How Socialism Violates All Ten Commandments

[mailmandan]

Excellent sermon on socialism by David Jeremiah.

 

[jswauto]

This might be of interest: What is Marxism?

 

[Gordon Zhao]

At least some types of socialism, especially Marxism, are based on ultra-rationalism that ignores the significance of Christianity. Some heathen Frenchmen caused this vicious surge of ultra-rationalism in the eighteenth century.

 

[Frankj]

Touche. Socialism, especially Marxism, is based on ultra-rationalism that ignores the significance of Christianity. Some heathen Frenchmen caused this vicious surge of ultra-rationalism in the eighteenth century.

Socialism denies the reality of human nature.

Which why it always fails, sometimes sooner and sometimes later but in the end it always does.

 

[Webster]

Sundays are nice for worship but there are a lot of churches that also might have Saturdays or even Wednesday evenings for worship. So this part of the list doesn't really do much to convince me. I know a lot of people who are cops and nurses and they work on Sundays and are still very much Christians.

Agreed; as a practicing Seventh-Day Adventist I attend weekly worship services on Saturdays.

 

[Can't think of a name]

Agreed; as a practicing Seventh-Day Adventist I attend weekly worship services on Saturdays.

Why have you chosen to believe in SDA? Were you born into it?

 

[jswauto]

1. The Fundamental Violation: State as God​

Socialism elevates the State to the position of supreme authority, usurping the role of God.

• Commandment 1 (No other gods): Socialism demands ultimate allegiance to the government/party rather than God. The State becomes the provider and sustainer (the "savior") of the people.
  
  
• Commandment 2 (No idols): The State and the pursuit of a utopian society become "idols." Reliance on government power replaces faith in God's providence.

2. Violations of Human Relationships & Property​

Socialist policies institutionalize acts that the commandments explicitly forbid for individuals.

• Commandment 5 (Honor your father and mother): Socialism undermes parental authority by giving the State control over child-rearing and education, effectively replacing the family unit with the collective.
  
  
• Commandment 6 (Do not murder): Historical mass deaths under communist/socialist regimes (e.g., Stalin, Mao) and modern socialist platforms promotion of abortion, it is state-sanctioned killing.
  
  
• Commandment 7 (Do not commit adultery): This is an attack on the traditional family structure. By incentivizing dependence on the State over the family, socialism weakens the bond of marriage ( historical Marxist views on the "dissolution of the bourgeois family").
  
  
• Commandment 8 (Do not steal): Redistribution of wealth and high taxation are "state-sanctioned theft"—forcibly taking property from one person to give to another, violating the right to private property.
  
  
• Commandment 10 (Do not covet): Socialism is politically motivated by class envy. Ideology thrives on encouraging the poor to covet the wealth of the rich, institutionalizing the very mindset this commandment forbids.

3. Truth and Sanctity​

• Commandment 9 (Do not bear false witness): Socialism relies on propaganda and "lies about human nature" to promise a utopia that cannot exist, thus bearing false witness to the public.

✦ An Explanation:
Socialism Conflicts with the Ten Commandments

Many Christians state that the Socialism fundamentally conflicts with the Ten Commandments because it elevates the State into a role that Scripture reserves for God alone. Ssocialism requires citizens to place ultimate trust, loyalty, and dependence on the government, effectively making the State the highest authority. Socialism violates the first two commandments by creating a system in which the State becomes a functional “god” and the pursuit of a political utopia becomes an idol that replaces reliance on divine providence.
Socialism disrupts the natural order of human relationships established by God. The fifth commandment—honoring father and mother—socialist systems centralize authority over children, education, and moral formation in the hands of the State. This, weakens parental authority and the family structure. The sixth commandment, “Do not murder,” is attributable to the historical record of mass deaths under communist regimes and, in modern contexts, to state-supported abortion policies, whichare direct violations of the sanctity of life.
The seventh commandment, “Do not commit adultery,” Socialism undermines the traditional family by incentivizing dependence on the State rather than on marriage and household stability. Marxist writings that describe the family as a bourgeois institution to be dissolved. The eighth commandment, “Do not steal,” is one of the most frequently referenced. Forced redistribution of wealth—through heavy taxation or state seizure of property—constitutes a form of legalized theft, violating the biblical principle of private property stewardship.
The tenth commandment, “Do not covet,” is also central. Socialism is rooted in class envy—encouraging resentment of the wealthy and promoting the idea that one group is entitled to the possessions of another. This institutionalizes covetousness as a political virtue rather than condemning it as a spiritual vice. Finally, the ninth commandment, “Do not bear false witness,” is invoked in that socialism depends on unrealistic promises about human nature and society. Socialist ideology presents a false vision of human perfectibility and often relies on propaganda to maintain power, thereby violating the commandment against deception.

