Mediaboss Marketing

ULYANOVSK - When Airat Gibatdinov was born in 1986, Mikhail Gorbachevs Perestroika had already set the Soviet Union on its path to oblivion.

But now, the local lawmaker and deputy head of Russias revived communist party in Ulyanovsk the Volga riverside hometown of the U.S.S.R.s founding father Vladimir Lenin has dedicated his life to resurrecting a Soviet socialism he barely remembers.

We are the only party that fights for the working class, said Gibatdinov in an interview at the Russian Communist Partys Ulyanovsk headquarters, an unassuming warren of offices decked with red flags and Lenin portraits sandwiched between a high-end coffee joint and a hookah bar.

I hope well see a new Russian socialism in my lifetime.

Though widely considered part of the tame, Kremlin-loyal systemic opposition, the Communist Party (KPRF) still the countrys second largest political organization has seen a modest uptick in its support ahead of parliamentary elections in September.

With the pro-Kremlins United Russia blocs polling sinking to historic lows ahead of the vote for the Duma lower house of parliament, the Communists are hoping to turn popular discontent over falling living standards into a strong showing at the polls, including in cities like Ulyanovsk.

Once the leading opposition to Boris Yeltsins free market reforms in the 1990s, the KPRF has long since become part of Russias political establishment.

Though the partys first, and so far only leader, Gennady Zyuganov only narrowly lost to Yeltsin in the 1996 presidential election, over the past two decades he has taken a more loyalist direction, offering rhetorical opposition to the Kremlin while remaining broadly supportive of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Its a shift that has been accompanied by a steady decline in the partys national standing.

Once the countrys largest single political force with broad nationwide support, the Communists now rely on an aging, Soviet nostalgic voter base of between 10 and 15%, concentrated in a handful of strongholds.

Ulyanovsk, a city of 600,000 that spans a picturesque bend in the Volga river 400 miles east of Moscow, is one of them.

Previously known as Simbirsk, Ulyanovsk has for almost a century borne the name of its most famous son, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov better known as Lenin.

Even though this increasingly prosperous provincial center today bears little resemblance to the quiet backwater where Lenin was born in 1870, and left, never to return, at seventeen, the Bolshevik leader remains a ubiquitous presence in Ulyanovsk.

In the city center, a string of sprawling museum complexes commemorate the life and achievements of Lenin, and his steely-eyed visage adorns craft beer bars catering to Ulyanovsks student population.

On the main square, Ulyanovsk State Pedagogical University bears the name of Lenins father Ilya Ulyanov, a provincial school inspector who died when the future revolutionary leader was sixteen.

For Ulyanovsks communists, their citys link with the revered Soviet founder is a source of continued pride.

The one thing everyone knows about Ulyanovsk is that its where Vladimir Iliych Lenin was born, said Gibatdinov, using Lenins patronymic as a sign of respect.

Even though they dont teach the history of Lenin and the revolution properly anymore, something has remained in our mentality. People here have a very strong sense of fairness.

Its a revolutionary heritage that lives on even three decades after the Soviet Union collapsed. At the last parliamentary election in 2016, Ulyanovsk was one of a handful of cities where the KPRF defeated United Russia to win the local Duma district.

But Ulyanovsk is also a microcosm of the wider dilemmas facing Russias modern communists, who must reconcile a revolutionary ideology with their status as a systemic pillar of the political establishment.

The citys State Duma deputy Alexei Kurinny is a relative radical within the KPRF who publicly praised jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalnys personal bravery on his return to Russia in January.

By contrast, the regions communist governor, Alexei Russkikh appointed by Putin in April after his unpopular United Russia predecessor was fired is widely seen as Kremlin-loyal, and his nomination a reward for the party leaderships continued cooperation with the authorities.

The communists are a very complex, divided party, said Tatiana Stanovaya, founder of R.Politik, a political consultancy. The senior cadres understand what they have to lose and play by the Kremlins rules.

But many of the younger officials in the regions want a more confrontational approach to the authorities.

Today, there are signs that the Communists comfortable coexistence with the Kremlin may be coming to an end.

