Class conflict is a term long-used mostly by socialists, communists, and many anarchists, who define a class by its relationship to the means of production–such as factories, land, and machinery. From this point of view, the social control of production and labour is a contest between classes, and the division of these resources necessarily involves conflict and inflicts harm.

That is because the coupling of the worship of an Earth Goddess with pseudo religious Marxist dialectics results in the perfect rationale for actualizing a redistributionist “religion.” The Marxist concept of an international, unified brotherhood and new world order is now united with a pantheistic religion perfectly suited to redistributionist ends on the bases of core pantheistic beliefs.

The divine Mother Earth’s treasures are limited and distributed unequally. Therefore, her resources should be divided equally to all by a new UN priesthood which divines, follows, interprets, and enforces the eleven commandments of Pachamama/Gaia.

The media and company still sing the praises of collectivism, and they still have timid, scared opponents in us conservatives. They have, of course, discarded discredited terms like collectivism and communism, since all the countries who adopted those anti-individualist philosophies have collapsed under the weight of their own bad ideas. They now ride new horses that push collectivist thinking, such as environmentalism, feminism, welfarism. etc. These are all good causes, they say, and require the federal government to tax us heavily, interfere strongly in our personal affairs, and pass hundreds of laws and impose thousands of regulations on individuals, just as the old collectivism did.

In the following essay is examined the strange resemblance between the totalitarian regimes of Islam and socialism in the areas of politics, law, economics and freedom. (This paper differentiates between traditional Islam and modern Muslim states accepting Western ideas on human rights, law and politics.)

Benjamin Franklin observed,

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Obama’s orders included requiring employers to post notices in the workplace informing of their rights to join a union while repealing the “Beck notices” that workers cannot be required to join a union. Obama’s orders also included requiring contractors servicing federal buildings to hire union workers when a new contractor is given the work.

One ominous sign: Preparations are in the works to hire thousands of new Internal Revenue Service agents to crack down on employers and workers alike to collect healthcare taxes and to impose penalties on workers and businesses who do not provide or purchase healthcare plans government bureaucrats approve of.

It was more than a little jarring to read the following statement in a foreign newspaper under the headline “American capitalism gone with a whimper”:

“It must be said that, like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless, sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.”

And where did it appear? In Pravda, the one-time voice of the Soviet regime, which noted our great fall from the mightiest capitalist nation in history to a government-run debtor on the way to becoming something akin to a large Venezuela.

I refer to the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

In this story, a mans owns a vineyard and at sunup he hires a crew of workers, all for a fixed per diem rate.

At the 3rd hour, he hires another worker — but for the same pay as the workers who showed up at sunrise.

At thed 6th hour, and the 9th hour, it’s the same story — more workers, but at the same full-day’s rate, even though they didn’t work a full day.

Finally, with one hour left in the day, he hires one more worker — and also gives him the same rate that he gave to everybody, including those who were there all day.

This caused the original workers to complain that they’d been cheated. But the owner said unto them, the vineyard was HIS vineyard, and he was free to manage it as he saw fit. And, moreover, he fairly and freely had entered into a mutually reciprocal agreement with the original workers to work for a set rate.

By agreeing to work all day for a fixed rate, they assented to its fairness. And, anything the owner did afterward was irrelevant and not their concern.

This parable upholds the finest traditions of capitalism!

James A. Nollet, Milkowice, POLAND

The social justice that God expects of us is handled not through statist redistribution of wealth but through acts of charity. In the Old Testament, there are constant calls for giving charity but none for statist redistribution of wealth, nor calls for an economic leveling of society or for a lack of distinctiveness and differences among individuals. Doing so runs contrary to the notion of the individual as a unique and distinctive being, which is the meaning behind “human created in the image of God”, i.e., singular beings.

The Bible calls for acts of charity from the individual, for in being direct and personal, charity has the ability to elevate and ennoble the giver and provider. The direct act of giving changes the person and involves and partners him with God. Unlike Marxism, the Bible emphasizes the individual, not the state, the personal and not the “masses.”

Smart people should make smart decisions. So why do the best and the brightest always seem to create more problems than they solve?

Now think about this: There is absolutely no government planning that goes into what is stocked in grocery stores. No federal Department of Food. No local or state planning commission. No grocery boards. No bureaucrats or bureaucracies. No laws requiring grocery stores to be well stocked. No rules and regulations dictating how much of each food item, including bread, milk, and chicken, needs to appear on the shelves.

So how in the world do grocery stores get stocked without government planning or direction? How is it that so much food appears, almost by magic, within a day or two after most of the shelves have been emptied? Indeed, how do grocery stores manage to have more than enough food for people throughout the year, given that no government department or agency is doing the planning and issuing food directives?