[Red_Army]

I don't think there are many commies who are anti gun. It's mainly liberals who are understandably concerned about gun violence. I'm amazed Anchorage has never had a school shooting to be honest. We have a shit ton of guns, plenty of gangs, and lots of crazies.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I don't think there are many commies who are anti gun.

Not if they are actually communists.

But that was my point, consistent communists should oppose the liberals in their push for gun regulations which disproportionately hurt the working class from being able to access weapons.

[B0ycey]

If we cannot persuade the majority of the working class that a proletarian revolution is in their interests, and in fact will become an urgent necessity during the final crisis of capitalism, then no amount of guns will save us or ensure the victory of the revolution. The liberation of the proletariat must be the work of the proletariat. So we should hand out the guns, and work on persuading them of the rightness of our cause before, during and after handing out the guns to anyone who wants one. I repeat: if we cannot get the majority of the working class behind us during the final crisis of capitalism, then Communism is nonsense and we're all wasting our time anyway.

If I read you correctly, you are not advocating for Liberal gun controls now but when Capitalism reaches a crisis point. And when that happens guns are handed to the working class who are more likely going to support your cause in such a scenario.

If so, that is a fair comment and similar to that as POD as it happens.

[Potemkin]

If I read you correctly, you are not advocating for Liberal gun controls now but when Capitalism reaches a crisis point. And when that happens guns are handed to the working class who are more likely going to support your cause in such a scenario.

If so, that is a fair comment and similar to that as POD as it happens.

No, I'm advocating for handing out guns to all of the working class right now. When capitalism reaches its crisis point, I will be advocating for handing out nuclear weapons, battleships and jet fighters to the working class. What else do you think the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" actually means?

[Victoribus Spolia]

No, I'm advocating for handing out guns to all of the working class right now. When capitalism reaches its crisis point, I will be advocating for handing out nuclear weapons, battleships and jet fighters to the working class. What else do you think the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" actually means?

Actual picture of Potemkin's response to @B0ycey



You must understand Pote, B0ycey just wants a "softer" kind of communism.....you know, where the proletariat aren't allowed guns because the Bougeoius banned them or let them only have "approved" single shot muskets with trackers on them.....you know...."for hunting" so that we might "save the children."

[B0ycey]

No, I'm advocating for handing out guns to all of the working class right now. When capitalism reaches its crisis point, I will be advocating for handing out nuclear weapons, battleships and jet fighters to the working class. What else do you think the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" actually means?

I assume you are hard at work lobbying your Holyrood politicians for softer gun laws then? Although the occurrence of Dunblane might hinder you there Comrade.

The simple truth is you need to accept the inconvenience and death toll that semi automatic weapons will have on society today, along with arming your enemies of course, for an unlikely theoretical outcome in the future. But being that supportive numbers of a cause and not access to mass destructive weapons seems to be historically a greater factor in the success or failure of a revolution, the fact of the matter remains that the success or failure of Communism in the future will not hinder on whether we have Liberal gun laws today. That being the case, whether or not a Communist is pro or anti gun, this doesn't matter whether it is consistent in their values, as their values are solely on the endgame that can be achieved in many different ways - some of which don't include arming the working class at all.

[Potemkin]

I assume you are hard at work lobbying your Holyrood politicians for softer gun laws then? Although the occurrence of Dunblane might hinder you there Comrade.

The simple truth is you need to accept the inconvenience and death toll that semi automatic weapons will have on society today, along with arming your enemies of course, for an unlikely theoretical outcome in the future. But being that supportive numbers of a cause and not access to mass destructive weapons seems to be historically a greater factor in the success or failure of a revolution, the fact of the matter remains that the success or failure of Communism in the future will not hinder on whether we have Liberal gun laws today. That being the case, whether or not a Communist is pro or anti gun, this doesn't matter whether it is consistent in their values, as their values are solely on the endgame that can be achieved in many different ways - some of which don't include arming the working class at all.

It would be nice to believe that, B0ycey. Remind me again what happened to a democratically elected Marxist government in Chile in 1973....

The working class need the numbers, they need the understanding, and they need the will and the confidence to take power. But they also need the guns, B0ycey.

[B0ycey]

It would be nice to believe that, B0ycey. Remind me again what happened to a democratically elected Marxist government in Chile in 1973....

