Was Nelson Mandela a Christian? Yes or No

[Dodo_David]

If Nelson Mandela was a Communist at the time of his death, then I understand why anyone would doubt that he was saved.

 

[veteran]

I grew up in USSR in a Christian family. Going to barely tolerated, severely restricted, constantly under surveilance church. Those were the “good times” of 1970s. Previous generation all did time in gulags just for being Christians. All pastors, deacons did several years it was just a price to pay, that was Soviet “normal” for a Christian. By the time my father became Christian jail time was not mandatory punishment he was only demoted from lead engineer with promising career to maintenance electrician.

Rabid hatred of religion, especially Christianity is ingrained into Communism, it is part of it’s “soul”. Anybody even remotely suggesting that Communist can be a Christian at the same time is just simply out of his/her mind!

General tolerance of Communism and it’s ideas is a death sentence to this country. Sentence that is being carried out as we speak.

Like Huffington Post and New American? If you do not know those you must be living under some rather large rock.

More "unknown agencies"

Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/6/bill-oreilly-reminds-nelson-mandela-was-communist/

Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/dec/11/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-says-nelson-mandela-was-communist/

Free republic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1255245/posts

Mandela even wrote a book titled: "How to be a good Communist"!!!!!! I mean, seriously how can you say that Mandela was not a Communist?

Well God bless you for even the later type of struggles you had to face because of Communism. You could be a good platform speaker for the Churches (that will listen) to teach our Christian youth about the differences between Communist theory and Christianity.

I had heard stories of past Christians in the USSR that went out at night under secrecy to do water baptisms. Now that reveals real strength and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am convinced (based on my research) that a modified Communist policy to join the East with West is how the end of this world will play out, it just isn't called Communism anymore, but 'world socialism'. I have seen this move throughout my lifetime and today's era so far is one of the worst with world socialism persecuting Christ in the West.

 

[Apocalypticist]

I think this is a poorly planned topic. It's not for us to say who's saved and who is not. That's something Jesus called the Pharisees out for.

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

I see this all over the Christian church and among Christians. Some are purely deranged and are among the condemned, but they still use their influence and power to bully truly saved people and bring the weaker brothers to sin because they get disillusioned seeing all the fraud inside the church.

Our job is to keep the gates of heaven wide open for anyone who will answer and not turn anyone away. But what ought to be isn't always what is.

As to whether he was a Christian... I don't know much about him because he was well on in years when I was still a child. But I know there is all but genocide going on against the white minority in South Africa and if he had anything to do with this atrocity, he was absolutely no Christian.

 

[veteran]

"Winnie Mandela has been equally fulsome in her praise of Communism and violence. In 1986 she was reported in Moscow's communist party newspaper Pravda as saying:

The Soviet Union is the torch-bearer for all our hopes and aspirations. We have learned and are continuing to learn resilience and bravery from the Soviet people, who are an example to us in our struggle for freedom, a model of loyalty to internationalist duty. In Soviet Russia, genuine power of the people has been transformed from dreams into reality. The land of the Soviets is the genuine friend and ally of all peoples fighting against the dark forces of world reaction."
===============================================================================

Some of you younger folks might be wondering if Communism is so bad, then how can many western politicians turn a blind eye to the Mandela's associations with Communist ideology?

If you're a U.S. citizen, then I would say study what the U.S. founders wrote, and what your rights are per the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The late 1950's long-range Communist strategy for takeover of the West changed to a softer brand of Communist ideology, attempting to become more 'humane' and ease up on the "big brother" evils of the Lennist-Stalinist eras. During Peristroika in the '90's, Gorbachev was asked if he still believed in the long-term strategy of world Communism, and he said yes. U.S. President Ronald Regean gave Gorbachev the U.S. Army's historical facility, the Presidio in California, to hold his one-world summits. Regean, a Republican, even held hands with Communism in that respect. So how could this happen in America?

If one really does their research, they will eventually discover that Communist ideology existed long prior to Karl Marx and Trotsky, and much of its socialist idealism actually began with socialists in the West (Trotsky left New York with $10,000 in funds to help the Communist revolution in 1917 Russia with an American passport, and during a time when the U.S. State Dept. was cracking down on issue of passports to Russia, a matter of public record since he was stopped and searched both in the U.S. and in Canada before arriving in Petrograd. http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/chapter_02.htm). The source of funds has been a mystery since Trotsky's background and work during his U.S. stay doesn't support it. That link reveals a strong possibility the funds were supplied by western socialists and their financiers.

So it should not be a surprise today that so many of our leaders in Washington, D.C. have Socialist ideology leanings, which is how and why many policies being made today in the U.S. gov. are helping step-by-step to accomplish the goals of the Communist International towards a "one word government".

THIS... I'm convinced is how the end of this world is going to play out, a one-world 'beast' kingdom setup over all... nations, including us in the traditional Christian West. This... is why we are hearing all the world media rhetoric of how great a man Mandela was minus his political leanings with Communist ideology. It's this point of the media's ommissions of the Mandela family's history with Communist ideology that should be the greater mystery in our minds here in the West, because it reveals how Communist ideology has many fans in power in the West.

 

[Dodo_David]

What were Nelson Mandela's beliefs at the time of his death?

According to the book of Acts, the Apostle Paul started out as a pharisee who persecuted the Church, but he wasn't like that when he died. Instead, his beliefs changed when he had a personal encounter with the resurrected Messiah.

So, shouldn't we be focusing on what Nelson Mandela was like at the end of his life?

