It came to my attention that people don't always understand the differences in political philosophies. We all point fingers and declare someone a socialist or a communist. First let's talk about the differences.

The word communist comes from the word commune. Back in ancient times people often lived in communes that shared resources. This was often necessary for the survival of the community. In those days people who didn't pull their load were ostracized or eventually forced from the community. When life was more about survival than pleasure, this was a necessary way of life.

As the population expanded and life became easier, society slowly drifted away from the communal lifestyle until it became more socially oriented. As late as the 50's you could find close knit communities where people looked after the neighbor's children. They formed fire brigades to protect their neighbor's houses. As late as the 80's if a hurricane hit you would find neighbors with buzzing chainsaws out clearing roads. You would find your way clear when work time came, not because government came to help, but because of the community effort.

Once you expand beyond a few people, they then begin to form towns and cities. It's at this stage it becomes difficult to just appoint elders to lead. You then must have elections to form a government. Since the communal system is gone they can no longer kick people out of town for not carrying their load, so they must lean how to deal with those citizens.

Some of those people will drink to excess or gamble. For whatever reason they cannot function in society, and we often feel sorry for those people and try to help them. Today you will find churches and other organizations helping these people, and sometimes turning them into productive citizens.

We eventually have multiple towns that form counties, and then multiple counties that form states. It is now impossible for churches and charities to deal with all the people who can't assimilate into society. Humans by nature are social creatures and for that reason we will try to look after those who are less fortunate. Because there are so many of the less fortunate, especially in hard economic times, we often turn to government to help those individuals. Many find it easier to let government collect taxes to watch after the less fortunate than to sift through the growing list of charities that are too often corrupt. Our government then becomes socialist to some some extent.

In short, communism is where government owns everything, or no one owns anything. In the perfect communist society there would be no government, just a group of wise, caring elders. We know this is impossible and that's why communist societies soon fall apart. You will always have greed at the top, with some at the bottom that have no ambition to work because everything is provided.

The same thing can be said for socialist societies. When some people learn they don't have to work they will exist off tax dollars. Once you take away the incentive to work, society begins to decay. You will have a few at the top working for everyone else.

There is no perfect solution. I can't see a way for the modern society to free itself from all socialism, but we must find ways to keep people from becoming dependent on government. All social welfare should come with an exit strategy. People will never work when social welfare dollars exceed wages of jobs for which they are qualified.

There is no single solution to these problems because each area of the country is different. Around the country people find themselves on welfare for different reasons. In some areas it has simply become a way of life. We, as a country, cannot solve the problems for every community. We now have a federal government that can create money from thin air to fund perpetual welfare. This is why the US government has become socialist. They also take from the rich and give to the poor, but rarely do those dollars come with an exit strategy from poverty.

It is for this reason the federal government cannot be trusted with the social welfare of Americans. They have unlimited power to take and give. They believe the country has unlimited resources, and in some sense it does because they can create money. States have limited resources. The wealthy will leave the state if government tries to take too much of their money. Because they have limited resources they will be forced to create social programs with an exit strategy that is best for their community and the individual.

Views: 1058

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

What you say sounds well and good, but before communism became an entitie of its own it was just another of many socialist theories.  When the commnists defeated the Socialist Labor Party in Russia and Russia became a communist government, you will note that communists often refered to its communist government as a socialist government.  All forms of socialism are economic forms of government not political liked our Consitutional government, a govenment of laws.  A socialist economic government consists of the rich aristocracy  (bourgeoisie), the oligarchy, and the working poor or slaves- the prolitariet. There is no such thing as the middle class.  Notice how our middle class is slowly disappearing.   Thats because we no longer have a Rebulican Government of laws, but a socialist economic big government controled by the invisible New World Order.  Notice that we are being controled by a small group of opligarcist just like Hitlers Germany. Nazism was just another form of socialism, and oddly, Hitler was a CFR member of the German Chapter. The CFR is a would wide movement, but americans are not suppose to know about them.  Because I speak out is why I'm censored so often and it certainly isn't by patriotic Ameicans.  Ask yourselves  why doesn't the news media, the politician ad he goverment tell us these things in this economic situatom we are now in. Simple, they don't want you to know...  ~  Maynard Merrell  Doj't Tread On Me! 

