NationStates Jolt Archive

Bill Gates is NOT a communist simply because he gives money to the poor. Giving money to the poor is NOT a branding of a communist. One does not reveal their soci-economic standing simply because it is known that they give to charity.

You avoided answering the question, I see.

I'll 'avoid' responding to your content, until you do, okay?

You sure like to make strawmen don't you...

Charity is NOT redistribution of wealth on the economic level, thus advocating charity =/= communism.

(BTW: you have yet to provide a source of your definition of communism, outside of your own imagination. Whereas YOUR communism = socialism, in truth, communism =/= socialism. Your first clue about that truth should be that the communist had to make up a new name for themselves because socialism already had a meaning and it didn't mean what they wanted to define when they invented communism.)

They had to make up a name for an economic model that had existed for millennia. They even used examples of it in the early Christians (based on Christ's teachings). Engel said that where the example falls is that he thinks the religious aspect is counter-productive, but he never says their economic model, based on the teachings of Christ, is not completely in line with what he is trying to bring about. Engel thought Christ was a good example. Apparently that's not good enough for you. Maybe he MADE UP the definition of communism as well in you're fantastic world.

Meanwhile, I have provided multiple sources. Goldfishing is not becoming. Those sources said clearly that communism is not limited to the Marxist model, something you don't seem to be willing to accept. But, hey, what's a little fact worth when you're attempt to sell people on this fantasy you call an argument.

You aren't even amusing. You completely contradict yourself. One moment you claim that Jesus was promoting money-making and like the rich and the next -

Jesus said the ‘best’ people are prophets and matures that will agree to being the poorest and the most destitute of us

What Jesus preached was not communism, it was destitutism.

Followed by your accusation to me -
Jesus only really said "Greed" he didn't say he was against the amassing of wealth, YOU are projecting that onto his teachings yourself.

So apparently, destitutism isn't against amassing wealth. Whoops, someone's memory doesn't last for 20 pages even when it's their own argument. I'd be embarrassed were I you.

Charity and giving money to the poor is NOT an exclussive communist principle, regardless of how many times you try to make the claim.

I didn't say it was an exclusive communist principle. I said that given that he was suggesting things very in-line with communist principle, it makes your example, intending to show he wasn't communist, a very poor example. It, in fact, does more for our argument than yours. Keep trying to change it if you like but there's not a person reading that can't see your folly.

They had to make up a name for an economic model that had existed for millennia. They even used examples of it in the early Christians (based on Christ's teachings). Engel said that where the example falls is that he thinks the religious aspect is counter-productive, but he never says their economic model, based on the teachings of Christ, is not completely in line with what he is trying to bring about. Engel thought Christ was a good example. Apparently that's not good enough for you. Maybe he MADE UP the definition of communism as well in you're fantastic world.

Meanwhile, I have provided multiple sources. Goldfishing is not becoming. Those sources said clearly that communism is not limited to the Marxist model, something you don't seem to be willing to accept. But, hey, what's a little fact worth when you're attempt to sell people on this fantasy you call an argument.

You aren't even amusing. You completely contradict yourself. One moment you claim that Jesus was promoting money-making and like the rich and the next -

Followed by your accusation to me -


So apparently, destitutism isn't against amassing wealth. Whoops, someone's memory doesn't last for 20 pages even when it's their own argument. I'd be embarrassed were I you.


As Cartman said, on the episode of Southpark I watched last night: "pwned".

You avoided answering the question, I see.

I'll 'avoid' responding to your content, until you do, okay?

I avoided the question? Nooooo, lets see here. YOU said….

Okay - we'll simplify here. Let's assume your 'version' of what I have said here is related to truth...

Would you object to Bill Gates being termed a communist? Or do you plead special exception for a certain Nazarite?

Then I said:

Bill Gates is NOT a communist simply because he gives money to the poor. Giving money to the poor is NOT a branding of a communist. One does not reveal their soci-economic standing simply because it is known that they give to charity.

It looks like I actively objected to Bill Gates being termed a communist from in the example given and then I posited why Bill Gates could not be determined to be a communist from the evidence provided. Thus, the answer to your question was in fact given…

As to whether or not you answer my 'content' that's immaterial to the point that my content is correct...

As Cartman said, on the episode of Southpark I watched last night: "pwned".

Apparently you failed to appreciate that despite all his twisting and turning and squirming, he failed to define the difference between what he thinks is communism and what he thinks socialism is.

But the circular back-patting you two do is about the only good thing you can feel about your position at this point, I feel for you both.

Apparently you failed to appreciate that despite all his twisting and turning and squirming, he failed to define the difference between what he thinks is communism and what he thinks socialism is.

