/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

There's points that doesn't fit right to me. And the communistic community is awful.

>>6911

Lets turn this worthless troll thread into something worthwhile though.

You're European. Aren't there some aspects about your centralized government that you enjoy? The healthcare, the education system, the welfare system?

Of course that stuff isn't full on communism, but that's my point. Bits and pieces of socialism can be implemented while still avoiding Lenin-tier godlessness.

>>6934

Socialized healthcare is very slow. It takes 3 months to see a specialist. If you have to see him again that might be another 3 months. People die waiting for care. A free market system is way superior. USA hasn't had a free market in healthcare for almost 100 years so you cannot make that comparison.

Education system is garbage and dumbs people down, and leads them to satan. Some basic welfare is good, but these systems always crash and burn sooner or later because in all socialist structures the concept of responsibility is despised, no is accountable for anything.

>>6934

>You're European.

I'm not every Catholic flag

Many, but not all ;^)

> European. Aren't there some aspects about your centralized government that you enjoy?

Western Europe != Europe

Centralisaation is mainly a western European thing. Portugal, Spain, France, United Kingdom, these countries.

Elsewhere there is a great deal of federalism. Especially in Germany and Austria

Also Switzerland and essentially all other countries.

The reason for this lies in the 18th century, in the time of Absolutism.

Back then the monarchs wanted to replace the high nobles as base of their power with lower nobles and bureaucrats. Most successful in this was Louis quatorze.

While in other countries like the imperial ones, poland-lithunia and Russia the monarchs had not the power to do so.

In the end this was good however. This made them far less susceptible to the revolutions of the 18th and 19th century that relied on the city proletarians.

I am personally an enemy of centralisation.

>The healthcare, the education system, the welfare system?

See here:

>>6942

>>7028

>I am personally an enemy of centralisation.

So how would you define yourself? To speak "socially" on this would be kind of moot, since despite our vast religious differences people here are overwhelmingly in line with Gospel principles when it comes to moral issues.

Economically though, what do you like? You seem to admit that the way European countries have managed these issues has some positives, but seem to dislike other things strongly.

So, what healthcare would you like then, if not centralized or government-operated? Same with welfare, the education system, immigration, guns?

>>7051

>So how would you define yourself?

I do not really like labels. And that's a tricky one, since I do not seem to fit in anywhere.

I'm reactionary, I'm libertarian, I'm pro responsibility and duty, I'm in favour of a very traditional family model, I'm against the state interfering with the personal choices of the individual etcpp

Not all of them are really compatible and even contradict each other, that's where it gets tricky.

Our modern political ideas derive mostly from the 19th century and are still the same except for the fusion between conservatives and classical liberals by now, and the lack of ultra royalists

While the conservatives wanted to rely on a strong state in German we have the term "Obrigkeitsstaat" for that, I don't think that there is something similar in Engish that controlled the live of the citizens and spied on them and surpressed them,

the liberals wanted to protect the individual from the state and encouraged civil liberties and erosion of values, which lead to the disintegration of society we know of today.

Socialism emerged from the liberal movement later on, but it was of no importance until adter 1848.

However there was a third movement, especially in central Europe. They called themselve "Zentrum" centre party

They were the arm of political Catholicism and you should have a look on them, they are what I could identify myself as most.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Party_%28Germany%29

>Economically though, what do you like?

Free market where applicable. Protectionism and intervention has its place though and can be fairly successful. Proof to that is mercantilism in the 17th century.

>healthcare

Private plus charity

>welfare

Relying on your family unit and charity

> the education system

No mandatory public schooling. No one should be forced to let his children be indoctrinated against his consciousness.

>immigration

No

>guns

No restrictions, military relying on drafting and militia.

>>7057

This only applies to the modern state of affairs though.

I do not think that the modern republics have any legitimacy whatsoever, that's why I don't like them interfering with people's business.

If we had a Kaiser by divine grace again, things would be different of course.