Allende lost power because he lost control of his Army Pote. If he sold out the workers like the rest of the so called "Communists" and rewarded his army he would have remained in power.

The working class need the numbers, they need the understanding, and they need the will and the confidence to take power. But they also need the guns, B0ycey.

They don't need anything more than pitchforks and mob rule to bring down an establishment Pote. Ask Yanukovych. So no, you need to explain why guns are vital for a successful revolution to prove that a Communist is only consistent if he is pro gun. There are a number of ways that a revolution can be successful... along with the fact you can get elected into power. So whether you personally believe in American style gun laws in the UK, this is irrelevant for the debate. You are not the collective and the end game has a number of ways to be accomplished.

[Potemkin]

Allende lost power because he lost control of his Army Pote. If he sold out the workers like the rest of the so called "Communists" and rewarded his army he would have remained in power.

He did reward the Army. It was Allende who appointed Pinochet to his position. You can throw a raw steak to a tiger, but that won't make it decide not to eat you later.

They don't need anything more than pitchforks and mob rule to bring down an establishment Pote. Ask Yanukovych. So no, you need to explain why guns are vital for a successful revolution to prove that a Communist is only consistent if he is pro gun. There are a number of ways that a revolution can be successfulike... along with the fact you can get elected into power. So whether you personally believe in American style gun laws in the UK, this is irrelevant for the debate. You are not the collective and the end game has a number of ways to be accomplished.

You think guns weren't used during the coup d'etat in Ukraine? Lol.

[B0ycey]

He did reward the Army. It was Allende who appointed Pinochet to his position. You can throw a raw steak to a tiger, but that won't make it decide not to eat you later.

Promotion of one man is not rewarding an army. If the army supported Allende it wouldn't have mattered what Pinochet ordered.

You think guns weren't used during the coup d'etat in Ukraine? Lol.

If they were used, they were sparse. If you think guns took down Ukraine over numbers standing united over a goal, you are dillusional.

Nonetheless, who shot down the Berlin wall?

[Potemkin]

Promotion of one man is not rewarding an army. If the army supported Allende it wouldn't have mattered what Pinochet ordered.

Granted. Which suggests that Allende acted prematurely in implementing his more radical policies. He had too few workers' militias and he lacked the support of the armed forces. Hugo Chavez was much more successful - the fact that he was himself an army officer certainly helped.

If they were used, they were sparse. If you think guns took down Ukraine over numbers standing united over a goal, you are dillusional.

Nonetheless, who shot down the Berlin wall?

Question: do you think the Soviet Union would have collapsed if the West had not armed itself and militarily confronted the Soviet Union during the Cold War?

[B0ycey]

Question: do you think the Soviet Union would have collapsed if the West had not armed itself and militarily confronted the Soviet Union during the Cold War?

My honest opinion is it collapsed because it couldn't compete with the freedom and social functions of the West. When you look over the other side of the fence and see something better, you will rebel with what you have when the opportunity arises. So when the SU went broke, it gave the conditions for its own revolution agaisnt it and a chain reaction occurred thoughtout Eastern Europe. And American bullets wasn't fired or needed to break up the SU for that very reason.

Why do you think the Soviet Union collapsed if you consider it so fantastic anyway?

[Potemkin]

My honest opinion is it collapsed because it couldn't compete with the freedom and social functions of the West.

So why does Saudi Arabia still exist then? Or North Korea?

When you look over the other side of the fence and see something better, you will rebel with what you have when the opportunity arises. So when the SU went broke, it gave the conditions for its own revolution agaisnt it and a chain reaction occurred thoughtout Eastern Europe. And American bullets wasn't fired or needed to break up the SU for that very reason.

The Soviet Union's collapse was triggered by many factors, not least of which was the military and economic pressure exerted on it by the West during the Cold War.

Why do you think the Soviet Union collapsed if you consider it so fantastic anyway?

There were many factors, not least of which was that Communism gained power in one of the most backward nations in Europe, and had to play catch-up, achieving in just a few decades what it had taken the West centuries to build up. But miracles were achieved - in 1917, Russia had the wooden plow; by 1953, it had the atomic bomb. Another factor was the utter devastation wrought by the Nazi invasion of 1941-45, followed immediately by the Cold War, which lasted for more than four decades. Quite frankly, it's a miracle it didn't collapse decades earlier than it did.