American Socialist‑Leaning Policies Conflict With the Ten Commandments and the Constitution

Many American commentators who critique socialism argue that certain government‑expanding policies resemble the same philosophical issues seen in historical socialist systems. Their concern is not tied to a single party or person, but to the ideological pattern: the belief that the State should become the primary provider, regulator, and moral authority. These critics claim this pattern conflicts with both the biblical worldview and the constitutional framework that limits government power.

From a biblical perspective, the first concern is theological: when the State becomes the ultimate authority over education, healthcare, morality, and economics, critics argue it risks becoming a functional “god.” This is seen as conflicting with the first two commandments, which forbid placing any authority above God or creating ideological “idols.” The fear is not that government exists — Scripture affirms government — but that government expands into areas traditionally governed by family, church, or individual conscience.

A second concern involves family authority and personal responsibility. Critics argue that when government policies centralize control over children’s education, parental rights, or moral instruction, they risk undermining the fifth commandment’s emphasis on honoring father and mother. Similarly, policies that diminish personal responsibility or redistribute wealth by force are sometimes interpreted as conflicting with commandments against stealing or coveting. These arguments are not about compassion — which Scripture commands — but about the mechanism of forced redistribution versus voluntary charity.

From a constitutional standpoint, critics argue that socialist‑leaning policies often require expanding federal power beyond its enumerated limits. The U.S. Constitution was designed to restrict government authority, reserving most powers to the states and the people. Policies that centralize economic control, regulate private enterprise extensively, or nationalize sectors of society are seen by some scholars as conflicting with the Constitution’s emphasis on limited government, individual liberty, and private property rights. These concerns echo the biblical emphasis on stewardship and personal responsibility.

Finally, critics warn that when government becomes the primary moral arbiter — defining acceptable speech, regulating belief‑based institutions, or enforcing ideological conformity — it risks violating both the First Amendment and the ninth commandment (bearing false witness). They argue that compelled speech, censorship, or ideological enforcement can mirror the propaganda mechanisms historically associated with socialist regimes. Again, the concern is not about any one group, but about the pattern of expanding state authority into areas of conscience and truth.

 

[jswauto]

Detailed Historical Examples of Socialist Violations

1. Suppression of Free Speech & Dissent — Soviet Union
The Soviet Union operated as a totalitarian state for decades, where freedom of speech was suppressed and dissent was punished.
• Independent political activity was not tolerated, including labor unions, private organizations, or opposition parties.
• Citizens could not freely criticize the government; doing so often resulted in harassment, arrest, or imprisonment of activists.
• Courts were not independent — they were considered agencies of the government, used to enforce political control rather than justice.

2. Elimination of Rule of Law & Property Rights — Soviet Union
Socialist legal theory in the USSR held that the government, not the individual, was the beneficiary of rights.
• The state claimed authority over property, severely curbing civil liberties and property guarantees.
• Secret police were granted extensive extrajudicial powers, enabling arrests, surveillance, and punishment without due process.
• These practices were justified by labeling property rights and civil liberties as “bourgeois morality” incompatible with socialism.

3. Travel Restrictions & Control of Movement — Eastern Bloc
In East Germany (GDR) and other socialist states, freedom of movement was heavily restricted.
• Citizens could not freely travel abroad, and internal movement was also controlled.
• The Berlin Wall itself became a symbol of the state’s attempt to imprison its own population.
• Human rights issues were “hotly debated” because the state routinely trampled individual liberties in the name of socialist ideology.