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

(interview with Archbishop Desmond Tutu)
Does Mandela have an inner religious life, an inner spiritual life?

In this regard, he is a very secret person. I mentioned to him quite early on that I thought he should have a personal chaplain. He didn't say no, but he never did appoint a personal chaplain. But he did go to church and had the moments when he would receive holy communion and so on. But I think it was a very, very private part of his life, and he didn't find it easy to invoke or ... I mean a lot of his people said that [Mandela] would have won over many others if, at that particular point, he had made some reference to God. And we should respect the fact that he refused to manipulate religion in that kind of way... But I think he does have a great deal of inner resources, and that 27 years was partly responsible.

 

[azchurchmouse]

.
I voted YES because Webster's defines a Christian as: somebody who
professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Webster's definition doesn't say that somebody has to actually believe
Christ's teachings to be a Christian: no; the definition says they only have to
"profess" belief in his teachings in order to wear the label. Of course there
are many ways to interpret the Lord's teachings but that's another matter.

Buen Camino
/

I don't think this is a correct definition. One must profess that Christ is who He said He was...God in the flesh. To just believe that Jesus was a nice guy and that you like what He stood for is not enough.

I think this is a poorly planned topic. It's not for us to say who's saved and who is not. That's something Jesus called the Pharisees out for.

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

I see this all over the Christian church and among Christians. Some are purely deranged and are among the condemned, but they still use their influence and power to bully truly saved people and bring the weaker brothers to sin because they get disillusioned seeing all the fraud inside the church.

Our job is to keep the gates of heaven wide open for anyone who will answer and not turn anyone away. But what ought to be isn't always what is.

As to whether he was a Christian... I don't know much about him because he was well on in years when I was still a child. But I know there is all but genocide going on against the white minority in South Africa and if he had anything to do with this atrocity, he was absolutely no Christian.

As Christians we are to take the Great Commission seriously. It was not a suggestion but a command. We should openly confess that Christ is our personal Savior. Did Mandela do this? I don't know that much about him. If you love the Lord..you want everyone to know it. We certainly can not judge anthers heart...but God did say we could and should make righteous judgements. How else do we protect the godly? What did Mandela's actions show towards Christ?

 

[Apocalypticist]

Some of you younger folks might be wondering if Communism is so bad, then how can many western politicians turn a blind eye to the Mandela's associations with Communist ideology?

If you're a U.S. citizen, then I would say study what the U.S. founders wrote, and what your rights are per the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The late 1950's long-range Communist strategy for takeover of the West changed to a softer brand of Communist ideology, attempting to become more 'humane' and ease up on the "big brother" evils of the Lennist-Stalinist eras. During Peristroika in the '90's, Gorbachev was asked if he still believed in the long-term strategy of world Communism, and he said yes. U.S. President Ronald Regean gave Gorbachev the U.S. Army's historical facility, the Presidio in California, to hold his one-world summits. Regean, a Republican, even held hands with Communism in that respect. So how could this happen in America?

If one really does their research, they will eventually discover that Communist ideology existed long prior to Karl Marx and Trotsky, and much of its socialist idealism actually began with socialists in the West (Trotsky left New York with $10,000 in funds to help the Communist revolution in 1917 Russia with an American passport, and during a time when the U.S. State Dept. was cracking down on issue of passports to Russia, a matter of public record since he was stopped and searched both in the U.S. and in Canada before arriving in Petrograd. http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/chapter_02.htm). The source of funds has been a mystery since Trotsky's background and work during his U.S. stay doesn't support it. That link reveals a strong possibility the funds were supplied by western socialists and their financiers.

So it should not be a surprise today that so many of our leaders in Washington, D.C. have Socialist ideology leanings, which is how and why many policies being made today in the U.S. gov. are helping step-by-step to accomplish the goals of the Communist International towards a "one word government".

THIS... I'm convinced is how the end of this world is going to play out, a one-world 'beast' kingdom setup over all... nations, including us in the traditional Christian West. This... is why we are hearing all the world media rhetoric of how great a man Mandela was minus his political leanings with Communist ideology. It's this point of the media's ommissions of the Mandela family's history with Communist ideology that should be the greater mystery in our minds here in the West, because it reveals how Communist ideology has many fans in power in the West.

Just don't lump us all into one category. I'm 25 years old but that doesn't mean you can judge me before hand as being a dummy or illiterate.

I have read Solzhenitsyn. I've watched the Bezmenov tapes, I've read about Golitsyn. I've read about Albert Pike's and the Illuminist's longstanding plan for three world wars. I even know what is going to happen in the future re: Russia and the United States. The Bible even attests to it.

Reagan was a useful pawn for the Bush family. He was for the New World Order like all the rest of them but had the effect of persuading Bush to become pro-life, which before 1979-1980 Bush as pro-choice. Reagan is the reason why the Republican party went pro-life. He was a Bohemian Grover, he was aware of the mind control, he knew everything basically and assented to it. He was no hero, but the economy sure did great in his second term.

Your next statement is all wrong. There was nothing known as 'idealism' in Communism. Marx and Engels believed exclusively in Nietzche's philosophy about 'might is right' and saw it as nothing but a vehicle for totalitarianism. The only people who saw 'idealism' in it were the useful idiots that put them into power.

Solzhenitsyn: "In their correspondence Marx and Engels frequently stated that terror would be indispensable after achieving power, that "it will be becessary to repeat the year 1793. After achieving power, we will be considered monsters, but we couldn't care less" (vol. 25, pg. 187)." July 9, 1975 speech, quoted from Warning to the West.