Even as polls show the KPRF set to almost double its 2016 vote share amid anxieties around sliding incomes and an eroding social safety net, the authorities have denied a string of high-profile communists registration as candidates.

In July, Pavel Grudinin an agribusiness magnate who came second to Putin in the 2018 presidential election was barred from running for parliament in September.

Though Grudinin was formally banned for having failed to properly disclose overseas investments, many communists, including Grudinin himself, saw it as a politically-motivated move against a popular and independent-minded candidate.

It was a story repeated throughout the lead-up to the polls, with would-be communist candidates including Saratov regional deputy and popular videoblogger Nikolai Bondarenko and influential Moscow party boss Valery Rashkin threatened with exclusions of their own.

For many in the party, the wave of bans is aimed at quashing a defiant atmosphere in parts of the KPRF increasingly unwilling to toe the Kremlins line.

The mood in the party is getting more radical, said Yevgeny Stupin, a Communist Moscow City Duma deputy who has been facing efforts to strip him of his office after he attended protests in support of Navalny in the winter.

United Russias ratings are low enough that they need to disqualify us to have a chance of winning.

Though critics say Russian elections have rarely been free or fair in recent years, systemic opposition parties have at least been able to win from time to time.

But with controversial new electronic and early voting schemes that some fear will make falsification easier than ever, opposition-minded communists increasingly doubt that victory is possible, regardless of public opinion.

Given whats happening at the federal level, with early voting, electronic voting, its becoming more difficult for us, said Gibatdinov, who is running for the Duma in an Ulyanovsk region district.

Of course, they can just rig it.

But above all, candidates of all stripes must contend with deep-seated apathy among the Russian electorate.

A recent survey by Kremlin-linked pollster VTsIOM put interest in politics at a seventeen-year low only six weeks from election day.

At Ulyanovsks various Lenin shrines, there is a steady stream of visitors but little evidence of revolutionary zeal ahead of the polls.

Were very far from politics here, said Olga Shaleva, a tour guide at the citys Lenin House-Museum, the restored mansion in which the young Vladimir Ulyanov spent his early years.

People visit our museum out of interest in history, not political beliefs.

According to some experts, a low turnout in September could play into United Russias hands.

Though the ruling partys polling remains mired below 30% amid corruption scandals and fallout from an unpopular 2018 pension reform, it is still much higher than any other party, with the second place KPRF attracting only 16%.

If turnout is as low as expected, United Russia is likely to retain its two-thirds majority in the State Duma, even with a much reduced vote.

The Kremlin wants the elections to be as boring as possible, said political analyst Stanovaya.

Its in their interests that turnout is low, and that opposition-minded voters stay at home.

But for the citys communist stalwarts, despite voter apathy, fraudulent elections and the Kremlins screw tightening, elections are still worth contesting, even in an ever more undemocratic Russia.

The people have been brainwashed against us for years. said Gibatdinov. It may be difficult, but we can still win.

The leftward turn is inevitable.

View original post here:
'The Leftward Turn Is Inevitable': In Lenin's Hometown, Russian Communists Strive for Soviet Revival - The Moscow Times

During the leaders debates, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh wasnt forced to explain his support of crushing basic freedoms, superseding parental rights, and protecting the safety of immigrants who commit serious crimes over that of Canadians.

He explained when pressed whod pay for stuff he promises to lavish on Canadians if hes PM.

The billionaires, silly!

One problematic reality in the way of Singhs fantasy is the shortage of taxpaying billionaires to pick up the tab of the breathtaking billions his extreme plans would cost.

Maybe Singh could import billionaires along with the tankers of oil from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere thatll arrive with greater frequency to keep Canada running if he succeeds in his quest to shut down its energy industry.

Clever. Dangle shiny objects of free everything in front of voters universal pharmacare plan, dental and mental health coverage while ending private, for-profit care. Simultaneously, get them too resentful of those selfish rich folk to notice your plan has more holes in it than a sieve.

Theres nothing original in Singhs ploy to seduce voters with promises of cradle-to-grave handouts. He echoes the empty vows hard-core socialists always make before they destroy quality of life and country. History proves they all fail.