[B0ycey]

So why does Saudi Arabia still exist then? Or North Korea?

Why shouldn't they? Until there is an uprising there is no revolution.

The Soviet Union's collapse was triggered by many factors, not least of which was the military and economic pressure exerted on it by the West during the Cold War.

You asked me for my opinion, I gave it to you. Economic pressure yes. Although I don't see how military pressure made people vote for change. Or made people flee to West Germany when given a chance.

[Potemkin]

Why shouldn't they? Until there is an uprising there is no revolution.

Every system is eternal, until it isn't.

You asked me for my opinion, I gave it to you. Economic pressure yes. Although I don't see how military pressure made people vote for change. Or made people flee to West Germany when given a chance.

You seem to feel the need to downplay the military aspect of things, in favour of the economic aspect. Both are important, and without a strong economy no nation can sustain a powerful military force. But sometimes, things are just settled by old-fashioned fisticuffs.

[annatar1914]

@Victoribus Spolia

VS, you said;

I do agree with you on that; though voluntary communes of shared ownership did exist en masse in the medieval period in monasteries.

Fair enough, but I would say that the main goal of the monastic life is the glory of God and the salvation of the person dedicated to that life; and as an effect of the Love of God and Love of Neighbor, the Communal life is born.

However, it was never meant to be confined to just the monasteries. You'd be surprised how many Orthodox Christians historically have become Monks at the very least, in old age and widowhood, and on the deathbed, as an acknowledgement that this is the superior human existence, if possible. So why cannot a measure of this better life be extended?

Hence, I could make a very good argument that voluntary forms communism were most ubiquitous during conditions that most closely approximated anarcho-capitalism.

I don't doubt that, but on the other hand it was a time of great spiritual tension too.

Yeah, I would say that is crazy talk, but perhaps we will get discuss this more when I post my thread on ancaps, the natural order, and neo-feudalism.

Sure, lol, I'll be willing to discuss it.

@Potemkin


You said in response to @B0ycey, I thought I would add this commentary ;

Every system is eternal, until it isn't.

I'd like to point out that, against the will of the people, the elites in the Soviet Union betrayed the Soviet Union and ended it, and/or failed to defend it. Some flat out plotted with the West to dismantle the Soviet Union, and the revisionism began after Stalin's death.

You seem to feel the need to downplay the military aspect of things, in favour of the economic aspect. Both are important, and without a strong economy no nation can sustain a powerful military force. But sometimes, things are just settled by old-fashioned fisticuffs.

I agree completely, although I hasten to add that the Soviet economy began to falter precisely when the liberal technocrats in charge decided to move the system closer and closer to a western style market economy.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Fair enough, but I would say that the main goal of the monastic life is the glory of God and the salvation of the person dedicated to that life; and as an effect of the Love of God and Love of Neighbor, the Communal life is born.

However, it was never meant to be confined to just the monasteries. You'd be surprised how many Orthodox Christians historically have become Monks at the very least, in old age and widowhood, and on the deathbed, as an acknowledgement that this is the superior human existence, if possible.

I would agree with what you say here, but the key point is that the "having all things in common" is voluntary NOT revolutionary or in any way compulsory.

Obviously once you make your vows, you are compelled by your own Word and should be punished for violating that contract, which is really what happened with ananias ans sapphira, they violated their communal vows and lied to the Holy Spirit.

The Celtic church, prior to the landing of Augustine (not St. Augustine, the other one); had a form of monasticism that accommodated married peoples and served as a community bastion for training people for familial life and educating them, this too shows that the idea of voluntarily communalism is not only biblical, but has some ecclesial precedent; however, the the Fathers of the church generally perceived the monastic life as based on calling, even if many viewed it as "superior."

Not all people are called to the communal life (monasticism), even the Latin church, which struggled with its understanding of marriage and sexuality, still understood this. That alone speaks volumes of the balanced Christian view on the matter.

So why cannot a measure of this better life be extended?

There is no reason it couldn't be, and a reform of monasticism and the making of it more ubiquitous would be a benefit to society; however, it should be voluntary for individuals based on how God has called them by His Efficacious Will. People shouldn't be made to give up their possessions and property by compulsion of a state; but the idea of freely giving up their possessions to the poor or in a commune should be held out as a blessed life open to all whom God has called for such a life.