4. State Surveillance & Secret Police Abuse — Eastern Bloc
Eastern European socialist regimes, including East Germany, were notorious for their state security forces.
• The Stasi in East Germany maintained one of the most extensive surveillance networks in history.
• The search results note the “remarkable reach and well‑known exploits” of these security forces, which routinely violated due process and civil rights.
• Citizens lived under constant monitoring, intimidation, and fear of denunciation.

5. Human Rights Activists Harassed & Arrested — Soviet Union
Human rights activists in the USSR were regularly subjected to harassment, repression, and arrest.
• Even though the USSR signed international human rights agreements, these were not taken seriously by authorities and were not accessible to the public.
• Activists who attempted to hold the government accountable were targeted as enemies of the state.

✦ Summary
Across the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, socialist governments committed widespread violations including:
• Suppression of speech and dissent
• Elimination of property rights
• Extrajudicial police powers
• Travel restrictions
• State surveillance
• Harassment and arrest of activists

All these and the obvious violations of the 10 Commandments you have to look forward to when you support the socialists!!

 

[jswauto]

American Socialism
The following "deep dive" explores the intense political conflict regarding American socialism, examining the accusations that these groups aim to "destroy America and enslave Americans," the historical roots of these fears, and the actual stated goals of the organizations in question.

The Core Allegation: "Destruction and Enslavement"​

The view that American socialists are determined to destroy the country and enslave its citizens is a significant current in American political thought. This perspective is generally rooted in three main arguments:

1. The "Road to Serfdom" Argument: Influenced by economists like Friedrich Hayek, this argument posits that economic freedom and political freedom are inseparable.
   • The Logic: If the state controls the means of production (the economy), it controls the means of survival.
   • The Fear: Critics argue that once the government provides your housing, food, and job, you lose the ability to dissent. You become dependent on the state, effectively reducing citizens to "serfs" or slaves of the government bureaucracy.
   • Target: Policies like the "Green New Deal" or "Medicare for All" are viewed not as welfare, but as mechanisms to transfer control of your life to the state.
2. The Totalitarian Threat:This stems from the historical legacy of the 20th century, specifically the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and Nazi Germany (National Socialism).
   • The Logic: Critics argue that socialism inherently requires force to redistribute wealth.
   • The Fear: As resistance to redistribution rises, the state must use increasingly violent and coercive methods (gulags, secret police) to enforce its will, destroying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the process.
3. Cultural Destruction (Cultural Marxism):
   • The Logic: Modern American socialism is often accused of targeting not just the economy, but American culture, religion, and the family unit.
   • The Fear: Critics argue that by promoting identity politics, critical race theory, or secularism, socialists aim to "dismantle" the traditional values that hold the United States together, effectively "destroying" the America of the founding fathers.

---

Who Are The Accused?​

In modern discourse, several distinct groups are often lumped together as the "socialists" intent on this destruction. It is important to distinguish between them to understand the landscape.

1. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)​

The DSA is currently the largest socialist organization in the US.1

• The Accusation: Critics view the DSA as a "Trojan Horse" that uses the Democratic Party to mainstream radical ideas.2 They point to the "dirty break" strategy debated within the DSA—the idea of using the Democratic Party to build power before breaking away to form a separate socialist party—as evidence of subversion.3
• 
  
• Stated Goals: The DSA platform calls for the abolition of capitalism, but they generally advocate for this through democratic means (elections, labor organizing) rather than violent revolution.4 They push for "social ownership" of major industries and a robust welfare state.
• Internal Factions: The DSA is a "big tent."5 It contains factions ranging from "North Star" (who want to work with Democrats) to the "Communist Caucus" (who are more revolutionary).

2. The Communist Party USA (CPUSA)​

• The Accusation: Historically, the CPUSA was funded by the Soviet Union and viewed as a direct arm of a foreign enemy (the "Fifth Column").6 Today, they are often cited as proof that the "old enemy" is still active.
  
  
• Stated Goals: Their modern platform, "Bill of Rights Socialism," argues that socialism can be achieved peacefully through the existing American political framework, though they maintain a Marxist-Leninist ideology.