Please view the video at the link provided: This video describes graphically, in detail, the different forms of government and their attendant economic systems. It's about thirty minutes in duration. It will show that the Left-Right perception that people have is a fallacy; another Communist fallacy. Please watch this video in its entirety because it's the second half that is best. This video can be ordered on a CD from It's called "Overview of America".

Another good video on utube is greek heritage by hillsdale college. Its about how government becomes corrupt and about Socrates. Socrates must have seen our future in a vision.

Mark---Thanks for the YouTube, a Freedom Project video

Very well presented and easy to understand the differences between the form of governments and where most of those governments went down in burning flames throughout history.

STATISM with an alter.

It appears as thou Constitutional Sheriffs are the only elected group standing against Communism.

Sheriff Brigade Chaplain Thomas Gilbert Cole(Chaplain Tom)

What is a "Constitutional Sheriff" other than a self appointed one or one selected by a small group, what makes them so "holy", and what makes you think you're the only group standing up against communism? Is it hubris?

This is a good read on where the words came from but more importantly, We need more Constitutionalists Sheriffs. We need them to lead our towns as when the Federal Government decides that our Constitution is a old worn out document and decides to pay us a visit we will have local support from these most important people who will help us hold on to what we have.  The only problem we have now is keeping these important people in office.  It has been determined that some of the Sheriffs, those who are taking federal money to help them run their local government, do not agree with the Constitutionalists Sheriffs.  We, the Tea Party and self appointed Patriots should take small steps to keep these people in office and help to replace the ones who do not support our Constitution.  I could not believe what I was hearing a couple of weeks ago on CBS (Communist Broadcasting Station) where a columnist was saying out loud right there on TV that our Bill of Rights was a old worn out document written years ago and did not apply to today.  If anyone watching this was not totally insulted and put out then you need to find another Country to live in.  This was a direct insult to our Great Nation and all of those brave souls who gave their ultimate sacrifice to keep us free.  Stay the course Patriots and let us take action and hold on to what we have.  We owe it to all who gave their lives as well as all who put in time to keep us free. 

The primary problem with communalism in all its forms is that it is based on false premises, starting with the Hegelian theory of history and the dialectic.

Hegel opined, and Marx and the whole left assimilated, the bizarre theory that the only actors in history were collectives, such as "peoples" and "nations" and "corporations" and similar legal fictions. This allowed them to believe in non-existent "laws of history" that lead, inevitably  to the socialist/fascist/communist/whatever collectivist paradise.

They are wrong. Only individuals feel, think, plan and engage in human action. The rest is political fiction.

"One more bullet through one more brain and we'll be in the socialist paradise..."

Contrary to the collectivist insanity is the view of human action offered by the study of Praxiology, or the study of Human Action, as identified and developed by L. von Mises, the leading philosopher of freedom in the Twentieth Century.

It is the irrational belief in what has been called "The Triumph of the Will" that led to the horrors of the Twentieth Century -- The Century of Megadeath. That belief says Govt can decide and the world will conform. It is, of course, infantile fantasy. It is the belief that the books never need to be balanced.

Or, as Mises put it at the end of his masterwork, Human Action:

Man's freedom to choose and to act is restricted in a threefold way. There are first the physical laws to whose unfeeling absoluteness man must adjust his conduct if he wants to live. There are second the individual's innate constitutional characteristics and dispositions and the operation of environmental factors; we know that they influence both the choice of the ends and that of the means, although our cognizance of the mode of their operation is rather vague. There is finally the regularity of phenomena with regard to the interconnectedness of means and ends, viz., the praxeological law as distinct from the physical and from the physiological law.

The elucidation and the categorial and formal examination of this third class of laws of the universe is the subject matter of praxeology and its hitherto best-developed branch, economics. The body of economic knowledge is an essential element in the structure of human civilization; it is the foundation upon which modern industrialism and all the moral, intellectual, technological, and therapeutical achievements of the last centuries have been built. It rests with men whether they will make the proper use of the rich treasure with which this knowledge provides them or whether they will leave it unused. But if they fail to take the best advantage of it and disregard its teachings and warnings, they will not annul economics; they will stamp out society and the human race.