"It is now almost impossible to remember or believe... For instance, I recently reprinted a pamphlet from the year 1918. This was a detailed record of a meeting of all representatives of the factories in Petrograd, the city known in our country as the "cradle of the Revolution.

"It is now almost impossible to remember or to believe... For instance, I recently reprinted a pamphlet from the year 1918. This was a detailed record of a meeting of all representatives of the factories in Petrograd, the city known in our country as the "cradle of the Revolution.

"I repeat, this was in March 1918, only four months after the October Revolution, and all the representatives of the Petrograd factories were denouncing the Communists who had deceived them in all their promises. What is more, not only had the Communists abandoned Petrograd to cold and hunger, themselves having fled from Petrograd to Moscow, but they had given orders to open machine-gun fire on the crowds of workers in the factory courtyards who were demanding the election of independent factory committees." June 30, 1975, Warning to the West.

The revolutionaries had no ideal in mind at all, other than totalitarian control and massacre of all of their political adversaries.

The same way eugenics philosophy was exported from America to Nazi Germany. The same way Prescott Bush was an ally and financier for the Nazis in Germany. The real germination of the socialist vision for world domination goes back AT LEAST 240 years to the time of Adam Weishaupt. It would be very short sighted to refer only to the Communist elements in America instrumental in funding Lenin and his comrades in the 1910's.

Not exactly. End of America, yes. End of the world, no. The world will not end with being subjugated under Communist government because Communism and capitalism will both collapse to make way for the New World Order's pure totalitarianism which is best thought of as pure slavery. Communism is preferable to what the elites now have in mind.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

It is hard to know where to draw the line between ... "Not confessing Christ" ... and "Denying Christ"

Maybe there was some wisdom in Mandela keeping his religion private , a lot of politicians do.

I think his mother was a Jehovah Witness and maybe he did not want to face the complications of whether she was saved or not

Mandelas life long devotion to Marxism is very non-christian ,

 

[veteran]

Just don't lump us all into one category. I'm 25 years old but that doesn't mean you can judge me before hand as being a dummy or illiterate.

I have read Solzhenitsyn. I've watched the Bezmenov tapes, I've read about Golitsyn. I've read about Albert Pike's and the Illuminist's longstanding plan for three world wars. I even know what is going to happen in the future re: Russia and the United States. The Bible even attests to it.

Reagan was a useful pawn for the Bush family. He was for the New World Order like all the rest of them but had the effect of persuading Bush to become pro-life, which before 1979-1980 Bush as pro-choice. Reagan is the reason why the Republican party went pro-life. He was a Bohemian Grover, he was aware of the mind control, he knew everything basically and assented to it. He was no hero, but the economy sure did great in his second term.

Your next statement is all wrong. There was nothing known as 'idealism' in Communism. Marx and Engels believed exclusively in Nietzche's philosophy about 'might is right' and saw it as nothing but a vehicle for totalitarianism. The only people who saw 'idealism' in it were the useful idiots that put them into power.

Solzhenitsyn: "In their correspondence Marx and Engels frequently stated that terror would be indispensable after achieving power, that "it will be becessary to repeat the year 1793. After achieving power, we will be considered monsters, but we couldn't care less" (vol. 25, pg. 187)." July 9, 1975 speech, quoted from Warning to the West.

"It is now almost impossible to remember or believe... For instance, I recently reprinted a pamphlet from the year 1918. This was a detailed record of a meeting of all representatives of the factories in Petrograd, the city known in our country as the "cradle of the Revolution.

"It is now almost impossible to remember or to believe... For instance, I recently reprinted a pamphlet from the year 1918. This was a detailed record of a meeting of all representatives of the factories in Petrograd, the city known in our country as the "cradle of the Revolution.

"I repeat, this was in March 1918, only four months after the October Revolution, and all the representatives of the Petrograd factories were denouncing the Communists who had deceived them in all their promises. What is more, not only had the Communists abandoned Petrograd to cold and hunger, themselves having fled from Petrograd to Moscow, but they had given orders to open machine-gun fire on the crowds of workers in the factory courtyards who were demanding the election of independent factory committees." June 30, 1975, Warning to the West.

The revolutionaries had no ideal in mind at all, other than totalitarian control and massacre of all of their political adversaries.

The same way eugenics philosophy was exported from America to Nazi Germany. The same way Prescott Bush was an ally and financier for the Nazis in Germany. The real germination of the socialist vision for world domination goes back AT LEAST 240 years to the time of Adam Weishaupt. It would be very short sighted to refer only to the Communist elements in America instrumental in funding Lenin and his comrades in the 1910's.

Not exactly. End of America, yes. End of the world, no. The world will not end with being subjugated under Communist government because Communism and capitalism will both collapse to make way for the New World Order's pure totalitarianism which is best thought of as pure slavery. Communism is preferable to what the elites now have in mind.

The matter actually goes even a lot farther back than Weishaupt, more than 2000-3000 years farther back. The 'mystery of iniquity' is even written about in God's Word, for those able to fathom it.

Prior to Weishaupt's ideology there was Utopia, the term Thomas Moore devised in the 16th century to represent a fictional ideal society located somwhere in the Atlantic ocean. Then before that Plato's idea of a Republic. Those are just latter ideas that came from the ancients with their so-called great civilization idealisim in attempt to mimic the only true perfect one that ever will be, i.e., God's Kingdom. Question is though, are you able to fathom what their next attempt is going to be?