I don't doubt that, but on the other hand it was a time of great spiritual tension too.

And our own time is not?

The times of greatest decentralization in Christendom were the times of greatest devotion and greatest ubiquity of religious belief.

The rise and increase of statism has been a story of the True Faith's decline in the west.

Instead of relying on God's providence, we have come to rely on Uncle Sam's.

Sure, lol, I'll be willing to discuss it.

I think it would be good for us to do so, the time is coming for that debate my friend.

[annatar1914]

@Victoribus Spolia

I would agree with what you say here, but the key point is that the "having all things in common" is voluntary NOT revolutionary or in any way compulsory.

I guess I was not entirely clear in my own mind, lol, the point I was intending to make (I think) was that if ''having all things in common'' is not an alien concept to true Christianity, a society having the primary means of production in common ownership by those who labor would be even less so, of an alien concept.

Obviously once you make your vows, you are compelled by your own Word and should be punished for violating that contract, which is really what happened with ananias ans sapphira, they violated their communal vows and lied to the Holy Spirit.

And yet, if they all, all early Christians, had all things in common, then it isn't ''voluntary'' if one wanted to be a Christian. It was later that the Church made necessary concessions to human weakness and lack of love and faith towards God and one's neighbor. But will it always be a necessary concession?

The Celtic church, prior to the landing of Augustine (not St. Augustine, the other one);

Yep, the Celtic Church, local and fully Orthodox :-).

had a form of monasticism that accommodated married peoples and served as a community bastion for training people for familial life and educating them, this too shows that the idea of voluntarily communalism is not only biblical, but has some ecclesial precedent; however, the the Fathers of the church generally perceived the monastic life as based on calling, even if many viewed it as "superior."

Again, that weakening of love that people within the early Church once had...

Not all people are called to the communal life (monasticism), even the Latin church, which struggled with its understanding of marriage and sexuality, still understood this. That alone speaks volumes of the balanced Christian view on the matter.

With an outpouring of God's Grace, anything is possible, and without Him, nothing is possible.

There is no reason it couldn't be, and a reform of monasticism and the making of it more ubiquitous would be a benefit to society; however, it should be voluntary for individuals based on how God has called them by His Efficacious Will.

Amen brother, so be it!

People shouldn't be made to give up their possessions and property by compulsion of a state;

That's what States do, compel human wills, restrain them.

And, I must make a distinction, by no means idiosyncratic to myself, that no Socialist State has ever confiscated legal ''personal property''. What everyone owns, held in trust, is the means of production, ''private property''. Such an arrangement is not contrary to the Christian life, or voluntary divestment of all possessions as per the monastic or the ascetic life, nor to human nature in general, knowing most people will cling to personal possessions in this life.

but the idea of freely giving up their possessions to the poor or in a commune should be held out as a blessed life open to all whom God has called for such a life.

I agree for sure.

Regarding my statement on the dark ages being a time of great 'spiritual tension';

And our own time is not?

The times of greatest decentralization in Christendom were the times of greatest devotion and greatest ubiquity of religious belief.

The rise of the Papacy, and Papism, in the West. As an Orthodox I must disagree that this was real Christian devotion and ubiquity of right-believing religion.

The rise and increase of statism has been a story of the True Faith's decline in the west.

I'd say the rise of Papism and the Bourgeoisie is the story of the True Faith's decline in the West.

Gracelessness.

Instead of relying on God's providence, we have come to rely on Uncle Sam's.

''Put not thy trust in princes''...

I think it would be good for us to do so, the time is coming for that debate my friend.

I think that would be a swell idea.

Now, to dovetail all this back to the OP and topic of this thread; I believe that politically speaking the ''Left'' is a work in progress, as is the ''Right''. Both are in conflict and flux, because this is the fallen nature of this world.

However, it is a curious sign of internal hidden Unity, that both true Right and true Left can agree that the right to bear arms against criminals and tyrants, that this is close if not identical to a universal absolute that the human person has this right ingrained in his being, made as he is in the Image and Likeness of God Himself (Who has all rights and owes nothing to anything that He has made, only the gratuitous nature of His Goodly Beneficent Will supplies all creatures justly and mercifully)

[Victoribus Spolia]

a society having the primary means of production in common ownership by those who labor would be even less so, of an alien concept.

