• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Dr. K.A. Skala of Denver writes:

Reader Fox ("Gasp! Jesus even had capitalists as friends", 8/31) corrects one part of the fallacy believed by Pamela Blome (""CCU students misled", 8/27): some Christian religious orders might have practiced commonality of ownership here and there but that has never been accepted practice among Christians as a whole. Blome also thinks the communist slogan “to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities” demonstrates a kinship between communism and Christianity.
What her claim clearly demonstrates is that she may have “studied communism” under some brainwashed leftist professor but never lived under that system for a day. (Neither did the pinko academic peddling it.) Having lived under a mild developing form of communism for three years and the open, full-blown form for a year and a half (many of my friends and relatives were stuck under it for decades), I must pity the delusion under which ignorant Western admirers of that malignancy put themselves.
What the shell artists they trust failed to tell them: “To each according to his needs” sounds good. Until you find out that in the communist system, it is solely the ruling terrorists - not the unfortunate peons - who determine what everybody’s needs are: the rulers’ needs are fabulously lavish, and the peons are reluctantly given the crumbs. The ruling terrorists also determine everybody’s ability to contribute: besides a stream of orders, nothing is required from them except thick skin, a talent for demagogy, and the ability to survive the schemes of his colleagues. From the subjects, as much as the state can squeeze out of them (they are prevented from leaving by electrified barbed wires, mine fields, and swarms of privileged trigger-happy guards watching each other at the border).
You want to compare the communists to Christ, Ms. Blome? A better comparison would be the communists v. the nazis (Adolf Hitler comes out of that as, relatively, the altar boy.)

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

well, I started reading this with delight, another Jesus letter, until I got to brainwashed leftist etc. Pinko academic and all that descrilption of a dictarorship manquarading as a good system, but really being nothing more then another feudal arangement with barbed wire and guns.

A bad ruler if a bad ruler no matter what socio/economic system they hijack.

Back in the time of Jesus, capatilism or communism were not applicable, but of course the poor lived a kind of voluntary communal system.

Read some history of people under Rome, look at the British Isles and all the other countries. People had to pool their resources to survive.

But the government did not make them do it.

well, I started reading this with delight, another Jesus letter, until I got to brainwashed leftist etc. Pinko academic and all that description of a dictatorship masquerading as a good system, but really being nothing more then another feudal arrangement with barbed wire and guns.

A bad ruler if a bad ruler no matter what socio/economic system they hijack.

Back in the time of Jesus, capitalism or communism were not applicable, but of course the poor lived a kind of voluntary communal system.

Read some history of people under Rome, look at the British Isles and all the other countries. People had to pool their resources to survive.

But the government did not make them do it.

The only Marx I ever admired were Groucho, Harpo,and Chicko.

The only Marx I ever admired were Groucho, Harpo,and Chicko.

tj, so glad they double posted both of us, now I feel better. Wasn`t there a 4th Marx? Zippo or something?

Skala: "that has never been accepted practice among Christians as a whole."

Is Skala talking about loving one's neighbors or turning the other cheek or giving the shirt off one's back?

As the saying goes, there's nothing wrong with Christianity, it's just that we haven't tried it yet.

Make that loving one's enemies.

Truth, you can love your enemies, but not your neighbor? I think what you can`t do with your neighbor is covet. As in no coveting his wife, ass, or possessions. (joke)

In fairness to Pamela Blome, I don't think she was thinking about what the despotic communistic governments were about but rather the ideals contained in Marx' statement about from each according to his ability and to each according to his need.

If that quote captures what communism is, then obviously there haven't been any communist governments.

There have been plenty of socialst and communist governments to judge their systems. Communism/socialism began as economic theory and neccessitated the governments they formed. Democracy began as a governing theory (Greece was an aristocracy at that time). It did not neccessitate an economic system other than free trade.
Over 200 million people paid the price of their lives last century because of communism/socialism. Why is Dr. Skala ignored by Truth and Sharon B.? Because light is shined upon their religion: socialism. "It hasnt been tried, its not a pure form..." Hogwash! The government that are born of those corrupt economic systems are repressive and ulitimately totalitarian. LEARN from history. And Truth, voting between 2 socialists, does not make it a democracy. In America, I can vote for a democrat or a republican, or a socialist, a communist, a green, and at one time Pat Paulson. That is a democracy.

