Posted by
Dave Perkins on Friday, February 27, 2009 3:23:30 PM
He who does not work, neither shall he eat--
It is the first principle of socialism, as posited by none other than Lenin.
He wrote a book called "The State and Revolution" in 1917, explaining that in a socialist society (which Marx termed "the first phase of communism") only productive individuals would be allowed to consume ANYTHING. Food, clothing, fuel, anything. And of course as workers, only productive individuals would have continued access to the MEANS of productivity, which is the next extension of 'consumables'; raw materials, tools, etc.
In socialism, remember, the means of production and the distribution of its fruits are controlled by "the community", meaning THE GOVERNMENT, in order to ensure increased social and economic equality and cooperation.
In the search for all this equality, the word goes out, then, from Lenin (and not coincidentally from St. Paul in the New Testament) "he who does not work, neither shall he eat".
And here you thought that was a nasty piece of fundamentalist Christian cruelty, right?
Well the pinko commies are not entirely without sympathy. If you are old and had worked in your youth, you could not be denied consumables; you had paid your debt to the collective when you were able. Likewise to the lame, whose condition is presumably not of their own making, and who would be more productive if only it were within their abilities.
But if you were lazy, indolent or slothful, especially if this attitude arose out of your previous state of PRIVILEGE as a member of the
bourgeoisie (
the nonworking wealthy who benefit from the labor of others), well in this new regime there is no stack of consumables set aside for YOU, my infidel friend.
I found this information whilst researching the New Testament expression of social duty from Paul, vis "he who does not work, neither shall he eat". I wanted to examine it in context and contrast and compare it with other things said by Paul, and by other NT writers, concerning the poor and the business of working as opposed to being cared for. I wanted a clear understanding of it before proceeding in any conversations on the subject of Christianity and charity.
I had NO idea ten minutes ago that this expression had (
like the means of production and the property of the bourgeoisie) been confiscated by the commies and used for THEIR benefit.
News flash to non-working poor recipients of federal largesse--
If you are enjoying a comfortable 'upper bracket poor' living courtesy of Uncle, and you are not working, have not worked and have no plans to work, you had BETTER be LAME, crippled at birth. Because if you're not, if you're able to work but not WILLING, believe me when I tell you that a socialist, leftist, commie-ish regime will NOT be as genial about this as your previous center-right American government. If you think things will be BETTER for you in the Obama-land of future America, you have some history books to read.
You see, the one problem socialists and communists always encounter is motivation. There is never enough actual work and productivity to meet all the obligations of a leftward government. Too many mouths to feed, too little profit and reward to be found in 'producing stuff'. People just stop. Why would anyone work to pay 80, 90 or 95% tax rates, essentially toiling away just to hand over all youve earned?
Don't scoff--- the british had a 97% top marginal rate on wealthy people as recently as the 1970s. That is why so many British movie stars and pop stars like Michael Caine or David Bowie found themselves living in California or New York.
If there is ever a time in which your vote is less valuable to the people you vote for, that is to say if there is ever a time when the Obamas of the world do not actually NEED your vote to stay in power, prepare to become something like a forced laborer. Unless you have a state-approved disability of some sort, you will not be permitted to live without working. It's the lefty way. Ask Lenin. Ask Marx.
Once upon a time, America was known for 'rugged individualism', in which each person was responsible for his own family, and was free to achieve as much as his own limits allowed him.
OVER.