Possibly; however, the means of accomplishing this and its circumstances would have to be elucidated further.

And yet, if they all, all early Christians, had all things in common, then it isn't ''voluntary'' if one wanted to be a Christian.

Except they didn't. We know the Church in Jerusalem practiced this to some degree, but we also know that the Church in Ephesus did not given Paul's letter to Timothy; wherein, we see that responsibility for older widows was to fall on the head of household and was NOT to be a burden to the church. This implies a separate means of provision and income generation as distinct from the ecclesial which was directly sanctioned and supported by Apostolic writ (1 Timothy 5:3-16).

Christ Himself likewise indicates this with the upholding of the eldest son's responsibility regarding the caring for parents which was affixed to Old Testament inheritance laws (double portion for eldest son) that seem to be themselves at odds with a common ownership contra private property (Matthew 15:3-7, Deuteronomy 21:17).

That's what States do, compel human wills, restrain them.

As were the Patriarchs, who were the original "state" over their own families and property. Indeed, Abraham as private free-holder could wage war as he did against the kings of the valley, and Scripture indicates that such men had the power to execute capital punishment, as we can see in Judah's threat against Tamar. This is the model I believe to still be the "optimal" form for Christian society as it was only replaced in the days of Samuel by the monarchy which Scripture clearly teaches as a negative development.

After all, we are warned of kings and other agents of compulsion against the homesteading Christian (1 Samuel 8:10-22)

And, I must make a distinction, by no means idiosyncratic to myself, that no Socialist State has ever confiscated legal ''personal property''. What everyone owns, held in trust, is the means of production, ''private property''.

I appreciate the distinction, but I don't think it changes much, I don't expect the Red commies to come and take my toothbrush.

The issue is whether or not the land under one's feet and its productive capabilities (along with the fruit of their own labor) belong to the family that uses it (Ecclesiastes 5:18-20)

The pleasures of enjoying what one produces from one's own land is raised up in Scripture as a beautiful delight, and owners of farms are even used as an analogy, in particular their right to do what they want with their own money (Matthew 20:15).

I'd say the rise of Papism and the Bourgeoisie is the story of the True Faith's decline in the West.

Gracelessness.

Neither a pope nor a rich man implies Gracelessness. Only a pope who usurps the authority that belongs to Christ and His Word or a rich man who lacks charity and defrauds the poor are such graceless individuals, and lets keep in mind, that both would have failed in their devices had they not sought protection from the state. Even Marx acknowledges that the state became what it is today for this very purpose, to protect the greedy, and as all protestants know well, the rise of absolutism came as states were co-opted and reinforced by the Popes in order to resist reform which created equally statist reactions by protestants in order that the reformation could be protected from inquisition.

This also reminds me of something my son said to me, literally just this past week.

He told me: "Dad, I want to be a rich man someday."

When I heard this, I was concerned, as I believe that contentment and devotion should be sought first and not riches, so I asked him: "Why is that son?"

He then said: "So I can give to the poor, like Good King Wenceslas"

I was very proud, because he gets it.

God want us to give freely of what we have as a sacrifice, not by compulsion, and truly we should confess that generosity can be a motivator for wealth as much as greed, especially for the Christian.

Indeed, that it is sacrifice and not the money itself that God wants from people is clear in that the person who made the best contribution to Christ was the lowly widow with her mite and not the rich men out of their storehouses.

For she sacrificed more. It was a matter of devotion. This does not seem to be what communists want. They don't want to see poor people sacrifice, they only want to see the storehouses of the wealthy drained. This isn't what Christ taught or wanted, he wants all to sacrifice, including the poor. He only rebukes the wealthy because in spite of their ability to do so they often refuse to sacrifice for the cause of Christ and His Kingdom, for they have idolized that which is fleeting, the gold that rusts. This is the great temptation of wealth.

So should the greedy be rebuked? Sure. Should those who defraud and oppress the poor be resisted? Sure.

But charity cannot exist in a society that doesn't allow for one acquire their own excesses and surplus.

Indeed, the closing lines of Good King Wenceslas are particularly instructive.

in his masters step he trod
Where the snow lay dinted
Heat was in the very sod
Which the Saint had printed
Therefore, Christian men, be sure
Wealth or rank possessing
Ye, who now will bless the poor
Shall yourselves find blessing.

