A scripture on God’s grace (and anarcho-communism?)

Ho, every thirsty one, come ye to the waters, And he who hath no money, Come ye, buy and eat, yea, come, buy Without money and without price, wine and milk. Why do ye weigh money for that which is not bread? And your labour for that which is not for satiety? Hearken diligently unto me, and eat good, And your soul doth delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me, Hear, and your soul doth live, And I make for you a covenant age-during, The kind acts of David—that are stedfast. Lo, a witness to peoples I have given him, A leader and commander to peoples. Lo, a nation thou knowest not, thou callest, And a nation who know thee not unto thee do run, For the sake of Jehovah thy God, And for the Holy One of Israel, Because He hath beautified thee.
Isaiah 55:1-5

I’ve been enjoying this passage for the last couple of days now. I love it.
It’s very interesting that the imagery used to show God’s kindness here, is of buying without money and without price, not just necessities (water) but the good and fine things of life too (milk and wine), as Peter Kropotkin hoped for. Christians are told to be perfect, as our Father in heaven is perfect, so should it be our ideal to be rid of money?
God’s point here is how wonderful His grace is, especially when compared with the works of false religion. He also gives us a clear way to imitate His grace, that would result in something like anarchist-communism.

God bless you.

Capitalism vs Communism, Property vs Belongings

A lot of people misunderstand capitalism. Capitalism isn’t about profit, or GDP, or getting rich, or greed, though they are all part of it. Capitalism is about property.
Many socialists and communists criticise capitalism with poor understanding and arguments, and few take on its foundation. I will now attempt to lay down its foundation.

You begin with the premise of property– each person may have complete control over what s/he owns, and may use that control to whatever ends they wish. As long as this is one of your premises, you will either end up with capitalism (anarcho-capitalism?) or a contradiction.
Now, within each person’s control of a possession, they have the power to hand over control. So you can trade.
And importantly, no object has any value of its own. This is a common misunderstanding. You never pay for anything in itself: you pay for someone else to hand over their power to you. If you paid for the object itself, where would the money go? And this value is subjective.
So, one man (we’ll call him No1) has an ornamental (but functional) tractor and many fields, and another (No2) has a field and bags of gold. No2’s field is on an island with No1’s tractor, and No1’s fields are on the mainland. No2 offers enough gold to buy a thousand better tractors on the mainland, because he doesn’t want to transport a tractor to the island, but No1 says no, because his tractor was his dead grandfather’s. The objects value was different to the two. Is there anything wrong with keeping your heirloom to make you happy?
It is the same with a business. A (monopolist) farmer might burn some of his crops, despite hunger around him, because he wants more money to be happy. It is in his power to do with as he will.
A nice note on capitalism, is that because value is subjective, so is the idea of being rich. For one man, money makes you rich, for another, it’s friends, family, kindness, or anything.

‘for where your treasure is, there will be also your heart.’
Matthew 6:21

Each actor in the market uses their own power, to their own ends. Whether consumer, employer, investor, employee or anyone else. (If you accept the government’s possession of the land and the people, they do too)
Capitalism flows logically from ownership. Anyone who wants to attack capitalism, must attack property.
Peter Kropotkin, the great anarcho-communist, understood this. When other communists, socialists, and anarchists, suggested any form of ownership, trade, or money (“work notes”), he told them it would lead to tyranny or capitalism.

So what argument can be levelled against property itself?
Property is based on increasing freedom. The argument is that, if a man in his freedom can change an object, for his past freedom to be sustained he must have complete authority over the object. For the freedom to change an object to exist, that change must be protected.
But this premise is false. Freedom to do, doesn’t require the removal of the freedom to undo.
And property, in the privatisation of freedom over an object, is violent. You cannot remove freedom by free action in the past. It makes no sense.
How can property be gained by being first to act upon it? What would count as acting upon it? How come such a right is eternal, lasting beyond the actor’s life. No, property rights are nonsense. Property began when men threatened violence for touching an object.
That said, I respect that some things mean more to some people, and I don’t want to upset them. I call this, belonging. Heirlooms belong in families. Everyone belongs at their own home.

‘We belong together.’
Mariah Carey

When you respect possession, you respect violence, and papers. When you respect belongings, you respect people’s feelings, their hearts.
All that being said, I don’t intend on stealing (or expropriating) anything. Just living by love, regardless of the idea of property, but keeping in mind those who consider themselves owners. It’s still not kind to steal.
Arguably, using property in love would work out as not treating property as your own anyway. I like this idea, because it means the problem of what to do with property and of property being false, solve each other if you live by love (which I believe you should).
Love cannot be bought. It cannot be forced. It cannot be tempted out. It is definitively free. All things in love are free.

God bless you.

Was St. Paul a communist?

‘but by equality, at the present time your abundance—for their want, that also the abundance may be for your want, that there may be equality’
2Corinthians 8:14

‘One thing remains: put the needs above the works,and first of all recognize the right to live, and later on, to the comforts of life, for all those who take their share in production.’
Peter Kropotkin

‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’
Marx

Don’t worry, I’m not saying St. Paul was a Marxist. But the resemblance in these short and simple quotes is remarkable.
Was the apostle Paul some kind of communist? Certainly not in the modern sense. He didn’t force any redistribution of wealth, and opposed violent revolution (that’s how I read his words at least). But this idea of thorough equality and charity, certainly resembles communist ideas of justice.
Peter Kropotkin‘s quote above, has an interesting resonance with Paul‘s message, that we are justified by faith in grace, not by works. That which we received from God we did not earn, and could not earn, but was from His love. Should we not do the same?
God bless you.