Think dictator Fidel Castro who made similar promises. When he died in November 2106, hungry, sickly, bitter, oppressed Cubans rejoiced.

Not Singh. He tweeted: He saw a country wracked by poverty, illiteracy and disease. So he led a revolution that uplifted the lives of millions. RIP #FidelCastro.

Is it plausible Singh, a slick former criminal defense lawyer, didnt know about Castros death squads, imprisonment of homosexuals, or promises of education and healthcare that never materialized?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also expressed his deep sorrow over Castros death.

These toxic twins Singh and Trudeau agree on a lot, especially the destruction of Canadas energy industry, and tend to prop up one anothers unpopular policies.

Different parties, same ideals.

Trudeau made unkept promises to deliver Utopia but still ratcheted the national debt to an astounding $1.1-1.3 trillion. Singhs making impossible promises of Utopia on steroids thatll drive it higher. He makes U.S. President Joe Bidens spending policies look like Reaganomics in comparison.

Singh put a price tag on his grandiose election promises after Canadians already started early voting claiming $166 billion in projected revenues of the $214 billion over five years needed for his programs would come from tax hikes for Canadas wealthiest residents and businesses.

There was a time when the super-wealthy paid more of their fair share. Thats what we want to return to, that the burden should not be shouldered by the middle class, by working people. It should be those at the very, very top, said Singh.

Inevitably, the middle class will pay. They always do. Programs always cost buckets much more than what theyre pitched at.

They include: health care $68 billion; reconciliation with indigenous peoples $30 billion; initiatives to fight climate change and support energy workers in the transition $26 billion.

Revenue would also come from plans to implement a 20% foreign home buyers tax and eliminate oil and gas sector subsidies.

Last month, Singh promised to eliminate a whopping $18 billion in fossil fuel subsidies for oil and gas companies and redirect the savings to the renewable energy sector.

The problem with that is the oil and gas industry doesnt get $18 billion in subsidies. It does pay high taxes, and particularly in Albertas case, props up the welfare programs Singh loves with equalization payments.

Singh declared war on the fossil fuels industry. Hed finish the job Trudeau started in destroying Alberta. Shockingly, races are hairline tight in some ridings, including Edmonton Centre and Edmonton Griesbach, between Conservative and NDP candidates.

After how former NDP premier Rachael Notley decimated the province, why are Albertans, other resource-rich provinces, and First Nations who want to get their energy projects going, even toying with voting NDP? Imagine if Singh declared his intent to destroy Ontarios auto industry or Quebecs aviation industry?

Singhs cradle-to-grave socialism that will harm middle-class Canadians and small businesses is hardly all that should worry Canadians.

Singh promotes division by accusing Canada of being a place of racism saying Muslims are not safe in this country without offering proof because there is none.

What else does he support?

Vaccine passports,

A government-enforced stay-at-home order to combat COVID-19,

Pouring more money into the wasteful United Nations and World Health Organization,

Citizenship tests for immigrants covering very basic and simple topics to demonstrate their understanding of Canada,

Canadians struggling to get programs funding for their children in school should pay for free English courses for immigrants,

Immigrants that commit serious crimes in Canada should only be deported back to where they came from if it is safe for them to return,

Even if the federal government doesnt improve its ability to screen out potential terrorists, Muslim immigrants shouldnt be banned from entering Canada,

Government should regulate online hate speech,

Children under 18 should be legally able to receive gender-transition treatments, banning parental authority,

Transgender athletes should be allowed to compete in events even though males have an advantage over females,

Foreigners residing in Canada should have the right to vote,

Decriminalizing drug use.

Meanwhile, Canada could lose an important trading partner and ally with Singh as PM. Singhs support for Sikh separatist groups and his criticism of New Delhis human rights record resulted in him being the first western politician to be denied entry into India.

Singh denounced terrorism. But after winning the leadership in 2017, he stirred controversy by appearing on CBC and refusing to denounce Talwinder Singh Parmer, believed to be the mastermind behind the 1985 Air India bombing.