Should the good king have had his manor confiscated, his piles of gold, and his massive lands? Is that what Christ call us to require?

I think not.

Why else would the blessing of Job after his restoration had been to have more than all others around him?

''Put not thy trust in princes''...

Indeed.

However, it is a curious sign of internal hidden Unity, that both true Right and true Left can agree that the right to bear arms against criminals and tyrants, that this is close if not identical to a universal absolute that the human person has this right ingrained in his being, made as he is in the Image and Likeness of God Himself (Who has all rights and owes nothing to anything that He has made, only the gratuitous nature of His Goodly Beneficent Will supplies all creatures justly and mercifully)

The Old Left and True Right can diagnose the disease and even agree to a degree as to the immediate procedures for procuring the solution; however, we disagree as to the fundamental cause and what the restored man should look like.

Both sides see the current state working to benefit greedy bankers and corporations as a fundamental evil, a union forged in hell.

However, the communists see the bankers and corporations as embodying capitalism and the state as their puppet, which without the state, no capitalism could exist, only communism.

Ancaps such as myself see the bankers and corporations as embodying cronyism and the state as their puppet, which without the state, they could not exist, only anarcho-capitalism.

Ancaps and commies both see being armed as a necessary stop-gap against this unholy union of the greedy (the corporations, bankers, etc) and the oppressive (the state).

Hence, why both sides of the spectrum desire full and unmitigated gun ownership/possession.

We both want to see this union destroyed, and both sides see guns as part of the equation to this end.

[annatar1914]

@Victoribus Spolia

Possibly; however, the means of accomplishing this and its circumstances would have to be elucidated further.

I figure that we can delve into the possibility of that in your projected thread, sure.

Except they didn't. We know the Church in Jerusalem practiced this to some degree, but we also know that the Church in Ephesus did not given Paul's letter to Timothy; wherein, we see that responsibility for older widows was to fall on the head of household and was NOT to be a burden to the church.

Well, I'm not one of those utopian Socialist types that goes too far into what must or must not be done in the family household, I figure that's the work of the Church to spiritually advance the family as well as the larger society as a whole, integrally including the institutions in this as well as the individual human person. Even in Socialist countries, people have disposable income, and look after their families needs above and beyond what society does. All by way of saying that it isn't enough of a point to preclude a general communitarian spirit within the early Christians, because of their love for one another.

This implies a separate means of provision and income generation as distinct from the ecclesial which was directly sanctioned and supported by Apostolic writ (1 Timothy 5:3-16).

True, but again I do not think that working within what was the contemporary economic system of the time requires a jaundiced view of what could be a nobler and better way, now.

Christ Himself likewise indicates this with the upholding of the eldest son's responsibility regarding the caring for parents which was affixed to Old Testament inheritance laws (double portion for eldest son) that seem to be themselves at odds with a common ownership contra private property (Matthew 15:3-7, Deuteronomy 21:17).

He also spoke of ''hating our parents'' in relation to life in loving Him, and ''letting the dead bury the dead'', too. I recall also where He showed irritation at the two men who wished Him to judge a property case between them... There's some wiggle room for debate here, so I''ll be happy to return to this in your thread.

As were the Patriarchs, who were the original "state" over their own families and property. Indeed, Abraham as private free-holder could wage war as he did against the kings of the valley, and Scripture indicates that such men had the power to execute capital punishment, as we can see in Judah's threat against Tamar. This is the model I believe to still be the "optimal" form for Christian society as it was only replaced in the days of Samuel by the monarchy which Scripture clearly teaches as a negative development.

As a reader of Sir Robert Filmer, I believe that the first Patriarchs were the first Kings, the Kingdoms growing out of the families of these men and of their servants.

After all, we are warned of kings and other agents of compulsion against the homesteading Christian (1 Samuel 8:10-22)

Who had equal parcels of land, if I recall correctly

I appreciate the distinction, but I don't think it changes much, I don't expect the Red commies to come and take my toothbrush.

Or the family jewels, necessarily, but I think it important I believe we should define what things truly are, aside from propaganda from decades past.

The issue is whether or not the land under one's feet and its productive capabilities (along with the fruit of their own labor) belong to the family that uses it (Ecclesiastes 5:18-20)

Well the ''Earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof'', so an examination of what our stewardship of things is most proper in light of this.