The basic problems of communism at any level are many. As has been pointed out, even in a communist state, there are different social classes with higher classes notoriously getting it easier than the lower classes. Another point of problems is, if each person only receives what he 'needs' regardless of how much he gives to the society, where is the individual's incentive to excel by giving all his ability to the society?

I saw the second problem with communism when I was a freshman in high school (ca 1980-81) and realized that sooner or later communism would fall. The only reason Chinese communism hasn't fallen already is they have slowly opened up (somewhat) to allowing individual's to reap the rewards of their individual efforts. China has become more socialist than communist.

Our problem in America is we have a faction that seems to have ignored the damaging effects of communism and the economic handicapping of socialism. Capitalism may have its problems, but in my view I would rather deal with them than the alternatives.

Tom, I don't know whose post you were responding to but it sure as hell wasn't mine. You need to learn to read. And it wouldn't hurt anything if you learned to think.

As I said, if communism is "to each according to his need and from each according to his abililty" then we haven't had any communist countries. Or perhaps it is your uneducated view that the Soviet Union did practice that maxim.

The trouble is that the word communism as we use it today has nothing to do with that maxim. It refers to a tyrannical and despotic government that murders people in droves. In case you hadn't noticed, Tom, murdering people is different from "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability".

As Skala noted, that maxim sounds good. In other words if there were a system that achieved that maxim, it would be good. But there isn't, except in small communities.

Lord, I wish they would banish kindergarteners from the forum.

Truth, I have read many of your posts. You often cite internet sites as your source. I use books: ie The Communist Manifesto. What more, I study, not just read. You sir, are an idealist. Like an idealist, you ignore what is real or historical. What is factual is that communism/socialism has failed. Their history is one of bloodshed and repression. Such systems come in conflict with individual freedom and economic realities. Any theory, by definition, is subject to being tested. The test of communistic/socialistic theory has cost many their freedom and lives. Enough! If you accept Marx' "thesis/anti-thesis" arguement, then come up with something other than a failed system. Your scholarship has come up wanting, but you are obviously intellegent. Please refrain from name calling, its ideas that are important.

Who said "Socialism is the next step to Communism?"

You are right, Tom. I was out of place to use the term "kindergarteners". I apologize.

Of course, I have said nothing whatsoever, I repeat NOTHING, to indicate that I favor communist regimes such as the Soviet Union. You have inferred otherwise, and in doing so you grossly misrepresent me. You don't like name calling, but stating untruths is apparently OK in your book.

That Marxist maxim is not a theory, any more that love your neighbor is a theory. And it is clearly a saying that echoes many of the exhortations of Jesus, such as giving the shirt off your back to someone without one. But It is a saying that no communist nation has observed.

I repeat, if that saying defines communism, then there have been no communist governments. People don't dislike communist governments because they practice that maxim because they do not practice it. People dislike communist governments because of the atrocities they have practiced.

A person doesn't need to have read much about communist governments to understand that; he simply needs to be able to read and understand the English language.

Although communism is idealistically appealing, it doesn't work. In fact the only time "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" works is in a subsistence economy. Once you have a surplus, the questions becomes who gets it and at that point Communism falls apart.

In fact, voluntary idealistic communities have been tried in the past and none of them have ever lasted longer than 20 year. The problem with idealism is that it is contrary to human nature. And even when you have a whole community of idealist, idealism fades over time.

Replying to Jim, while I agree that that Marxist maxim doesn't work in real life, except in small communities, I repeat that the reason we are vigorously opposed to communism is not because of that maxim since it has never been tried by a communist government but because of the despotic and murderous nature of governments like the Soviet Union. Just as we weren't opposed to Hitler because of his alliances with industry but because of the despotic and murderous nature of his government.

To some extent, most worthwhile governments do attempt to provide for people according to their need. And we like to think that those who are unusually successful will likewise be unusually generous.

That Marxist maxim is an attractive ideal. The fact that it was Marx rather than Jesus who said it notwithstanding. Jesus put forth a number of ideals that conflict with reality, such as love your enemy, turn the other cheek and give the shirt off your back. It's a little bit about that saying that just because Hitler believed that 2 + 2 = 4 does not make it wrong.

It is the nature of ideals that they do conflict with reality. But I don't think many people would conclude that we shouldn't have ideals. Our country was founded on ideals. The Bill of Rights has a number of them.

POST A COMMENT

• Too much sports
• Review the war in Iraq
• Teaching
• Falcons Football should stay
• 9/11 anniversary
• Terrorist plots still a possibility
• Teachers don’t deserve pay raise
• Democrat’s deals