3. "The Squad" & Progressive Democrats​

• The Accusation: Figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib are frequently identified by conservative critics as the primary agents of this alleged destruction.
• The Reality: While often labeled "socialists" by opponents (and sometimes self-identifying as democratic socialists), their legislative records align more closely with Social Democracy (the Scandinavian model)—retaining a capitalist market but with high taxes and strong social safety nets—rather than the abolition of private property.7

---

Historical Context: A Century of Fear​

The narrative that socialists want to "enslave" Americans is not new; it is a recurring cycle in US history.

• 1919-1920: The First Red Scare: Following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Americans feared that immigrants and labor unions were plotting a similar violent overthrow in the US.8 This led to the Palmer Raids, where thousands of suspected leftists were arrested and deported.9
  
  
• 1940s-1950s: McCarthyism: Senator Joe McCarthy led a campaign to root out supposed communists in the government, military, and Hollywood.10 The fear was that "fellow travelers" were secretly working to hand the US over to the Soviet Union.
  
  
• The Cold War Era: For decades, "Socialism" was synonymous with the USSR. The American identity was forged in opposition to it: We are free/capitalist; They are enslaved/socialist.
• 

---

The "Socialist" Defense: "We Are the Liberators"​

To understand the "Deep Dive" fully, one must look at how American socialists view themselves. They argue that the "enslavement" narrative is a projection.

• The "Wage Slavery" Argument: Socialists argue that Americans are already enslaved—by debt, low wages, and lack of healthcare. They claim that under capitalism, if you don't work for a boss, you starve; therefore, you are not truly free.
• Democratizing the Economy: They argue that capitalism is authoritarian (bosses are dictators of the workplace). Their stated goal is to extend democracy from the voting booth to the workplace (worker co-ops), which they claim increases freedom rather than destroying it.
• The "Human Rights" Angle: They view housing, food, and healthcare as human rights.11 They argue that a government that guarantees these is not enslaving its people, but liberating them from the fear of poverty.

Summary of the Conflict​

Perspective	View on "Freedom"	View on "The State"	The Greatest Threat
Critics (Anti-Socialist)	Freedom is the absence of government coercion and the right to private property.	The State is a potential tyrant that must be limited.	Socialism/Collectivism (leads to serfdom).
Socialists	Freedom is the absence of economic desperation (freedom from want).	The State is a tool to protect people from corporate power.	Unchecked Capitalism (leads to oligarchy/wage slavery).

​

 

[jswauto]

American Socialistic Associations

The following analysis details the specific political platforms of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

This breakdown contrasts the "destroy and enslave" accusations with the actual text of their governing documents, 2024 platforms, and constitutions.

1. Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)​

Size & Influence: The largest socialist organization in the US (~90,000 members).1

Core Philosophy: They argue that capitalism is inherently undemocratic because bosses hold power over workers.2 Their goal is to extend democracy into the economy.3

Specific Platform Proposals (2024 "Workers Deserve More" Program)​

• The Economy ("Ending Wage Slavery"):
  • 32-Hour Work Week: Reduce the standard work week with no loss in pay.4
    
    
  • $20+ Minimum Wage: Immediate hike in the federal minimum wage.5
    
    
  • Abolish "Right to Work" Laws: Mandate that all workers in unionized shops pay dues (repeal Taft-Hartley).
• Healthcare & Basic Needs:
  • Medicare for All: Abolish private health insurance companies.6 The government provides full coverage (dental, vision, mental health) free at the point of service.
    
    
  • Social Housing: Move toward a model where housing is a public utility, not an investment vehicle.7 Proposals include "universal rent control" and massive construction of government-owned housing.
• Structural Changes to the US Government:
  • A New Constitution: The DSA platform explicitly critiques the US Constitution as an document designed to protect property owners.8
    
    
  • Abolish the Senate: They view the Senate as undemocratic (since Wyoming has the same power as California). They advocate for a single legislative body based on population.9
    
    
  • End the Electoral College: Direct popular vote for leadership.
  • Supreme Court: Limit its power or pack the court to overturn conservative rulings.10
• Law Enforcement & Borders:
  • Abolish ICE: Dismantle the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
  • Open Borders/Free Movement: Many chapters advocate for the unrestricted right of people to move across borders, viewing borders as tools of capital control.11
    
    
  • Defund the Police: Reallocate police budgets to social services and mental health response teams.