But the circular back-patting you two do is about the only good thing you can feel about your position at this point, I feel for you both.

Ah, I see. So it doesn't matter that you consistently contradict yourself. What matters is that I keep giving the SAME links that show multiple types of communism over and over and over? Good to know. How about you address the post, or admit that you can't. Or is pointing out that you made one claim about Jesus and then when I made the exact same claim, you claimed it was wrong, squirming. I guess I squirm a lot if squirming means "pointing out where a poster contradicts himself repeatedly". But, hey, it's not the first term you changed the definition of.

I avoided the question? Nooooo, lets see here. YOU said….

Then I said:

It looks like I actively objected to Bill Gates being termed a communist from in the example given and then I posited why Bill Gates could not be determined to be a communist from the evidence provided. Thus, the answer to your question was in fact given…

As to whether or not you answer my 'content' that's immaterial to the point that my content is correct...


The question was simple: Would you object to Bill Gates being termed a communist.

Your answer explained why you think he isn't. It didn't answer the question of whether or not you object.

Are you now saying you DO object to Gates being termed as a communst?

The question was simple: Would you object to Bill Gates being termed a communist.

Your answer explained why you think he isn't. It didn't answer the question of whether or not you object.

Are you now saying you DO object to Gates being termed as a communst?

I think the more material question is would he used Gates' charity as an example of how non-communist he is, like he did with Jesus.

Ah, I see. So it doesn't matter that you consistently contradict yourself. What matters is that I keep giving the SAME links that show multiple types of communism over and over and over? Good to know. How about you address the post, or admit that you can't.

Address which post? The one where you seem to think socialism = communism = destitutism?

That's not a point, it's silly, and very incorrect.

Jesus DID advocate destitutism, Jesus ALSO had rich friends and attended the parties of the elite. You seem to have a problem with this fact of his, but the fact that you try to pigeon hole Jesus Ministry is your personal problem, not a problem of the scriptures.

There are many examples of Jesus doing many things, advocating any one socio-economic model over another is NOT one of them though.

Apparently you failed to appreciate that despite all his twisting and turning and squirming, he failed to define the difference between what he thinks is communism and what he thinks socialism is.

But the circular back-patting you two do is about the only good thing you can feel about your position at this point, I feel for you both.

From the outset, you have made the argument that communism is a social mechanism, and a political mechanism.

Neither has been true of 'communism', but both HAVE been true of governments/nations that have INCLUDED communist thought.

Communism is purely an economic model, although there are some themes that tend to accompany it - like the idea of taking from each according to ability, and giving to each according to need.

But - over and over, you have conflated Marxism, 'communist party politics', and 'communism', to create one multiheaded strawman that you can use as a champion.

If anyone is failing to observe the line between 'socialism' and 'communism', I think you might want to point the finger a lot closer to home.

The question was simple: Would you object to Bill Gates being termed a communist.

Your answer explained why you think he isn't. It didn't answer the question of whether or not you object.

Are you now saying you DO object to Gates being termed as a communst?

"Would I " became irrelevant after the fact that I actively DID IT for you to remove all doubt. I did object to Bill Gates being called a communist in answer to 'would I'.

Address which post? The one where you seem to think socialism = communism = destitutism?

That's not a point, it's silly, and very incorrect.

Jesus DID advocate destitutism, Jesus ALSO had rich friends and attended the parties of the elite. You seem to have a problem with this fact of his, but the fact that you try to pigeon hole Jesus Ministry is your personal problem, not a problem of the scriptures.

There are many examples of Jesus doing many things, advocating any one socio-economic model over another is NOT one of them though.

I never said that socialism equals communism equals destitutism. I am making replies to your very specific claims.

You said that Jesus didn't say anything against amassing wealth -
"AS to how Jesus really felt, when you said "... but he made it clear that he wanted them to avoid greed and the amassing of wealth." Jesus only really said "Greed" he didn't say he was against the amassing of wealth, YOU are projecting that onto his teachings yourself."

According to you to claim he said anything against amassing wealth is to project my claims onto his teachings. Yet, you claim that he preached destitutism. Is destitutism not against amassing wealth or can you simply admit now that you contradicted yourself?

And my point about amassing wealth is that you gave the example that since Jesus didn't speak out against amassing wealth then he couldn't be communist. You used examples of wealthy people as 'evidence' that he wasn't communist. These are your arguments, not mine.

"He does not condemn them or their livelihoods, as you said he did."