 

[BearingTheTruth]

And trying to justify Mandela's actions by implying his turning to Communists was his only outlet for reform certainly is a Leftist 'guerilla' type view of politics also.

What actions are you referring to?

I get that he was a founding member of an organization that utilized violent action but putting it into historical context Mandela, MK, African National Congress didn't act beyond legal authority for over 5 decades of attempting reform, and even then they weren't fully united on these decision. The man as an individual is probably far cleaner of a soul than most any President the U.S.A. has ever had.

But I don't expect today's younger generation to really understand how the theories and practices of Communism is anti-christ and anti-Christian, since today's school systems are soft on Communism also.

Today's schools don't teach a lick of anything when it comes to communism so they couldn't possibly be soft on it. Heck, even independent schools get communism and Marx wrong. Look at Khan Academy's video on communism for a good example.

When world Communism finaly reaches its goal for their plan of a "one world government" in our near future, only then will many deceived but true followers of Christ begin to understand the difference.

Communism is explicitly anti-state. You have to understand that it's first and foremost anti-capitalist but that it is anarchist in theory as there are undeniable connections between the property relations capitalism necessitate and the centralized authority of the state or similar aparatus.

I also don't believe communism is absolutely anti-Christian. Maybe the more violent means to post-capitalism that some adhere to could be considered anti-Christian if you disagree with specific arguments that attempt to justify anti-capitalist violence as defense, but not every communist or anarchist is alike. Capitalism is probably far more antithetical to Christianity and Jesus' teachings than we'd like to admit, what with its primitive accumulation and the violence and coercion used to propogate the property relations required for such an exchange-relation we observe under capitalism. What better way to spit in the face of our Lord than to situate His creation within a system that necessitates unequal power ratio's between people through great manipulation of arbitrary property claims and monetary systems thus creating social stratification and struggle for basic substistence. Contrary to 1980's American pop and political culture, greed is most definitely not good. Sorry Reagan. Sorry Gekko.

 

[Apocalypticist]

What actions are you referring to?

I get that he was a founding member of an organization that utilized violent action but putting it into historical context Mandela, MK, African National Congress didn't act beyond legal authority for over 5 decades of attempting reform, and even then they weren't fully united on these decision. The man as an individual is probably far cleaner of a soul than most any President the U.S.A. has ever had.

Today's schools don't teach a lick of anything when it comes to communism so they couldn't possibly be soft on it. Heck, even independent schools get communism and Marx wrong. Look at Khan Academy's video on communism for a good example.

Communism is explicitly anti-state. You have to understand that it's first and foremost anti-capitalist but that it is anarchist in theory as there are undeniable connections between the property relations capitalism necessitate and the centralized authority of the state or similar aparatus.

I also don't believe communism is absolutely anti-Christian. Maybe the more violent means to post-capitalism that some adhere to could be considered anti-Christian if you disagree with specific arguments that attempt to justify anti-capitalist violence as defense, but not every communist or anarchist is alike. Capitalism is probably far more antithetical to Christianity and Jesus' teachings than we'd like to admit, what with its primitive accumulation and the violence and coercion used to propogate the property relations required for such an exchange-relation we observe under capitalism. What better way to spit in the face of our Lord than to situate His creation within a system that necessitates unequal power ratio's between people through great manipulation of arbitrary property claims and monetary systems thus creating social stratification and struggle for basic substistence. Contrary to 1980's American pop and political culture, greed is most definitely not good. Sorry Reagan. Sorry Gekko.

The more proper way of referring to it is a pre-Communist teaching, very heavy on propaganda. By failing to portray the Soviet Union in the proper light, and by teaching children the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 is actually priming them for a later Soviet intrusion. It produces an amenability to socialist principles, which is incidentally what they've amalgamated federalism with, which is the idea that American democratic-republicanism is benefitted or made better by some introductions of low grade socialism, which is incidentally describing perfectly the school system of perhaps the last 30+ years.

American society has really collapsed over time as socialist encroachments have multiplied. If true capitalism were practiced it would exist simultaneously with the maximum degree of liberty. As to the degree to which the public is informed, it is of course on a considerably lower level than it was generations ago. This could be traced to when emphasis in education was turned away from objective standards and went to the outcome based model. The further introduction of the whole word method rather than the phonic system has had disastrous results for literacy. These could be seen among others as socialist intrusions. Socialism fundamentally believes not in equality of opportunity but equality of results. Therefore, to give a kid an F on a test is not because he's incompetent, it's because of his race or his sexual orientation. Further, it is harmful to his 'self-esteem' to give him the grade he deserved and so he should be given an A and passed to the next grade. That is a wholly collectivist view.

As to whether it's anti-Christian. Necessarily? I'm not sure. As to whether it works that way in practice I think that is demonstrated in every country it has been implemented in. Any dissent to the Communist power structure was considered counterrevolutionary and has historically been met with oppression such as forced psychiatric care, being sent to concentration camps or simply being gunned down.

Where are the Christian Communist countries? Not only will you not find that, you will not even find a Communist country that tolerates Christianity. Is that an outrageous request to ask to be tolerated? When in America, it enjoyed a high degree of religious freedom. That was until recently thanks to the Democratic party. Europeans were never worried about an equality of results. They only wanted the freedom to practice their religion and pursue what made them happy. That is what made America great. Socialist governments do the opposite.

 

[Suhar]

I also don't believe communism is absolutely anti-Christian.