The "Destruction" Angle: Critics cite the DSA's call to abolish the Senate, rewrite the Constitution, and end private ownership of major industries (energy, healthcare) as literal proof of the intent to "destroy" the current American system.

---

2. Communist Party USA (CPUSA)​

Size & Influence: Much smaller than DSA (est. 5,000–10,000 active), but historically significant.

Core Philosophy: "Bill of Rights Socialism." They argue that socialism in the US would be unique, preserving the Bill of Rights while adding an "Economic Bill of Rights."

Specific Platform Proposals​

• The "Bill of Rights Socialism" Concept:
  • They explicitly state they do not want a Soviet-style dictatorship.
  • They propose adding rights to the US Constitution: The right to a job, the right to healthcare, and the right to housing.
• Economic Policy:
  • Nationalization: They call for the public ownership of "commanding heights" of the economy: banks, energy companies, and the pharmaceutical industry.
  • Taxation: A 90% marginal tax rate on top earners and a tax on Wall Street speculation.
  • Slash Military Spending: Cut the Pentagon budget by 50% or more to fund social programs.12
• Political Strategy (The "Popular Front"):
  • Unlike revolutionary groups that want to overthrow the government by force tomorrow, the CPUSA currently advocates voting for Democrats to defeat the "fascist danger" (referring to the MAGA movement/Donald Trump).13
    
    
  • They view the Democratic Party as a vehicle to organize workers, with the eventual goal of forming a mass "Labor Party."14

The "Enslavement" Angle: Critics argue that the CPUSA's history (loyalty to the Soviet Union during the Cold War) proves their democratic rhetoric is a lie.15 The fear is that their "Economic Bill of Rights" would require a government powerful enough to seize all private property, eventually leading to totalitarian control.

---

Direct Comparison on Key Accusations​

Accusation	DSA Platform Reality	CPUSA Platform Reality
"Destroy the Constitution"	Yes. They explicitly call for a new Constitution, abolishing the Senate and Electoral College to create a "true democracy."	Partial. They want to amend the Constitution drastically to include economic rights, but claim to uphold the original Bill of Rights.
"Enslave Americans"	Refuted by them. They argue Americans are currently "enslaved" by debt and bosses. They view their policies as liberation from market forces.	Refuted by them. They argue "Bill of Rights Socialism" guarantees personal liberty while preventing corporate tyranny.
"Seize Property"	Yes. They advocate for taking key industries (healthcare, energy, housing) out of private hands and into "social ownership."	Yes. They advocate nationalizing banks and major industries.
"Violent Revolution"	No. They prioritize "mass movement" politics, strikes, and elections. (Though fringe factions may differ).	No. Their current constitution explicitly advocates for a peaceful, democratic transition to socialism.

Summary of Findings​

The data reveals that while the enslavement narrative is vehemently denied by these groups (who frame their work as liberation from capitalism), the destruction of the current American political order is, in many ways, an open goal and a determined agenda item, along with removal of all American freedoms.

• The DSA openly wants to dismantle the Senate and the Supreme Court as they currently exist and lead us directly into communism with these congressional safeguards removed.
  
  
• The CPUSA openly wants to dismantle the private banking and energy sectors and gaining control of all financial legislation and monetary markets.

They do not view this as "destroying America," but rather as "completing" the American Revolution to include economic democracy. Critics, however, view these structural changes as the erasure of the American freedoms and complete destruction of the American Republic.

 

[Frankj]

Why is it that socialists never seem to be able to point out modern long term successful socialist societies that demonstrate the feasibility of their ideas.

Socialist systems are usually ones where the people live on what is left over from their elite classes who have all they want of everything they want.

 

[Webster]

Why have you chosen to believe in SDA? Were you born into it?

To answer your second question first, no. I was born into a then-practicing Methodist family; drifted away from my Methodist roots and drifted on for years.