You use his lessons to wealthy people as examples to claim he had no issue with wealth in context looking like this -
AS to how Jesus really felt, when you said "... but he made it clear that he wanted them to avoid greed and the amassing of wealth." Jesus only really said "Greed" he didn't say he was against the amassing of wealth, YOU are projecting that onto his teachings yourself.

Jesus regularly eats with the rich and the wealthy, apparently liking their company the same as everybody else’s, even at the prominent Pharisee’s houses on occasion.

He does not condemn them or their livelihoods, as you said he did. He is quoted on one occasion telling them to invite people that can’t reciprocate their invitations so that they (AS Rich people having hosting parties mind you) will generate riches in heaven. And on other occasions Jesus uses rich property owner examples of analogies of God and Heaven.

Here Jesus clearly says that the rich can earn heavenly rewards by hosting banquets via charity etc., without giving away their ability to host banquets in the first place…

Hmmm... so it is you that makes claims that Jesus did not condemn amassing wealth, hence why I quoted you stating that Jesus was for destitutism which most certainly does speak out against the amassing of wealth. I didn't make the claim that they are all equal. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of your arguments.

If you were being consistent, we could do a real comparison of Jesus's teachings to those of communism, but according to you Jesus both encouraged people to amass wealth and at the same time preached destitutism.

What Jesus preached was not communism, it was destitutism.

I think the more material question is would he used Gates' charity as an example of how non-communist he is, like he did with Jesus.

Gates was not FORCED to redistribute wealth. He did so voluntarily - just as the model of an 'ideal' communist/socialist society suggests... just as Jesus suggested.

Gates served a higher calling with his choice (philanthropy), just as communist/socialist theory might suggest (again, a kind of societal philanthropy), and just as Jesus preached.

Gates has 'given according to his ability'. The Gates Foundation specifically addresses issues of helping the needy... so he has made a gesture that will 'give to others, according to need'... just as many communist/socialist models suggest... and just as Jesus preached.

In the case of the Gates example, you could strongly argue that wealth IS the 'means of production'. The money is invested to yield a product.He has taken himself out of the equation, except as a backer and a visionary for the project. Thus - he has, literally, placed this 'means of production' in the hands of the people who are doing the producing.

Gates has taken a step, within a capitalist society, that is almost perfectly textbook communism... and that also matches many of the 'ideals' of the socialist/communist platform. And, curiously, that gels perfectly with the preaching of a certain wandering Jew.

"Would I " became irrelevant after the fact that I actively DID IT for you to remove all doubt. I did object to Bill Gates being called a communist in answer to 'would I'.

Poppycock. I can show arguments that 'object' to things that I, personally, do not.

I think your argument was flawed. I think it was weak. But, your ARGUMENT wasn't the topic of the question - your opinion was.

I take it you are now saying that your 'opinion' was that, yes, you would object...?

...
If you were being consistent, we could do a real comparison of Jesus's teachings to those of communism, but according to you Jesus both encouraged people to amass wealth and at the same time preached destitutism.

A HA, there, you see it, you are so close, possibly for the first time.

Jesus did BOTH. It is not my inconsistency to simply point out that Jesus was neither communist nor capitalist. You pigeonhole his lessons, and in so doing you have to ignore the stuff that doesn’t agree with what you want to say. But the truth is. Jesus wasn’t a communist and he didn’t despise wealth, he warned against greed. Jesus taught of degrees. For some, destitutism, for some celibacy, for some raising children and monogamous marriage. Jesus did not advocate that all people should be married, nor that all people should be single. Jesus did not advocate communism, nor did Jesus advocate capitalism….

A HA, there, you see it, you are so close, possibly for the first time.

Jesus did BOTH. It is not my inconsistency to simply point out that Jesus was neither communist nor capitalist. You pigeonhole his lessons, and in so doing you have to ignore the stuff that doesn’t agree with what you want to say. But the truth is. Jesus wasn’t a communist and he didn’t despise wealth, he warned against greed. Jesus taught of degrees. For some, destitutism, for some celibacy, for some raising children and monogamous marriage. Jesus did not advocate that all people should be married, nor that all people should be single. Jesus did not advocate communism, nor did Jesus advocate capitalism….

You don't get it. He can't do both. You're violating the purpose of the English language. You claim he PREACHED destitutism and now you claime he PREACHED the opposite. Preached carries a very strong belief with it. If I preach something I can't preach the opposite at the same time or preach is the wrong word. I think it's so amusing that I'm squirming when you actually attacked me for pointing out that he advocated against material wealth while you claims that he PREACHED against material wealth (preached being an obviously stronger word).

You can try to flip this all you like, but you clearly claim he did something and then that he didn't do it. You can't both do and not do something.