What do you base your belief on? In real life absolutely everywhere communists got absolute power they went after church as fast and as violent as they could.
Yes in some countries they kind of tolerated at least some forms of religious expression but even that was only token tolerance. It was well known that all priests of few remaining Orthodox churches in USSR were KGB snitches those who were not snitches went to gulags. What little of religion was not crashed was corrupted.

 

[veteran]

What actions are you referring to?

I get that he was a founding member of an organization that utilized violent action but putting it into historical context Mandela, MK, African National Congress didn't act beyond legal authority for over 5 decades of attempting reform, and even then they weren't fully united on these decision. The man as an individual is probably far cleaner of a soul than most any President the U.S.A. has ever had.

Today's schools don't teach a lick of anything when it comes to communism so they couldn't possibly be soft on it. Heck, even independent schools get communism and Marx wrong. Look at Khan Academy's video on communism for a good example.

Communism is explicitly anti-state. You have to understand that it's first and foremost anti-capitalist but that it is anarchist in theory as there are undeniable connections between the property relations capitalism necessitate and the centralized authority of the state or similar aparatus.

I also don't believe communism is absolutely anti-Christian. Maybe the more violent means to post-capitalism that some adhere to could be considered anti-Christian if you disagree with specific arguments that attempt to justify anti-capitalist violence as defense, but not every communist or anarchist is alike. Capitalism is probably far more antithetical to Christianity and Jesus' teachings than we'd like to admit, what with its primitive accumulation and the violence and coercion used to propogate the property relations required for such an exchange-relation we observe under capitalism. What better way to spit in the face of our Lord than to situate His creation within a system that necessitates unequal power ratio's between people through great manipulation of arbitrary property claims and monetary systems thus creating social stratification and struggle for basic substistence. Contrary to 1980's American pop and political culture, greed is most definitely not good. Sorry Reagan. Sorry Gekko.

Someone has done a great job on you by your ability to even think Communist ideology could ever represent social progress for mankind.

Capitalism most definitely is aligned with... God's Word, and it's simple to discover because God's laws honor property rights of the individual and also the 'rights' He gives to the individual which is forever apart from 'state control'.

Communism is the anti-thesis of God's laws, simply because it does NOT honor the rights of individuals nor their God-given rights to pursue happiness and peace.

Communism IS... the 'State' and cannot exist without it (yes, Marx and Lennin lied about that). The Communist 'state' owns and controls ALL rights of the individual, adult or child! It does NOT honor God's laws nor does it recognize His sovereignty.

The ONLY equally shared right within a Communist society is POVERTY. (That's why Communist nations traditionally have had to do whatever necessary to get survival handouts from the FREE nations who's economies are setup to PROSPER. Without Capitalists in the FREE nations Communist nations would never survive.)

When Communists invade a household and REMOVE property that belongs to the owner of the house, it is called STEALING, not social progress!

The idea of 'war' as "politics by other means" is a Communist notion and practice, not a Capitalist practice. No true Capitalist wants war, because it disturbs the free market enterprise (you didn't learn this about WWI and WWII?).

Regean's policies were SOCIALIST in nature, as with the majority of U.S. Presidents since before the U.S. Civil War. Woodrow Wilson was a Socialist, FDR was a Socialist and even called Joseph Stalin "uncle Joe". ANY U.S. President that helps Communists tear down U.S. Constitutional laws and rights are closet Communist-Socialists.

Many of the rich in the U.S. who have practised Capitalism are actually pro-Communists who give funds to support Communist ideology. (Trotsky didn't give the $10,000 to charity or back to its owners now did he?).

The fact that Communist Russia and Red China have been forced to begin practice of CAPITALISM and seek the help of Capitalists or fail, further proves Communist ideology does not support social progress for mankind.

The world controller's plan to join Western Capitalism with Eastern Communism = a one world Socialist State they call "one world government" (The Naked Communist, by ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen, 1958). It will fail because it refuses to do things God's Way.

 

[BearingTheTruth]

which is the idea that American democratic-republicanism is benefitted or made better by some introductions of low grade socialism

Socialism may not benefit American democratic-republicanism but this is probably because American democratic-republicanism is only about maintaining the hierarchy by introducing wedge issues that reduce the effectiveness of progressive social action, like providing for the homeless and unemployed/underemployed.

American society has really collapsed over time as socialist encroachments have multiplied.

What socialist encroachments are you referring to that are directly responsible for the "collapse of American society"? What do you even mean?

If true capitalism were practiced it would exist simultaneously with the maximum degree of liberty.

What is true capitalism?

Socialism fundamentally believes not in equality of opportunity but equality of results.

This is simple propaganda. There is no such thing as equality of results or opportunity. The notion that everyone has had equal opportunity is hilarious. The problem is that capitalism operates under the guise of a meritocracy where if you work “just as hard as travolta” you too can have a 40 room mansion and two jets in your back yard. It’s absurd because capitalism doesn’t even incentive equal opportunity. Capitalism operates from differential advantage which means that someone - perhaps me - has a 4:1 power ratio or a 400:1 power ratio relative to you in society. It is the only way this market can operate.

And anyway it’s not like you can rewind time and give the homeless guy an inheritance of $10,000 from grandpa bob or prevent the alcohol inebriated individual from getting into her car and putting a family in emotional and financial ruin. You have to deal with the very real and very now issue of a human being that lacks the most basic necessities. You have to be Godly which is not to be confused with playing God. Plus there is an increasing amount of very good research – along the lines of epidemiological studies and such – that show that reducing social inequality and stratification is better for everyone.

Further, it is harmful to his 'self-esteem' to give him the grade he deserved and so he should be given an A and passed to the next grade. That is a wholly collectivist view.