Oh, and Singh, that personable, seemingly harmless guy appearing on the TV ads, says it shouldnt be illegal to burn the Canadian flag.

Slobodian is the Senior Manitoba Columnist for the Western Standardlslobodian@westernstandardonline.com

Read more:
SLOBODIAN: Singh lives in the fantasy world of a socialist - Western Standard

Beijing When Xi Jinping took command of the Communist Party in late 2012 and proclaimed "only socialism can save China," it was largely ignored as the perfunctory mention of an antiquated slogan not to be taken literally in a modern-day, market-powered economy.

But sweeping new policy moves from crackdowns on internet companies, for-profit education, online gaming and property market excesses to the promulgation of "Common Prosperity" show Xi's seriousness in steering China back toward its socialist roots.

Having done away with term limits in 2018, China's most powerful leader since Mao Zedong is pushing what some observers describe as a mini "revolution," curbing the excesses of capitalism and shedding negative cultural influences of the West.

The effort, touching everything from school curricula including the newly required study of "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" to tighter regulation of the property sector and a squeeze on what the government sees as unwholesome entertainment, has rattled investors and prompted officials and state media to try to assuage markets.

On Wednesday, for example, the official People's Daily sought to reassure the private sector that support for it "had not changed" that recent regulatory actions were meant to "rectify market order," promote fair competition, protect consumer rights and "perfect the socialist market economy system."

But the intent, observers say, is clear.

"Xi wants to address a very contemporary issue the way in which neoliberal reforms have made China much less equal and bring back the sense of mission that shaped early Maoist China," said Rana Mitter, a professor of Chinese history and politics at Oxford University.

That inequality, as well as the vast wealth and power accumulated by some industries, threaten to undermine social stability and ultimately the party's legitimacy if left unchecked, some analysts have said.

The timing of the reforms reflects confidence that China can solve its problems through its own hybrid system instead of following the model of the West, whose shortcomings from managing COVID-19 to the chaos of the U.S. election and withdrawal from Afghanistan are repeatedly depicted in China as evidence of systemic decay.

"The state control model did seem to serve China well in the fight against COVID," said Chen Daoyin, a political commentator who is based in Chile and was formerly an associate professor at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law.

Xi is confident of striking a balance between government and markets, and between power and capital, Chen said.

"The danger is when the state can't resist reaching out its visible hand it creates unpredictability and political risk for capital," Chen said.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and other leaders stand above a giant portrait of late Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong on July 1. | REUTERS

The Hong Kong market, where many Chinese technology firms targeted by the crackdown are listed, has lost over $600 billion in value since July, with investors whipsawed by new regulations and scouring old speeches for clues as to what may be coming.

Xi's activist populism also demonstrates confidence that he can afford to alienate elites who fall on the wrong side of his policies as he solidifies his case for a third five-year term not that there is any visible competition.

But his calculus goes even beyond that, analysts say.

"Xi is an ambitious leader with a grand vision who genuinely wants to go down in history as the man who saved the party and made China strong," said Yang Chaohui, a lecturer in politics at Peking University.

China's State Council Information Office did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Under Mao, the earliest iterations of party doctrine aspired to free people from the exploitation of capital, destroy private ownership and defeat American imperialism.

Deng Xiaoping, Mao's successor, took a pragmatic turn, allowing market forces to incentivize production and unleashing four decades of breakneck growth that fueled massive wealth accumulation but also deep inequality.

This summer's reforms are enabled by Xi's consolidation of control since taking office: He unleashed a massive anti-corruption campaign, eliminated space for public dissent and reasserted Communist Party power with himself at the "core" across all aspects of society.

With that power, Xi is addressing a spate of societal woes, from people not having enough babies and an unhealthy obsession with educational achievement to young adults so stressed by the rat-race that they would rather drop out and "lie flat." New rules curb young people spending too much time playing online games and too much money promoting their idols.

"Xi has set out to tackle the problems that cause anguish for the common people, such as corrupt officials and the rich-poor gap," said Chen.