The pleasures of enjoying what one produces from one's own land is raised up in Scripture as a beautiful delight, and owners of farms are even used as an analogy, in particular their right to do what they want with their own money (Matthew 20:15).

Indeed, but a Peasant is a Laborer after all, even if not a Serf, and Marxists have always had a more ambiguous time dealing with peasants in their rural setting in Marxist theory in the overall scheme of things.

Another point to discuss in depth later, the reasons for the interest and urgency i'm sure you'd appreciate given the civilizational decline.

Neither a pope nor a rich man implies Gracelessness. Only a pope who usurps the authority that belongs to Christ and His Word or a rich man who lacks charity and defrauds the poor are such graceless individuals, and lets keep in mind, that both would have failed in their devices had they not sought protection from the state. Even Marx acknowledges that the state became what it is today for this very purpose, to protect the greedy, and as all protestants know well, the rise of absolutism came as states were co-opted and reinforced by the Popes in order to resist reform which created equally statist reactions by protestants in order that the reformation could be protected from inquisition.

The barb of my remark was aimed more at the issue of Papism in it's origin, a local church's bishop breaking from the Unity of Grace, believing that the Popes were the Whole of that Unity, and the Channel of that Grace... Breaking from Orthodoxy and gradually ending it in the West, and working to end it in the East, too. Everything else that you mention, and then some, involves the withdrawal of genuine Grace from the West, an cosmic level irony given the alleged devotion the West had to the Western Orthodox Father who wrote about grace at length, the Blessed Augustine.

This also reminds me of something my son said to me, literally just this past week.

He told me: "Dad, I want to be a rich man someday."

When I heard this, I was concerned, as I believe that contentment and devotion should be sought first and not riches, so I asked him: "Why is that son?"

He then said: "So I can give to the poor, like Good King Wenceslas"

I was very proud, because he gets it.

As well you should be proud of him. The last step offered by grace, the living of the life of the Godhead within Himself, is the giving of all. Not all can do it it seems.

God want us to give freely of what we have as a sacrifice, not by compulsion, and truly we should confess that generosity can be a motivator for wealth as much as greed, especially for the Christian.

Indeed, that it is sacrifice and not the money itself that God wants from people is clear in that the person who made the best contribution to Christ was the lowly widow with her mite and not the rich men out of their storehouses.

For she sacrificed more. It was a matter of devotion. This does not seem to be what communists want. They don't want to see poor people sacrifice, they only want to see the storehouses of the wealthy drained. This isn't what Christ taught or wanted, he wants all to sacrifice, including the poor. He only rebukes the wealthy because in spite of their ability to do so they often refuse to sacrifice for the cause of Christ and His Kingdom, for they have idolized that which is fleeting, the gold that rusts. This is the great temptation of wealth.

So should the greedy be rebuked? Sure. Should those who defraud and oppress the poor be resisted? Sure.

But charity cannot exist in a society that doesn't allow for one acquire their own excesses and surplus.

Indeed, the closing lines of Good King Wenceslas are particularly instructive.



Should the good king have had his manor confiscated, his piles of gold, and his massive lands? Is that what Christ call us to require?

I think not.

Why else would the blessing of Job after his restoration had been to have more than all others around him?

Good food for thought, I will honestly admit.

Indeed.



The Old Left and True Right can diagnose the disease and even agree to a degree as to the immediate procedures for procuring the solution; however, we disagree as to the fundamental cause and what the restored man should look like.

Both sides see the current state working to benefit greedy bankers and corporations as a fundamental evil, a union forged in hell.

However, the communists see the bankers and corporations as embodying capitalism and the state as their puppet, which without the state, no capitalism could exist, only communism.

Ancaps such as myself see the bankers and corporations as embodying cronyism and the state as their puppet, which without the state, they could not exist, only anarcho-capitalism.

Ancaps and commies both see being armed as a necessary stop-gap against this unholy union of the greedy (the corporations, bankers, etc) and the oppressive (the state).

All true enough, which is why I find it hard to accept that there is a ''Left'' and a ''Right'' that alike do not trust the common man and his ability to defend against tyrants and criminals.

Hence, why both sides of the spectrum desire full and unmitigated gun ownership/possession.

We both want to see this union destroyed, and both sides see guns as part of the equation to this end.

Or should, anyway.