>>7119

Please note that mine has actual citation

>>7135

>1st one

"Those who do not work will not eat"

-vladimir ilyich ulyanov

>>7138

But communism is the end of theft, the bourgeoisie steal from workers by exploiting their surplus value

>>7142

Could you make that case using scripture rather than Marxist dialectics?

>>7140

Full-length Memoirs:

~ Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust by Miron Dolot.

New York: W.W. Norton, 1985.

The author, a teen-ager during the time, presents a harrowing eyewitness account of the Holodomor as it was implemented and experienced in his village.

~ Sliding on the Snow Stone by Andy Szpuk.

That Right Publishing LLC. 2011.

Particularly chapter 1, p.5-17, which recounts his childhood years during the Famine. From GoodReads reviewer 'Pam:' "This book is a recounting of a man's life in Ukraine during Stalin's genocide and his subsequent journey from the Ukraine with his father, running from both the Nazis and the Russian army, his life in between and the return to his childhood home when he was much older."

~ The Education of a True Believer by Lev Kopelev.

New York, Harper & Row, 1980 (Originally published in the US in Russian, 1978).

From the publisher's apt description: For Lev, a committed communist activist, "The discrepancies between that belief and what his own experience shows him culminate in a great chapter of lamentation: 'The Last Grain Collections (1933).' But here too, he maintains the perspective of that time: The Bolsheviks who ravage the villages are presented as colorful characters, self-sacrificing workers….But now, of course, we know where it all leads: to misery, starvation, death, the all but unbearable final scene of crying women."

thou shall not covet

>>7142

When you sign up for a job, you voluntarily agree to do X labour for Y compensation. If you don't agree to the terms, don't sign up for the job.

Even if it were the case that the bourgeoisie were to be validly thieves, evil begets evil.

The word of the lord from matthew, chapter 5:

>38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

>39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

>40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

>41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Just because the rich have stolen doesn't entitle you to steal from them.

>holodomor denialism

Go to gulag.

>>6898

Because when Jesus comes back to set up his 1000 year reign, It wont be of "Common Rule" It will be with an IRON ROD. And each man will have his own house and vineyard, that sounds closer to fascism than communism.

>>7264

Excuse me, *old ideas

Communism =

>let the government control everything under the guise of a lie

National Socialism and other forms of Fascism =

>let the government control what it needs/everything under the guise of national unity

Do you want a lie or a purpose, meat?

For a western people, stick with Direct Democratic Republics. Fascism can only work when the nation is unified culturally and racially and generally cares for each other. When the average man is what might be considered a great man in this day, then we can try something other than a libertarian republic, but as for right now, I get the feeling that's the only form of government that can provide stability.

>christian

>>7349

>Democratic republics aren't defusing the wealth efficiently

> income inequality is accelerating

There are two moral judgements here:

First wealth needs to be defused, and efficiently so.

Second accelerating income inequality is to be avoided.

How do you justify these?

>God has given Jews /Atheists have way more net worth than Christians. Christians are getting poorer under Capitalism. When are you gonna ally with the Reds for a glorious revolution?

Materialistic approach towards life refuted.

>>7349

>jews and atheists have more shekels

>lets fix that by enforcing a system that destroys everything and gives all the money and power to jews and atheists!

>>6901

This, to be honest.

Also, Communism is a globalist philosophy. The only world government I want a part of is that of Jesus Christ when he returns. Communism assumes that everyone is completely equal and the same, which ends up treating them more like cattle than the capitalist system (as well as just being fucking retarded, I mean I don't consider myself the equal of Einstein). Communism requires a strong dictatorship, ensuring the survival of an elite class in a different form. Of course, you could be an-comm, which comes with completely different issues.

Simply put, it's the worst idea pretty much ever. The way to oppose the elite is through nationalism and strong tariffs, not through open borders, flooded labor markets, and forced "equality."

>>7266

>/pone/

Ahahhahah

hahahahahaha