安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/ACT.4.32-37
Acts 4:32-37 New Century Version (NCV)
The group of believers were united in their hearts and spirit. All those in the group acted as though their private property belonged to everyone in the group. In fact, they shared everything. With great power the apostles were telling people that the Lord Jesus was truly raised from the dead. And God blessed all the believers very much. There were no needy people among them. From time to time those who owned fields or houses sold them, brought the money, and gave it to the apostles. Then the money was given to anyone who needed it. One of the believers was named Joseph, a Levite born in Cyprus. The apostles called him Barnabas (which means “one who encourages”). Joseph owned a field, sold it, brought the money, and gave it to the apostles.
you'll find socialism also values the social factor over the reality of the individual.
without capitalism's presupposition of slavery neither really makes any sense; they're just critiques of a flawed system, not any kind of answer for it.
i added quotation marks to ease the process of not interpreting everything I say backwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNj8mJq65i4
we've tried to explain the reversal to god innumerable times, it's one of the things he's incapable of understanding. similar to looking inside the cube through his back door.
illogical machines are truly diffficult to parse.
in a sense, his incomprehensibility and inconsistent behavior is what makes him such a rife subject for worship.
Nah, it's more like socialism is practical communism. Technically, there has never actually been an actual "communist state" and the term itself is hyperbolic since communism is meant to be state-less. Communism would really require a post-scarce economy to function and that just isn't attainable right now. Socialism is primarily characterized by social in reality worker ownership over the means of production.
liberalism - the game is fully free to play.. male up your own rules amarchy!
socialism - the game can be played freely, but the goverment set the games rules.
communism - the goverment deciedes the piece you play with..and plays your turn for you.. as well as setting the rules. no freedom at all.
basicly socialism is capitalism with rules. while true capitalism ia anarchy.
Ehhhhh it's actually much more different from that. Socialism is it's own thing. Socialism is strictly defined by social ownership (which often translates to worker ownership) over the means of production. This can be instituted through several methods. Market socialism in which there is a blend of social ownership over the means of production, while also being dictated by market factors of supply and demand. There is Marxism-Leninism. That's your USSR and various other "communist" states. There is even libertarian socialism, which advocates for a decentralized form of social ownership over the means of production without the need for an authoritative state.
All I know for certain is that the ideal balance between the right to accumulate wealth vs the right to share the bounty of civilization has been debated since the dawn of man, and will remain so for certainly as long as I live. But I also know that we have not found that balance point, despite the insistence of the devotees of Laissez-faire.
The only place we can really observe anything that resembles communism in a broad sense is in the animal kingdom. Eusocial species - ants, termites, bees, naked mole-rats, and a few others. We consider this to be the highest order of sociality. It's incredibly efficient and the species that have adopted it have been extremely successful, some of them for millions of years.
The problem with adopting it into human societies is that, generally speaking, it sacrifices the individual for the benefit of the group. And most people can't, or won't accept that. We're too empathetic, compassionate, and consciously aware. Take Covid as an example. A eusocial species would have just let it run it's course. You isolate the infected, let them die off, and let the virus die with it. Then it's gone forever. We'd never have to deal with it again. If you zoom out, this is ultimately the better outcome, but of course, if those are your friends and family it's like, ♥♥♥♥ that. It's intolerable, so we find a way. The hive takes a hit, becomes weaker overall, but we don't have to suffer so much as individuals.
There's a false dichotomy in this conversation. The U.S. fought a cultural and ideological war with the Soviet Union, and so any mention of communism is immediately shot down and treated with suspicion in the western world. Some of it is warranted, but a lot of it is just propaganda. Pure capitalism would be just as a bad a nightmare as pure communism. But it doesn't have to be one or the other. We're not ants. We've got these big human brains. We can find a healthy balance. We're just in a situation where the established power structures are too deeply embedded. Nothing will change until we hit breaking point. And by then it will be too late. We're doing irreparable damage to the Earth. Right now is most certainly one of the best times to be alive. I don't envy future generations. Quality of life goes down from here.