To be clear, direct quotes of you -
What Jesus preached was not communism, it was destitutism.
[Jesus] didn't say he was against the amassing of wealth

Pretend all you like, but he can't both have preached something and not said it. That's a basic principle of the meaning of the word 'preached'.

You are trying to spin, but you didn't say he was neither into destitutism or capitalism. You said he was both a preacher for destitutism AND capitalism, which is absolutely inconsistant. You can be neither, but you cannot be both for amassing wealth and against it. It's a contradiction in terms.

A HA, there, you see it, you are so close, possibly for the first time.

Jesus did BOTH. It is not my inconsistency to simply point out that Jesus was neither communist nor capitalist. You pigeonhole his lessons, and in so doing you have to ignore the stuff that doesn’t agree with what you want to say. But the truth is. Jesus wasn’t a communist and he didn’t despise wealth, he warned against greed. Jesus taught of degrees. For some, destitutism, for some celibacy, for some raising children and monogamous marriage. Jesus did not advocate that all people should be married, nor that all people should be single. Jesus did not advocate communism, nor did Jesus advocate capitalism….

You are wrong. You say "the truth is..." and then all you cite is opinion. And, we've already seen that you don't feel the need to connect your 'opinions' to any semblence of fact... to whit: your constant insistence that 'communism' is anti-religion.

Jesus DID teach degrees... this part is true. But, he also taught some mdoels as preferable to others. To say he didn't, is to completely ignore the Beatitudes. And, among those things he supported as 'better', was a vision of the society where everyone helped, and everyone gained reward... was a vision of a world where everyone took a personal responsibility, but also a community responisbility.

His 'product' was spiritual, and he empower the LAY person to 'produce' it, in place of the generations of priests that had claimed a need to act as intercessors.

In real terms, Jesus democratised god, and brought the gift of spiritual communism to the believer.

If you don't see that, I fear you have mis-read half of the Bible.

:rolleyes: Gates was not FORCED to redistribute wealth. He did so voluntarily - just as the model of an 'ideal' communist/socialist society suggests... just as Jesus suggested.

Gates served a higher calling with his choice (philanthropy), just as communist/socialist theory might suggest (again, a kind of societal philanthropy), and just as Jesus preached.

Gates has 'given according to his ability'. The Gates Foundation specifically addresses issues of helping the needy... so he has made a gesture that will 'give to others, according to need'... just as many communist/socialist models suggest... and just as Jesus preached.

In the case of the Gates example, you could strongly argue that wealth IS the 'means of production'. The money is invested to yield a product.He has taken himself out of the equation, except as a backer and a visionary for the project. Thus - he has, literally, placed this 'means of production' in the hands of the people who are doing the producing.

Gates has taken a step, within a capitalist society, that is almost perfectly textbook communism... and that also matches many of the 'ideals' of the socialist/communist platform. And, curiously, that gels perfectly with the preaching of a certain wandering Jew.

Oh, no, I can see it coming now. See it doesn't matter that so many things are in common with communism. Because according to our little friend here if it is also part of ANY other model then it doesn't matter that there are so many overlaps with communist theory. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Oh, no, I can see it coming now. See it doesn't matter that so many things are in common with communism. Because according to our little friend here if it is also part of ANY other model then it doesn't matter that there are so many overlaps with communist theory. :rolleyes:

There has never been a perfect model... either political, social or economic. Jesus lived in this imperfect world, with it's imperfect models. Jesus didn't NEED there to be a perfect model applied collectively - he was content to help us 'tend towards perfection'. Indeed - maybe I'm wrong - but I see that as the WHOLE message of Jesus' ministry.

I wonder, then, why Poot insists on such black-and-white definitions... "Jesus CAN'T be a communist, because he's engaged in a capitalistic encounter here..." Like the two MUST be exclusive?

There has never been a perfect model... either political, social or economic. Jesus lived in this imperfect world, with it's imperfect models. Jesus didn't NEED there to be a perfect model applied collectively - he was content to help us 'tend towards perfection'. Indeed - maybe I'm wrong - but I see that as the WHOLE message of Jesus' ministry.

I wonder, then, why Poot insists on such black-and-white definitions... "Jesus CAN'T be a communist, because he's engaged in a capitalistic encounter here..." Like the two MUST be exclusive?

I wonder if Marx ever sold anything. I think Poot would expect better from the Messiah of Marxi... oops, I mean communism.

You sure like to make strawmen don't you...

Charity is NOT redistribution of wealth on the economic level, thus advocating charity =/= communism.

