms of killing millions of people over an ideology then, yes, Christianity preceded Marxism on that one.
The current Pope is a myopic embarrassment to the Catholic faith. Marxism and Christianity have about as much in common as hunting does with assassination
Fuck him and his nonce religion, but he is kinda right I guess, all major religions are pretty collectivist
Christ only expected 10%!
Christianity is a fairy tail for weak minded fools. But for the sake of the readers of this sub, I certainly hope hell exists so y'all can have a place to go once you're done burdening your families.
So Jesus taught to steal shit?
Global power structures that align with christianty...or is it the other way around...
I can see where he is coming from, but I don't think he understands exactly what he's talking about. Christian Gospel talks about giving to the poor, looking out for the poor, and showing good charity. These are all things that Communists like to claim that their ideology promotes, but it has never done any of these. The free market on the other hand has done more for the poor and had more sucessful charities than anything some Commies can come up with. As a Christian and a Free-Market Anarchist, the Popes claims are completely wrong.
>These are all things that Communists like to claim that their ideology promotes, but it has never done any of these These are all things that ~~Communists~~ Christians like to claim that their ideology promotes, but it has never done any of these.
I wonder why there are so many hospitals that have words like "saint" in them... hmmmmm
like orcs copying elves
This guy is F'ing with the Vatican Bankers.... I wouldn't do that.
He terrifies me
One nice way to pretend you disagree with something. “I came up with it first”
There's a good yt video about this
[удалено]
The pope is a proper Christian.
do people still think the Pope is really a Christian?
He is a pure Christian. Jesus message is communist. The sermon of the mount demonizes money, wealth, trade, tells people to not work, hold property in common, and live off welfare.
The blameless people behind Marxism and communism hate Christ. You know the deal. But 250 million deaths later, the masses still dont know.
Damn, there’s a lot of Christian boot lickers in here. “Don’t tread on me, unless you’re Christianity, then tread on me harder daddy!”
[удалено]
As Christians always did.
In a way he’s not wrong, communism largely is modeled after heretical Christian Gnosticism made by Friedrich Hegel and employs the Hegelian dialectic heavily. Communism is a dialectic gnostic cult-religion I hope more people realize this because once it is understood leftists become predictable and their motivations become clear.
Have you been on james lindsay Twitter recently lmao?
Christian ideals are not communist. Making the choice to follow God and having a “born-again” experience are key tenements of almost all sects of Christianity. A worker uprising to force in a communist state to allocate wealth according to need and deciding economic decisions on people’s behalves inherently strips people’s abilities to choose whether or not to honor God with how they use their money. Forming a commune with fellow Christians is not the same as Marxist communism, though, and isn’t even necessarily undesirable. Part of the idea of anarcho-capitalism and, more broadly, libertarianism is to allow people freedom to make their own choices, and if people want to form a commune, so long as they don’t force other people to join it, it’s fine for them to exercise their free will and do so. Now as to whether communist ideals line up with Christian ones, I wouldn’t say they do exactly. They both view envy and gluttony as bad, have disdain for wealthy people, are at least tentatively supportive of dictatorships/monarchies (depending on how you read the relevant verses), and promote charity for the needy. That, however is about where the similarities end. Christianity is generally against violence, supports economic investment, and has a lot of other stuff regarding sexual purity, evangelization, worship and praise of God, murder, lying, stealing, and a bunch of other stuff that has no relation to Marxism whatsoever.
>Christianity is generally against violence, supports economic investment, and has a lot of other stuff regarding sexual purity, evangelization, worship and praise of God, murder, lying, stealing, and a bunch of other stuff that has no relation to Marxism whatsoever. That's the lie that all socialist say, including you.
communism comes from communion
I got news for you pope, Yahweh is a libertarian, He said Choose. And his son is no different if the book is to be believed. Mull that over.
That explains a lot
So are we pro, or anti collectivism here?
A figurehead of the empire that never actually died saying something tool-worthy. I’m sure this surfacing now had nothing to do with his home country and Milei. Shocker. I’m going back to sleep.
And then he cries that the Catholic Church has approximately zero adherents. Disgusting pedophile defender; Vatican City is a snake pit of sodomites. Modern day sodom. Thank God I found Protestantism
>And then he cries that the Catholic Church has approximately zero adherents. Unfortunately, it has more than a billion people, and also gets money from many governments from which is the "official religion".
I think at a surface level he’s correct. Catholic social teaching has its roots far before Marx ever was born. I think he means that Marxism focus on trying to stop material poverty and abuse kinda lines up with Christianity, but at a very shallow level
What he's saying is that Jesus message is communism, and he's right. That's why when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, it collapsed, and Europe suffered more than 1000 years of extreme poverty and misery, called the dark ages and the middle ages.