Coming back to your first question, when I was at my lowest both physically and mentally Adventists were some of the only people outside of neighbors and relatives to come visit me and their kindness, friendship and desire to share the Gospel with me impressed me to visit the local SDA church here in the Morganton, NC area. It is a debt I could never hope to repay and in the proceeding four+ years I have become a staunch defender of Adventism, using the same powers of logic and reason to defend my new(ish!) faith as an Adventist.

 

[The Jason]

People hate socialism, but tell me "Where are the jobs?". I think God understands.

 

[FredVB]

Does Acts 2:44 and right after show commandments from God being violated?
Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God.

1 Corinthians 13:4 and following...
Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

 

[Lamb]

People hate socialism, but tell me "Where are the jobs?". I think God understands.

There are jobs...it's just that people don't have the skills to do them. Socialism doesn't fix their lack of skillset.

 

[Frankj]

There are jobs...it's just that people don't have the skills to do them. Socialism doesn't fix their lack of skillset.

But it does diminish the desire to acquire them.

Man operates on a reward/punishment system of motivation and when the fruits of pursuing excellence are taken from someone who has pursued it and given to those who have not pursued it instead the desire for it is diminished and even extinguished in the extreme case.

From each according to his ability and to each according to his need results in a society with few people with great ability and many people with great need.

Men, like water or electricity, always seek the path of least resistance.

 

[jswauto]

Name a Socialist Regime That Didn't Become a Killing Machine

THE SHORT ANSWER
Every fully implemented socialist regime — meaning one that abolished private property, centralized the economy, and empowered a one‑party state — has produced repression, coercion, and mass death.
Not always on the scale of Stalin or Mao, but always present.
There is no historical example of a fully socialist state that remained peaceful, pluralistic, and non‑coercive.
None.
But let’s break it down carefully.

WHY THIS IS TRUE STRUCTURALLY
This isn’t only about “bad people.”
It’s about the mechanics of the system.
When a government:
1. Abolishes private property
2. Controls all production and distribution
3. Eliminates political opposition
4. Centralizes power in a single party
5. Controls speech, press, and assembly
It must use force to maintain control.
Because:
• People resist losing property
• Farmers resist quotas
• Workers resist forced labor
• Citizens resist censorship
• Minorities resist ideological conformity
So the system requires coercion to function.
That’s why every socialist regime — even the “mild” ones — ends up with:
• secret police
• political prisons
• censorship
• forced labor
• purges
• famine
• mass surveillance
It’s not an accident.
It’s the architecture.

LET’S LOOK AT THE USUAL “EXCEPTIONS” PEOPLE CLAIM
And why they don’t actually qualify.
1. Sweden / Norway / Denmark
Often cited — but not socialist.
They are capitalist economies with high taxes and welfare programs.
Private property, private business, and markets remain intact.
They are not socialist regimes.
2. Israel’s early kibbutzim
Voluntary, small‑scale, and not state‑enforced.
Not a national socialist regime.
3. Kerala (India)
Left‑wing governance, but still within a capitalist democratic framework.
Not a socialist regime.
4. Costa Rica
Social programs, yes.
Socialism, no.
5. Tanzania (Ujamaa)
Attempted socialism → resulted in famine, forced villagization, and collapse.
6. Yugoslavia (Tito)
Less brutal than Stalin — but still:
• secret police
• political prisons
• suppression of dissent
• ethnic repression
Not peaceful.
7. Cuba
Repression, executions, political prisons, and mass exile.
8. Vietnam / Laos
Re‑education camps, executions, and ongoing repression.
9. Nicaragua (Sandinistas)
Civil war, repression, and authoritarianism.
10. Venezuela
Economic collapse, political repression, and state violence.

THE ONLY HONEST ANSWER
If by “socialist regime” you mean:
• state ownership of the means of production
• one‑party rule
• abolition of private property
• central planning
Then there is no example that did not become coercive or violent.
Not one.

WHY THIS MATTERS
Because it shows:
✔ Socialism doesn’t fail
just because of bad leaders
✔ It fails because of its internal logic
✔ It requires force to maintain control
✔ It inevitably suppresses free will
✔ It stands in direct conflict with human dignity and agency
Christian principles are about free will, moral agency, and obedience to the Lord.
Socialist Regimes are the Antithesis of That.