(BTW: you have yet to provide a source of your definition of communism, outside of your own imagination. Whereas YOUR communism = socialism, in truth, communism =/= socialism. Your first clue about that truth should be that the communist had to make up a new name for themselves because socialism already had a meaning and it didn't mean what they wanted to define when they invented communism.)
This is either another part of the debate that you have lost track of, or a deliberate lie made in the hope that everyone else has lost track of the debate.

The fact is that Jocabia, Sheni and I all presented a definition of communism for you, in the historical overview article from Wiki which has been posted, cited, and quoted in this thread several times, by several people including you.

We have given our definitions. You have rejected them because they aren't what you want them to be, but that doesn't mean they were not given. The definitions of communism that Jocabia and GnI are using are consistent with the history of the development of communism beginning before Marx and continuing after Marx. These definitions support their argument and defeat yours. History proves it: Marxism is a communist system, but it is not the only one. Therefore, communism =/= Marxism.

I wonder if Marx ever sold anything. I think Poot would expect better from the Messiah of Marxi... oops, I mean communism.

He sold copies of his book, perhaps?

There has never been a perfect model... either political, social or economic. Jesus lived in this imperfect world, with it's imperfect models. Jesus didn't NEED there to be a perfect model applied collectively - he was content to help us 'tend towards perfection'. Indeed - maybe I'm wrong - but I see that as the WHOLE message of Jesus' ministry.

I wonder, then, why Poot insists on such black-and-white definitions... "Jesus CAN'T be a communist, because he's engaged in a capitalistic encounter here..." Like the two MUST be exclusive?
Well, we must remember that Poot is arguing for himself, not his god. He invented this argument and, apparently, he will be damned before he will give it up as lost, even if it means he must redefine Jesus's ministry into a socio-economic message rather than a spiritual one. It seems it is more important to Poot that Christianity stand AGAINST communism than that it stand FOR sharing and a non-materialistic outlook.

This is either another part of the debate that you have lost track of, or a deliberate lie made in the hope that everyone else has lost track of the debate.

The fact is that Jocabia, Sheni and I all presented a definition of communism for you, in the historical overview article from Wiki which has been posted, cited, and quoted in this thread several times, by several people including you.

We have given our definitions. You have rejected them because they aren't what you want them to be, but that doesn't mean they were not given. The definitions of communism that Jocabia and GnI are using are consistent with the history of the development of communism beginning before Marx and continuing after Marx. These definitions support their argument and defeat yours. History proves it: Marxism is a communist system, but it is not the only one. Therefore, communism =/= Marxism.

I have rejected NON-descriptive definitions of what Jocabia defines communism as. You both have tried to relate to historical aspects of who you think practiced communism before marxism, but neither of you have stated what it is, only what you think it is NOT. That doesn't work though, you've removed too many definitions of communism and what you are talking about is not communism anymore, but socialism.

What is the definitive difference between socialism and communism IF those things like property ownership do not actually define what your side likes to call "pure voluntary communism"?

Such an example as:

Communism is not simply communal living individuals. It is not simply government ownership of production.

Communism as a social system, *is a society without classes, without a coercive state and without social inequality. Communism is the society of general freedom, where all power rests in the hands of an educated, organized and self-acting people. It is a social system in which all aspects of society — politics, economics, culture and social relations — are organized and developed for the benefit of all humanity, and not for the profit of a few.


(*pretty much verbatim of what the communists league describes of themselves)

Another, more precise description of the border between socialism and communism is:

Many calling themselves socialist would like to stop with the nationalization of the means of production and not move on to communism. They also often oppose the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the name of democracy. For example, they supported the imperialist World War I, because the majorities of their countries supported it, while we Marxist-Leninists found World War I anathema to the proletariat, against survival "rights."

Since World War I, there has been a very large split between many calling themselves "socialist" and those calling themselves "communist;" however, to make matters more complicated there are socialists found who would not support World War I today and there are "communists" who would favor doing whatever the majority wants. There are also "social-democrats" who want reforms to imitate the results of socialism while keeping capitalism.

When MIM uses the terms, we use them this way: 1) "Communism"--the classless society with no state of the distant future. "Communist"--someone who wants to get to communism or the adjective for "communism." Examples include many tribal societies of the past and in remote areas still living today.

2) "Socialism" refers to that period/stage between capitalism of today and the communist goal. During that stage there is "dictatorship of the proletariat." Examples are the USSR under Lenin and Stalin or China under Mao.

3) "Social-democrats"--whether they call themselves "socialist" or not, people opposing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in practice and hence socialism itself. Examples would be Sweden today.
Link (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/commievssoc.html)