State sponsored education facilities aren’t about educating people. They are about disciplining labor for the purposes of capital reproduction. It’s of no surprise that social stratification embodies more things than just financial status but to think that any one of our education policies is truly about addressing this problem is absurd. It’s state run in a capitalist economy. What do you expect?

As to whether it's anti-Christian. Necessarily? I'm not sure.

The question was really only in regards to communism not exactly socialism. There are some fundamental distinctions between the two but the reasons for why religion and Christianity are not at odds with either socialism or communism is because neither require atheism. The only thing that I can think of would be the hierarchy that many organized religions build. A communist society would structure power relations in a dispersed form through democratic organization with teachers rather than concentrated at the top with leaders dictating. We would probably come to a very quick realization that we don't need the pastor telling us what to do with our lives or the pope dictating God's law and so organized institutional religion would probably wither away and die like the state. Can you imagine it? The pope havign to actual work for a living?

As to whether it works that way in practice I think that is demonstrated in every country it has been implemented in.

I’d be more than impressed if you can find one country where communism was actually implemented. There certainly have been communist revolutions but in the case of the USSR they were co-opted through violent state dictatorship and from a Marxist class analysis surplus was still handled in a capitalist manner. They also had western capitalist interests breathing down their neck.

Cuba allows religious practice. It does some things very right when it concerns socialism but certainly isn’t something I’d present as a shining beacon of communism or socialism. Like the USSR, their history is full of external pressures from violent and coercive capitalist super powers. Even recently U.S. tax dollars have gone towards funding and creating dissident groups within Cuba. It was also a dictatorship even pre-revolution…which happened to be right kind of dictatorship for western capitalist backing. Once the revolution began the western powers didn’t like the dictatorship all that much. Funny how that happens.

If anything I’d say Cuba is an example of socialism working in spite of external factors that its capitalist neighbors have been crippled by – think Guatemala or El Salvador. They also have no valuable natural resource, they are still under an oppressive trade embargo and yet they’ve managed to eradicate poverty, they rank higher than most Latin American nations on the HDI scale, and they’ve created a health care service with such success that they now export more of it as foreign aid to 3rd world nations than all the G8 nations combined.

Capitalism most definitely is aligned with... God's Word, and it's simple to discover because God's laws honor property rights of the individual and also the 'rights' He gives to the individual which is forever apart from 'state control'.

Communism is the anti-thesis of God's laws, simply because it does NOT honor the rights of individuals nor their God-given rights to pursue happiness and peace.

You aren’t making any distinction between the specific types of property theory involved in each system. In order to create the exchange-relation and social hierarchy we observe under capitalism absentee property is required which is often - through newspeak - referred to as private property. This is completely counter to anything that honors personal property or individual rights and results in the subjugation of the majority non-elite non-owners through coercion and violence at the benefit of the minority elite owners. Every form of communism is against absentee property but they aren't against personal property.

Capitalism requires starving a population of their ability to freely associate with production for their own personal benefit and at the cost of no-one, at the benefit of the few who arbitrarily claim ownership. How else do you prevent an entire population from free access to these things and the ownership of the products of their own labor but through violence and coercion?

Communism aims to remove this hierarchical arbitrary claim to resources. In doing so it actually respects individual liberties far better than capitalism ever could even in its most ideal application. I don't self identify as a communiist or even a Marxist - although I think Marx was spot on when it came to diagnosing the problem - but I certainly lean anti-capitalist given the inherent violence of the capitalist mode of production. To think that you have to accept the continued existence of 1 billion starving people on this planet in order to be a capitalist is just not good enough for me. And I'm a realist -not an idealist- if that tells you anything.

And the early Christian church was an inherently anti-capitalist movement if you look at their views on property. It used to be a democratic community made up of the poor and oppressed until its bureaucratization in Rome.

“Share everything with your brother. Do not say, ‘It is private property.’ If you share what is everlasting, you should be that much more willing to share things which do not last.”

Communism IS... the 'State' and cannot exist without it (yes, Marx and Lennin lied about that).

Nothing within the theory of communism requires a state except - depending on what type of communist you talk to - the transition period with the DotP. But so long as there are capitalist superpowers there remains the risk of invasion to subjugate the population to the coercive property theory it requires by violently enforcing arbitrary claims to ownership on means of production. In such instances utilization of state power will probably be an effective means of staving off capitalist oppresors. ;)

The Communist 'state' owns and controls ALL rights of the individual, adult or child!

This is also not necessary or true. But look at how true it is with capitalism.

The ONLY equally shared right within a Communist society is POVERTY. (That's why Communist nations traditionally have had to do whatever necessary to get survival handouts from the FREE nations who's economies are setup to PROSPER. Without Capitalists in the FREE nations Communist nations would never survive.)

Another false claim which demonstrates a lack of historical knowledge and context.

No true Capitalist wants war, because it disturbs the free market enterprise (you didn't learn this about WWI and WWII?).

No true capitalist. I'm hearing this a lot now. What is "true capitalism"? Because in my experience its just a fancy way of defining the problem away which is just another way of conceding the point.

The only thing that matters in capitalism is exploiting purchasing power for means of capital reproduction. In times where war accomplishes this war will be waged. Because the property relations within such a system require inequity - otherwise why would anyone enter into the exchange relationship if they don’t have to? – the forceful – be it through coercion or outright violence – prevention of the non-elite minority from engaging in production for their own benefit as they see fit is also required. In order for you to have to enter into the market for food water shelter and anything else you must first be deprived of equal and free access to the means of creating and accessing these things for yourself.
This is what capitalist war ventures accomplish. Monopoly or near monopoly control of resources in a geographic region by which to discipline labor into the machine of capital reproduction. It doesn't take but a cursory examination of history or even of the world right now to realize the ruin capitalism has incentived and been responsible for.