 

[FredVB]

How can socialism be inherently wrong, without consideration if a community with that in practice is voluntary or not, and with perspective of what the early church of Christian believers, a good number of them having walked with Jesus when he was incarnate in this world, including the apostles the church was under, practiced, shown in Acts 2:44-46, Acts 4:32?

 

[Lamb]

How can socialism be inherently wrong, without consideration if a community with that in practice is voluntary or not, and with perspective of what the early church of Christian believers, a good number of them having walked with Jesus when he was incarnate in this world, including the apostles the church was under, practiced, shown in Acts 2:44-46, Acts 4:32?

There's a difference between people voluntarily providing for others such as in communities in Jesus' time compared to others being forced to pay for people. It's easy to spend other people's hard earned money, but that isn't what the communities did in Jesus' time. They voluntarily gave what they had.

 

[jswauto]

How can socialism be inherently wrong, without consideration if a community with that in practice is voluntary or not, and with perspective of what the early church of Christian believers, a good number of them having walked with Jesus when he was incarnate in this world, including the apostles the church was under, practiced, shown in Acts 2:44-46, Acts 4:32?

Don't forget the modern example in 1948: “Shall a nation be born in a day?” Isaiah 66:8

Israel’s early kibbutzim
Voluntary, small‑scale, and not state‑enforced.
Not a national socialist regime.

Against All Odds: Israel Survives S01:E06 - The Miracle of '48

In this stirring episode, Michael Greenspan interviews freedom fighters and war veterans who recount Israel's triumph against all odds in its' war for independence from the British and the Arab enemies determined to destroy the new homeland.

tubitv.com

Account of Israel’s Early Kibbutzim
Here’s an account of Israel’s early kibbutzim — written as a detailed story with a rich academic summary. This will give you something vivid, human, and gospel‑ready for your evangelism modules.

The Birth of the Kibbutz: A Story of Dust, Dreams, and Determination​

In the early 1900s, long before Israel existed as a state, the Galilee and Jezreel Valley were wild, swampy, and largely uninhabited. Malaria hung in the air like a curse. The land was owned by absentee Ottoman landlords, worked by tenant farmers, and feared by travelers. Into this landscape came a wave of young Jewish pioneers from Eastern Europe — idealists barely in their twenties, carrying little more than rucksacks, Russian accents, and a fierce belief that the Jewish people could be reborn on their ancestral soil.

They had fled pogroms, antisemitism, and the collapse of old European orders. Many had been shaped by socialist ideas, but what they wanted was not theory — it was a new kind of life, rooted in the land and built by their own hands. They believed that if the Jewish people were ever to stand again, they must first learn to till the soil, drain the swamps, and build communities where no one was rich, no one was poor, and everyone shared the burden.

Degania: The First Kibbutz​

In 1910, a small group of ten men and two women founded Degania, the first kibbutz, on the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee. They lived in a single wooden hut with a leaky roof and a dirt floor. Their tools were primitive, their Hebrew was broken, and their bodies were unprepared for the brutal heat. But they had something stronger than comfort — they had purpose.

Every morning, they rose before dawn to plow fields, plant wheat, and tend to the few cows they owned. They ate together, worked together, and made decisions together. They pooled their money, their clothes, and even their letters from home. They believed that the land would shape them into a new kind of Jew — strong, free, rooted, and unafraid.

Visitors from Europe were stunned. “This is the beginning of a new world,” one wrote. “A society without masters or servants.”

Draining the Swamps: Heroism in Mud and Malaria​

As more kibbutzim formed, the pioneers took on the most dangerous task in the land: draining the Hula swamps. The marshes were infested with mosquitoes, and malaria killed hundreds. The work was backbreaking — digging canals by hand, hauling mud in wheelbarrows, and sleeping in tents that offered little protection.

Yet they pressed on. They sang songs at night, wrote poetry by lantern light, and believed that every ditch dug was a blow against exile. They were not just building farms — they were building identity.

One pioneer wrote in her diary: “We are creating a people out of mud, sweat, and hope.”

Defense and Community​

Because the land was lawless, kibbutzim became centers of defense. They built watchtowers, trained guards, and formed the early units of what would become the Haganah, the precursor to the IDF. Many kibbutzim were attacked repeatedly, but they held their ground.