In, I recall, 1971, just before his passing, Mises spoke to a gathering of then-young libertarians at the Society for Individual Liberty in Philadelphia. He told us, "You are eating your seed corn." He was right.

Ralph---Mark Ennis Smith posted this YouTube video which ties into your post.

In my humble opinion if you want to see a perfect explanation of both "Socialism" and "Communism" in action simply refer to our present day government.

Communism and socialism do have things in common—take from the rich and give to the poor, or equal distribution of wealth. (However, that's not what happens because you'll always those greedy, power hungry leaders who want more) The other thing they have in common is the "abolition of private property rights". 

What you are really talking about is "marxism" which is both socialism and communism. Karl Marx outlined his view of a utopian society in his Communist Manifesto where there were no "rich", but everyone sharing in all of the wealth and resources where no one is allowed to own property. But he's assuming all men are "good". We know there will always be men/women who are greedy and tyrannical, always forcing "their will" on others.

UN Agenda 21 is just that — the abolition of private property because in their minds, people who own property are natural "abusers" of that property. The flaw with their logic is that the "elite" DO own property because they deem themselves the only ones who are wise or important enough to take care of property, and they plot to take it all away from the poor and middle classes, because they believe "we" are not smart enough to take care of it to their liking. Anyway you look at it, it's the force of one man's "will" on another by attempting to control human behavior.

In opposition, is the liberty and free will that God gives us all which the Founding Fathers embraced. They set out to create a wealthy nation of commerce so that ALL could benefit from that wealth produced through productive, intelligent, imaginative, and innovative people. You'll ALWAYS have the poor, but very little under a free enterprise system. Community charities are supposed to help the poor, downtrodden, and needy, not government. People are encouraged to work and to live up to best of their capabilities rather than be encouraged to be lazy. As the book of Proverbs states, "Oh thou sluggard.... how quickly thy poverty shall come upon thee."

Contrary to the marxist philosophy, working is not a "curse". Those who work actually have a good sense of self worth and esteem. They also have healthy sense of accomplishment. Also, as the book of Proverbs states, "the labourer's sleep is sweet". When you put in good day's work, you are tired and sleep well. It is good for both your physical and psychological well-being. And THIS is the "General Welfare" that the Founding Fathers were concerned about. Government MUST BENEFIT ALL EQUALLY, not "special welfare". The states as a whole must all be able to benefit from the resources each state has to offer. That was done by assuring that goods and raw materials were able to be moved through the states without hindrance.

The Founders also wanted a just system of weights and measures as God laid out. That's why the coining of money was to be based on "regulating the value thereof, and of foreign currency". 

Free enterprise allows you to work as little or as much as you would like depending upon the type of standard of living you want. Without government interference, we are allowed to grow and prosper without hindrance to that prosperity. That in turn allows us to help others grow and prosper by either giving them jobs, or allowing them to invest in that prosperity.

For example, it was the Dutch who brought the free enterprise system to America via the Calvinist/Puritan Pilgrims. At first, they tried a form of communism, but it failed because a few were doing all of the work while everyone else slacked off, and crops failed due to lack of help, etc. Then they decided on what the Dutch had taught them. At that time, the Dutch were all receiving a 15% return on their investments in each other's businesses, farming, etc. They are the example that the free enterprise system actually does work and is successful. The Calvinist Pilgrims in New England were thriving and became prosperous with the cod fishing industry, farming, textile mills, etc. All without government help. All without permits, licenses, taxes, and prohibitions. The people policed each other. You did not violate your neighbor's rights or you went before the community judges where you were publicly humiliated and chastised. There was no need for prisons. You paid restitution according to God's law, or if you committed premeditated murder, you were put to death to "put this evil away from society". You didn't burden the people with bill in keeping people in prison. 

Any way you look at it, the system and government God set up is the ONLY one that will work and has been proven to work. All others fail.




Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.


Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service