The fact that God has been tied to it – and ultimately used Him in vain – is no different than when other power structures tie other similarly popular belief systems to non-natural constructs. They are manufacturing consent which is best done by framing the system in such a way that people start to believe it to be the natural order of things or a divine right. An immutable law of nature. They show you idols and pictures that represent a populaces One True God, and everyone quickly forgets the human beings holding them up. These constructs are not from God they are from other human beings for the purposes of sedating you.

ANY U.S. President that helps Communists tear down U.S. Constitutional laws and rights are closet Communist-Socialists.

You’re just defining anything that goes against your undefined “freedoms” to be "communism". The next person to accidentally ding your car in the parking lot is going to be accused of being a closet communist.

I'd certainly be interested in your articulated understanding of communist theory, if you please.

 

[veteran]

You aren’t making any distinction between the specific types of property theory involved in each system. In order to create the exchange-relation and social hierarchy we observe under capitalism absentee property is required which is often - through newspeak - referred to as private property. This is completely counter to anything that honors personal property or individual rights and results in the subjugation of the majority non-elite non-owners through coercion and violence at the benefit of the minority elite owners. Every form of communism is against absentee property but they aren't against personal property.

Modified forms of Communism after the late 1950's doesn't outwardly work the same that Marxist-Lenninist Communism did. Doesn't mean the later ones are beyond using the old Marxist-Lenninist ploys again, and that's one of its biggest problems. In early Russia people were by force moved off their farms they owned, the individual PERSONAL property was confiscated for the cause of the revolution. ALL property became the property of the 'people', and that's still... what modern Communism is about too, the Party simply chooses when and who to sieze it from. No human with common sense would like a government with even a latent ability to take the people's personal property against their will, which is robbery by the state apparatus plain and simple. In the days of early Communism previous land owners caught back on their farms because of starving were executed for stealing from the 'people' who suddenly became the owners after Communists came to power.

Capitalism requires starving a population of their ability to freely associate with production for their own personal benefit and at the cost of no-one, at the benefit of the few who arbitrarily claim ownership. How else do you prevent an entire population from free access to these things and the ownership of the products of their own labor but through violence and coercion?

Communism aims to remove this hierarchical arbitrary claim to resources. In doing so it actually respects individual liberties far better than capitalism ever could even in its most ideal application. I don't self identify as a communiist or even a Marxist - although I think Marx was spot on when it came to diagnosing the problem - but I certainly lean anti-capitalist given the inherent violence of the capitalist mode of production. To think that you have to accept the continued existence of 1 billion starving people on this planet in order to be a capitalist is just not good enough for me. And I'm a realist -not an idealist- if that tells you anything.

You got it backwards, Communism intentionally 'starves' its population in order to keep the people under their controls. That's why so many people that lived behind the Iron Curtain were constantly trying to figure a way to escape to the free nations. But the Communist Party members, now they had access to anything they wanted, showing plainly that those behind Communist strategy aren't really for the people, but instead for what power and wealth they can STEAL from the peoples. Communism is simply the use of tyranny in order to steal and manipulate.

Today we're in a new era, there is no more such thing as pure Capitalism nor pure Communism. Instead they have joined together, which was actually the plan all along to get control over all nations and peoples. The majority of western leaders haven't been practicing true Capitalism for a long time. Capitalism is about a Free Market economy for everyone, not just those with political ties. Western Socialists have put in place their state controls to prevent the majority of the free peoples to have a real chance at true prosperity. Those socialist strageties originate from Communist ideology of only two classes, a worker class and a ruling class.

As for the poor, IF... their nation's leaders would institute reforms that align with God's laws and Way, then their people wouldn't have to suffer. But what is Communism doing today to help those peoples? They are training and supplying Muslims as revolutionaries to overthrow any vestiges of free societies that might be left in those nations. The Communist Internatiional loves... those radical Muslims, because those radicals absolutely hate... wealth and progress, especially if it comes from the western Christian nations. They would rather live in caves and tents like primitive man! Their view of social progress is suicide to get a harum in Heaven, which is really just a ritual sacrifice practice from their old Molech style worship centuries ago.

Communism, Socialism, they're nothing but tools being used to help bring a "one world government" upon the earth over all peoples and nations. Support of it is as asinine as support of radical Islam.

 

[KingJ]

I don't think this is a correct definition. One must profess that Christ is who He said He was...God in the flesh. To just believe that Jesus was a nice guy and that you like what He stood for is not enough.

As Christians we are to take the Great Commission seriously. It was not a suggestion but a command. We should openly confess that Christ is our personal Savior. Did Mandela do this? I don't know that much about him. If you love the Lord..you want everyone to know it. We certainly can not judge anthers heart...but God did say we could and should make righteous judgements. How else do we protect the godly? What did Mandela's actions show towards Christ?

That is a really good point. The fact that he never praised Jesus never hit home until now :wacko:. I guess, I like most assumed it. I am sure I heard him say 'thank you Jesus though'...must try find that speech!

 

[BearingTheTruth]

Modified forms of Communism after the late 1950's doesn't outwardly work the same that Marxist-Lenninist Communism did. Doesn't mean the later ones are beyond using the old Marxist-Lenninist ploys again, and that's one of its biggest problems.