While many in China express scepticism that Beijing can get people to have more babies or make big-city housing more affordable, some of the moves appear popular: Many parents welcome an easing of the educational burden and the new three-hour-per-week time limit on children playing online games.

"Championing the common people gives him a moral high ground to consolidate his authority within the party and makes it hard for his political opponents to attack him. After all, who can be against social equality?"

In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever.By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.

PHOTO GALLERY (CLICK TO ENLARGE)

Read the original here:
Xi's reforms revisit China's socialist roots while tightening his grip on power - The Japan Times

Socialism is a political theory. It is also an economic theory. This structure advocates for production, distribution, and other economic exchanges to be owned or regulated as a whole by a community. If employed as a government structure, Socialism would have all businesses owned by the government, have all property owned by the government, and all resources owned by the government.

Then the government would distribute those resources throughout the population so that basic needs could be met.

Socialism is often confused with Communism, but the two structures are very different. Socialism encourages the democratic ownership and distribution of societys means of production, attempting to balance the scales so the poor have access to the same resources as the rich.

Here is a Socialism pros and cons list to take a look at the various potential benefits and challenges that this structure provides.

1. It creates a system without classes. How many different classes are in a capitalistic society? There is a wealthy class. Theres the Middle Class. There are the elites. In 2017, the Trump Administration even began referring to the Educated class. In Socialism, all of that goes away. Because it is a community-based system, equal opportunities are presented to everyone. It doesnt matter how wealthy they are, what their skin color happens to be, or whatever other label might be used to create division. It strives for equality by any means necessary.

2. It eliminates the socioeconomic gaps. Have you ever heard the phrase, It takes money to make money? In Socialism, the community takes over the governing of production units and distribution. These units are then presented to the workers. As distribution needs increase, work needs increase, and that allows profits to increase for everyone on an equal basis instead of a trickle-down basis from the top.

3. It creates balance. Many of the disparities that are seen in society today come from communities that are out of balance. People with more wealth can access better healthcare options than those who are poor. Households with high annual incomes can eat better foods than households with low annual incomes. Socialism strives to reinforce the idea that everyone is created equally and deserves a community that with treat them with equality. This creates a greater balance between people within the same community.

4. It improves the standard of living. Because resources are distributed in an equal fashion, there is no poverty in Socialism unless there are no resources to distribute. The goal is to raise the living standards for those who are struggling. It is true that this comes at the expense of those who are well-off, but is it truly ethical to be living in comfort and luxury when right down the street someone else is living in deplorable conditions?

5. It encourages skill enhancement. People within Socialism are commodities because of their ability to work and produce. Each person can contribute their strengths to the betterment of the general society. That allows for more people to work, which encourages economic growth, with the goal of improving personal circumstances by promoting the communitys welfare first.

1. It has never been implemented in its true form. The issue with Socialism is that implementing it as imagined is virtually impossible. Someone must supervise the distribution of resources, which means there is a lot of power and responsibility placed in that position. It is easy enough to manipulate the distribution lines to benefit a few at the expense of many. That is essentially how Communism works: having the people work to improve the government while being given only the basics for survival.

2. It can be easily manipulated. The people in charge of distribution are not the only ones who can manipulate the structure of Socialism. The news can be manipulated to create certain political leanings. The law can be manipulated to prevent people from confronting corruption within the system. Each area of manipulation takes a person further away from having control over their own life and puts them into a position where they must defend it to keep it.

3. It creates a race to the bottom. When implemented historically, those who have pursued Socialism have redistributed wealth in an attempt to create balance. That wealth never really makes it to those who are living in poverty. The primary criticism of Socialism is that it doesnt improve living standards for the majority. It simply lowers the living standards of those who have means to have them come closer to living in poverty without raising the poor up.

4. It encourages worker incompetence. In a perfect scenario, a community would utilize the natural skills and strengths of each worker, assigning them to the job that they are most capable of performing at high production levels. In reality, jobs are often assigned in a system of Socialism based on the greatest needs of the society. That means if there is a food shortage, youre going to be a farmer, even if you kill everything you try to grow. This creates a level of professional incompetence in some industries that can be difficult to overcome.