The kibbutz became a symbol of courage — a place where men and women stood shoulder to shoulder, rifles slung over their backs, plows in their hands.

A New Society Emerges​

By the 1930s and 40s, kibbutzim had become the backbone of the Jewish community in Palestine. They produced food, trained soldiers, educated children, and absorbed waves of immigrants. They were laboratories of social experimentation — places where gender equality, communal childcare, and collective ownership were lived realities long before they were global conversations.

When Israel declared independence in 1948, kibbutz members made up a tiny percentage of the population but a massive percentage of the soldiers, officers, and leaders. Many of Israel’s early prime ministers and generals were raised in or shaped by kibbutz life.

The Legacy​

The early kibbutzim were not perfect — they struggled with ideology, economics, and the tension between individual and collective life. But their impact is undeniable. They turned barren land into fertile fields, shaped the ethos of a nation, and embodied the belief that a people can be reborn through shared sacrifice.

Their story is one of idealism, hardship, courage, and community — a story of young men and women who believed that the desert could bloom and that a nation could rise from the dust.

1. TIMELINE — Development of the Early Kibbutzim​

1880s–1903 — First Aliyah (Early Agricultural Settlements)​

• Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe arrive in Ottoman Palestine.
• Establish moshavot (farm villages), not yet kibbutzim.
• Ideals of working the land begin to form.

1904–1914 — Second Aliyah & Birth of the Kibbutz​

• Young socialist‑Zionist pioneers arrive.
• 1910: Degania Alef, the first kibbutz, is founded near the Sea of Galilee.
• Communal ownership, shared labor, and collective decision‑making emerge.

1914–1920 — War, Hardship, and Identity Formation​

• WWI devastates the region.
• Kibbutzim survive through self‑reliance and mutual aid.
• Begin draining swamps and reclaiming land.

1920s–1930s — Expansion & Institutionalization​

• Dozens of new kibbutzim founded.
• The Haganah (Jewish defense force) grows out of kibbutz guard units.
• Communal childcare, dining halls, and shared property become standard.

1936–1948 — Defense & Nation‑Building​

• Kibbutzim become frontline outposts during Arab Revolt and 1948 War.
• Many serve as military bases, supply hubs, and defensive walls.
• Kibbutz members make up a disproportionate share of Israel’s early leadership.

1948–1960s — Golden Age​

• Kibbutzim flourish economically and culturally.
• Agriculture, industry, and education thrive.
• Seen as the moral and ideological backbone of the new state.

2. CHARACTER‑DRIVEN NARRATIVE — “Rivka of Degania”​

Rivka arrived in Palestine in 1909 with nothing but a canvas rucksack, a Russian‑Hebrew dictionary, and a stubborn belief that the Jewish people could be reborn from the soil. She was nineteen, barely five feet tall, and had never held a shovel in her life. But when she stepped off the boat in Jaffa and smelled the citrus groves, she felt something she had never felt in Europe — possibility.

She joined a small group of pioneers heading north to the Sea of Galilee. Their destination was a patch of land called Umm Juni, a swampy, mosquito‑ridden stretch that locals avoided. Rivka didn’t care. “If the land is sick,” she said, “we will heal it.” Her first night, she slept on a straw mattress in a wooden hut with eleven others. Rain leaked through the roof. Frogs croaked outside. She felt alive.

Every morning, Rivka rose before dawn. She learned to milk cows, plow fields, and swing a pickaxe until her hands blistered. She sang Russian folk songs while digging drainage ditches, her voice echoing across the valley. Malaria struck her twice, but she refused to leave. “If I die,” she told her friend Yosef, “bury me under the fig tree. But I won’t go back.”

When Arab bandits raided the area, Rivka stood guard with a rifle slung over her shoulder — the same hands that had planted wheat hours earlier. She wrote in her diary: “We are building more than a farm. We are building a people.”

Years later, when Degania became known as the “Mother of the Kibbutz,” Rivka would walk through the fields she helped reclaim and smile. Children ran barefoot between the dining hall and the cowshed. The land bloomed. And she knew — the dream had taken root.