What specifically are these old Marxist/lenninist ploys? You aren’t articulating your understanding of communism.

In early Russia people were by force moved off their farms they owned, the individual PERSONAL property was confiscated for the cause of the revolution. ALL property became the property of the 'people', and that's still... what modern Communism is about too, the Party simply chooses when and who to sieze it from.

Contemporary or classic communism hvae never been about removing all property. They make distinctions between absentee and personal property soemthing you've failed to do.

No human with common sense would like a government with even a latent ability to take the people's personal property against their will, which is robbery by the state apparatus plain and simple.

But this isn’t what communism advocates. And what about coercively and violently removing people from free access to the means of production a la capitalism? Do you think that isn’t robbery by state apparatus?

In the days of early Communism previous land owners caught back on their farms because of starving were executed for stealing from the 'people' who suddenly became the owners after Communists came to power.

The USSR wasn't communist and right here you're describing absentee property. This means you do find something disagreeable about absentee property which means you find something disagreeable about foundational concepts within a capitalist mode of production.

You got it backwards, Communism intentionally 'starves' its population in order to keep the people under their controls. That's why so many people that lived behind the Iron Curtain were constantly trying to figure a way to escape to the free nations.

The famine wasn't intentional thats just nazi propaganda. Russia actually exported agriculture technology and labor as well as grain to Ukraine during the famine.

You haven’t produced a single nation that achieved communism or anything close to it. From a Marxist class analysis the USSR operated purely from a capitalist mode of production. Changing the ownership of the means of production does not mean that the mode of production has been changed because state control is equal in this context to private control. The outcome is the same and the exchange-relation is the same.

Communism is simply the use of tyranny in order to steal and manipulate.

There is nothing about communism that is aligned with this statement.

Capitalism is about a Free Market economy for everyone, not just those with political ties.

“Free Market” is an oxymoron in the context of a capitalist mode of production. There is only primitive accumulation at the benefit of an elite few - coercion and violence through state powers to strengthen the power of this elite few and propagate their arbitrary absentee property claims that force everyone into the market for basic necessities - and the complete farce we know of as the money commodity which is loaned out with interest pushing the majority non-owners into indefinite indentured servitude.

At best a mutualist perspective sits closest to anything I'd call "free market" but you still have the reality that if you have to enter into the market for something you need or desire there really isn't any "free" choice being made here. Maybe read Ezra Heywood or Proudhon because you might not accept capitalism and just don't realize it. I think the minute people start realizing that the overbearing state powers they are vehemently opposed to are both theoretically and practically inseperable from capitalist markets they'd start exploring the better options out there.

As for the poor, IF... their nation's leaders would institute reforms that align with God's laws and Way, then their people wouldn't have to suffer.

You should be specific here. What reforms align with God’s laws and Way?

those radical Muslims, because those radicals absolutely hate... wealth and progress, especially if it comes from the western Christian nations.

It’s pretty easy to radicalize a population –religion or no religion- when bombs are being dropped from the sky on families in the name of GDP growth and there is decades worth of history in which governments and social movements have been manipulated for the benefit of imperialist interests. This is just another case of your blaming the wind for being communist because it stole your hat.

Communism, Socialism, they're nothing but tools being used to help bring a "one world government" upon the earth over all peoples and nations. Support of it is as asinine as support of radical Islam.

Supporting movements that are anti-capitalist and anti-centralized power are the furthest things from assinine in this context.

 

[Historicist]

No, anyone complicit in necklacing, in burning people alive, and appearing in front of the Communist flag (see YouTube) saying "kill the Boer (whites)" is not a Christian. Mandela had even fewer Christian qualities than does the Muslim Marxist Barrack Obama.
Mandela was a Communist. Communism, since the Bolshevik revolution, has caused the deaths of 100 million people (Web search book The Black Book of Communism). Mandela therefore, was about as Christian as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others, those who killed the 100 million.

 

[BearingTheTruth]

Communism, since the Bolshevik revolution, has caused the deaths of 100 million people (Web search book The Black Book of Communism). Mandela therefore, was about as Christian as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others, those who killed the 100 million.

I’ve read The Black Book of Communism and it has some severe faults. For one it fails to present one single communist nation but actually addressing this doesn’t seem to be something you or Veteran are willing to do. I wonder why. It’s a lot like someone pointing to The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as representative of either democracy or republicanism. The book presents all these nations as representing the same thing in order to argue against it. Do people even understand the history surrounding Pol Pot and Vietnam? The history of Vietnam’s fight for independence? Pol Pot even said he wasn't communist and that he wanted Cambodia to "belong to the west".

It also doesn’t give any analysis on why the system of communism failed. Ignoring that the authors weren't analyzing any actual communist systems at the very least they could have made an argument against the theory. This is the biggest failure of the book because without this analysis then it fails to justify the conclusion that the death toll was a necessary and direct result of the system of communism. And this is all assuming that the death toll is accurate but there isn't any scholarly consensus on these numbers. One author of the book Stephan Courtois even upset his co-authors his said that his introduction was "more a diatribe than a balanced scholarly treatment".

But I can’t approach the authors with these issues but I can and have done so to you and Veteran. I haven’t yet received any reply along the lines of systemic and fundamental failures within communist theory.

What about the fact I pointed out earlier about capitalism necessitating robbery via state apparatus by violently and coercively preventing peaceful individuals from free access to the means of production? I’m pointing out flaws in the theory of capitalism that translate into its practice.