5. It can reduce the workforce. The bottom line for many critics of Socialism is this: that it encourages laziness. If a person knows that they will receive payments for food, housing, and clothing, then there is no incentive to keep working. They can collect the payments, have their basic needs met, and enjoy life without the worry of a work day. This can affect the morale of those who do work, since those who dont work earn the same amount as those who do. That is why Socialism tends to negatively impact economic growth unless there is a requirement to work.

6. It limits innovation. Under a system of Socialism, the goal is to meet the basic human needs first. Then the goal of satisfying the local economic demands is implemented. Only then, after these two areas of concern have been addressed, will trade with other communities be considered. Because of this structure, innovation is discouraged in Socialism because the work efforts are dedicated to distributing output for essential, self-survival purposes only. There is no incentive to innovate because there is no guarantee of success, which Socialism demands.

Socialism is a planned economy that can be implemented with several variations. At its core, however, it is a structure that wishes to satisfy human needs, meet economic demands, and create true equality. It may not be a top-down structure, but it can easily be turned into that type of format, which is why there is such a hesitation to implement this type of community structure.

See the rest here:
11 Socialism Pros and Cons List Vittana.org

By Julie Roys, CP Op-Ed Contributor | Tuesday, July 12, 2016Julie Roys is host of a national talk show on the Moody Radio Network called "Up For Debate."

Jesus confronted the money-changers and challenged believers to give to the needy. But, would he support socialism?

Increasingly, Americans think he would. In fact, a recent Barna pollfound that more Americans think Jesus would prefer socialism (24%) than those who believe he would prefer capitalism (14%). The other 62% responded neither or not sure, but the poll still reveals a disturbing trend.

Last Saturday, Micah Conkling, a Christian writer and podcaster, argued on my radio programthat socialism is the political and economic system that best fulfills the Golden Rule. Not surprisingly, Conkling is a Millennial, the most pro-socialist generation America has ever known. According to a recent Reason-Rupe survey, 53% of Americans under 30 view socialism favorably, compared to less than a third of Americans over 30. Similarly, Gallupfound that 69% of those under 30 said they would be willing to vote for a socialist presidential candidate.

I understand why Millennials are wary of the current system. They've witnessed a consistently declining economy; one of the most partisan eras in American history; the fall of the twin towers; and a war predicated on weapons of mass destruction that were never found. I agree with them that our political system desperately needs reform. But, socialism is not the answer. Though it may sound compassionate and Christian, it's actually antithetical to everything Christianity teaches.

Here's why:

1.Socialism is Based on a Materialistic Worldview

According to socialists like Bernie Sanders, the greatest problem in the world is the unequal distribution of wealth.

His website declares: "The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue of our time."

This betrays a fundamentally materialistic worldview, which is the basis of socialism.

To socialists, all that really exists is the material world. In fact, Karl Marx, the father of socialism/communism, invented the notion of dialectical materialism the belief that matter contains a creative power within itself. This enabled Marx to eliminate the need for a creator, essentially erasing the existence of anything non-material.

To socialists, suffering is caused by the unequal distribution of stuff and salvation is achieved by the re-distribution of stuff. There's no acknowledgment of spiritual issues. There's just an assumption that if everyone is given equal stuff, all the problems in society will somehow dissolve.

This worldview contradicts Christianity, which affirms the existence of both a material and a non-material world and teaches that mankind's greatest problems are spiritual. The Bible says the cause of suffering is sin and salvation is found in the cross of Christ, which liberates us from sin. Because of sin, though, there will always be inequalities in wealth. As the parable of the talentsshows, those with good character tend to accumulate more; those with bad character may lose everything they have. Yet, even if we are unable to accumulate wealth, Christianity teaches that we can still have an abundant life. That's because our quality of life is not determined by how much stuff we have, but by our relationship to Christ.

2.Socialism Punishes Virtue

Socialists want to distribute wealth to individuals according to their need, regardless of virtue.

As Karl Marx, famously said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

However, whenever any institution provides aid, it runs the risk of removing God-designed rewards and consequences. It can punish those who are industrious by making them pay for those who are not. And, it can reward those who aren't industrious by giving them the fruits of another man's labor. This is precisely what socialism does.

Interestingly, Marx mooched off othershis whole life, and failed to provide for his wife and children.

As Aristotle once noted, "Men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives."

The Bible teaches that aid should be tied to responsibility. First, anyone who refuses to work should be refused aid.

As 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says, "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."

Next, no one should be given aid whose family can provide for him. In fact, the Apostle Paul said that a man who fails to provide for his family is "worse than an unbeliever." (1 Tim. 5:8) The church also required widows receiving aid to have "a reputation of good works." (1 Tim. 5:10) So, even in dispensing aid, the church rewarded virtue and discouraged vice. Unfortunately, socialism does just the opposite.

3.Socialism Endorses Stealing

Barack Obama once defended his socialist policiesto a little girl by saying, "We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money. If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?"

That sounds pretty Christian, right? What Christian wouldn't endorse sharing your abundance with someone who has nothing? However, Obama wasn't endorsing people voluntarily sharing their wealth with others; he was endorsing the government forcibly taking a piece of the pie from one person and giving it to someone else. Put another way, that's saying that if you have three cars and your neighbor has none, the government has a right to take your car and give it to your neighbor. That's not Christian; that's stealing!

But, socialists don't believe in private property. And, some Christian socialists actually assert that the Bible doesn't either. That's preposterous.

Both the Old Testament and New Testament unequivocally affirm private property. We can't even obey the eighth commandment to not steal, unless we accept the notion of private ownership. Nor, can we steward our money as the Bible commands if the state owns our money, not us. So, for an economic and political system to be Christian, it must protect private ownership and allow individuals freedom to allocate their resources according to their conscience.

4.Socialism Encourages Envy and Class Warfare

Socialists demonize the rich, blaming all of society's problems on them.

Bernie Sanders once posted to his Facebook Page: "Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America."

Here, Sanders is mimicking Karl Marx, who viewed history as a series of class struggles between the rich and the poor and advocated overthrowing the ruling class.

Scripture strongly warns the rich and powerful not to oppress the poor.

In fact, Proverbs 14:31 says, "Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for his maker . . ."

But, Sanders and other Leftists, including Hillary Clinton go far beyond decrying specific acts of injustice. They basically condemn an entire class of people simply for possessing wealth. And, they encourage those who are poor to overthrow them. In fact, Clinton once said the U.S. economy required a "toppling" of the wealthiest 1%.

The rich are not causing all the problems in American society. People like Bill Gates are not acquiring wealth by stealing from the masses. They're creating great products, which produce wealth, and actually provide jobs for many people. But, even if they were exploiting the poor, nowhere does Scripture support the have-nots demanding money from the haves. Instead, it teaches that we should not covet (Exodus 20:17) and should be content in all circumstances (Phil. 4:11-13).

5. Socialism Seeks to Destroy Marriage & Family

A little known fact about socialism is that, from its beginning, it has sought to destroy marriage and family. Grove City Professor Paul Kengor explains this in detailin his book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Marriage and Family.Essentially, what socialism seeks is for the state to replace the family. That way, it can indoctrinate children in its Leftist way of thinking, and remove from them any notions of God and religion.

Friedrich Engels, co-author with Marx of the "The Communist Manifesto," once wrotethat the society he envisioned would be one where "the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair."

Similarly today, Bernie Sanders calls for a "revolution" in childcareand for the government to provide early childhood education beginning with children as young as six-weeks-old. And, he's a proud supporter of gay marriage what Kengor calls "communism's Trojan Horse" to secure the final takedown of traditional marriage.

To socialists, what Bernie describes is a utopia. But, to Christians, it's a dystopia. That's because there's nothing Christian about socialism and there's absolutely no way Jesus would ever support it.

Julie Roys is a speaker, freelance journalist and blogger at http://www.julieroys.com. She also is the host of a national radio program on the Moody Radio Network called, Up For Debate. Julie and her husband live in the Chicago suburbs and have three children

Read more from the original source:
5 Reasons Socialism Is Not Christian | Opinion News | The ...