Bioethics, Drugs

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#21
PR:

i bet your gut tells you it's a lie.
a deliberate one too ya know. a great big scam.
funny how things work: this guy is mentioned in the link i posted a couple back (eugenics)

Charles Galton Darwin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


it's easy to make the connections.

Charles Galton Darwin:

In 1925 he married Katharine Pember, a mathematician. They had four sons and a daughter:
In his spare time, Darwin also served as a wartime vice-president of the Simplified Spelling Society.[1]

On his retirement, his attention turned to issues of population, genetics and eugenics. His conclusions were pessimistic and entailed a resigned belief in an inevitable Malthusian catastrophe, as described in his 1952 book The Next Million Years. He first argued in this book that voluntary birth control (family planning) establishes a selective system that ensures its own failure. The cause is that people with the strongest instinct for wanting children will have the largest families and they will hand on the instinct to their children, while those with weaker instincts will have smaller families and will hand on that instinct to their children. In the long run society will consist mainly of people with the strongest instinct to reproduce. This would ultimately have dysgeneic effects.[2]

~


the guy is clearly a nutjob. but travelling in high circles. these guys push evolution remember.


then it's easy to find this guy:

Leonard Huxley:
His father was the zoologist Thomas Henry Huxley, 'Darwin's bulldog'. Leonard was educated at University College School, London, St. Andrews University, and Balliol College, Oxford. He first married Julia Arnold, daughter of Tom Arnold. She was a sister of the novelist Mrs. Humphrey Ward, niece of the poet Matthew Arnold, and granddaughter of Thomas Arnold, the headmaster of Rugby School (immortalised as a character in Tom Brown's Schooldays).

Their four children included the biologist Julian Huxley (born 1887), the writer Aldous Huxley (born 1894). Their middle son, Noel Trevenen (born in 1889) committed suicide in 1914. Their daughter, Margaret Arnold Huxley, was born in 1899 and died on October 11 1981. Julia Arnold died of cancer in 1908.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Huxley_(writer)






and then this guy:

Aldous Leonard Huxley
(26 July 1894 – 22 November 1963) was an English writer and one of the most prominent members of the famous Huxley family. He spent the later part of his life in the United States, living in Los Angeles from 1937 until his death in 1963. Best known for his novels including Brave New World and a wide-ranging output of essays, Huxley also edited the magazine Oxford Poetry, and published short stories, poetry, travel writing, and film stories and scripts.

Aldous Huxley was a humanist and pacifist, and he was latterly interested in spiritual subjects such as parapsychology and philosophical mysticism.[1] He is also well known for advocating and taking psychedelics.

By the end of his life Huxley was considered, in some academic circles, a leader of modern thought and an intellectual of the highest rank, and highly regarded as one of the most prominent explorers of visual communication and sight-related theories as well.[2]
Aldous Huxley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




he's the kook quoted on the first post of this thread:

"And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing … a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."
- Aldous Huxley




he's clearly insane, as they all are, but look what the "world" says about him:

By the end of his life Huxley was considered, in some academic circles, a leader of modern thought and an intellectual of the highest rank, and highly regarded as one of the most prominent explorers of visual communication and sight-related theories as well.[2]



so....with these people at the helm (for now), is it any wonder your school is required by law to teach darwin's theory of evolution? and is it any wonder the kids without a belief in a Creator (at the very least) sometimes act like animals? they're taught that's what they are.

but let it not be so for you, PR.

there is a God, the Creator, and He created you in His very image. though we're all fallen sinners (every one), we still are animals as these perverts teach us.

don't let them win. seek for the truth and you will find it.
 
Last edited:

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#22
HORRIBLE TYPO: CORRECTION!
sorry PR:

PR:
so....with these people at the helm (for now), is it any wonder your school is required by law to teach darwin's theory of evolution? and is it any wonder the kids without a belief in a Creator (at the very least) sometimes act like animals? they're taught that's what they are.

but let it not be so for you, PR.

there is a God, the Creator, and He created you in His very image. though we're all fallen sinners (every one), we still are NOT animals as these perverts teach us.

don't let them win. seek for the truth and you will find it.
we are NOT animals.

they may think they crawled out of a primordial soup and evolved into monkeys...but you did not.
 
Apr 6, 2011
431
2
0
#23
Insanity comes hand in hand with genius, A mans personal endeavors should have no affect on the way people veiw their scientific input. Albert Einstein was off his rocker but you don't put his name up because he believed in God. And you can't blame the theory of evolution on the devolution of society.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#24
Umm no though my teacher does an awful job of doing it... far to complicated for her -_- then again she does an awful job of cheating biology as a whole I dont know how she got through Uni.
LOL!!!!
they can't teach it because it isn't true.
she's only allowed to teach because she's willing to say those things.

but pay attention to how they do it. you can learn a lot just by knowing they're lying (she may not know herself...but that in itself proves it's a fraud).

outsmart them PR.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#25
Insanity comes hand in hand with genius, A mans personal endeavors should have no affect on the way people veiw their scientific input. Albert Einstein was off his rocker but you don't put his name up because he believed in God. And you can't blame the theory of evolution on the devolution of society.
PR:
the theory of evolution began the devolution.
and i can prove it.

i can prove who brought it to us, when, and to what end.
 
Last edited:
Apr 6, 2011
431
2
0
#26
No she doesnt teach it properly because she's an imbecile, my previous teacher taught it fine. I studied evolution before I was in highschool before anyone had ever mentioned it to me I was researching it made more sense then and it makes more sense now, the very idea of a higher being was born out of human fear and weakness if we evolved our existence was an accident. We are meaningless, and people... people are scared of that. God is easier.
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#27
I don't follow the social norms dictated to me by others.

I just want you to know this person you're conversing with is in the same boat as your chaplain

just in case you haven't figured it out on your own yet, but being an intelligent young man I'm sure you have. lol have fun. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enA2dJ3E3Co

note: She would not consider me Christian and has called me demon lead as well, oh wait that's her twin sister Paulnsilas...
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#28
No she doesnt teach it properly because she's an imbecile, my previous teacher taught it fine. I studied evolution before I was in highschool before anyone had ever mentioned it to me I was researching it made more sense then and it makes more sense now, the very idea of a higher being was born out of human fear and weakness if we evolved our existence was an accident. We are meaningless, and people... people are scared of that. God is easier.
the fruit of that junk is the idea we are meaningless accidents.
that's why they gave it to us.

in any case, that's what this thread is about, so by all means bring forward your evidence, and i'll bring forward mine.

ready.....set......GO



btw: believing in God is NOT easier, it's SMARTER, because it's TRUE.
i thought you said you didn't conform to social norms? ehehe.
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#29
No she doesnt teach it properly because she's an imbecile, my previous teacher taught it fine. I studied evolution before I was in highschool before anyone had ever mentioned it to me I was researching it made more sense then and it makes more sense now, the very idea of a higher being was born out of human fear and weakness if we evolved our existence was an accident. We are meaningless, and people... people are scared of that. God is easier.
Have to disagree with you on that one. the belief in God is our strength and makes more sense then theories without God. God is the divine catalyst. the mathematical probabilities of life without Him are almost null. Without enzymes biochemical reactions would be too slow to substain life. It is the way God created it. I could go into a discussion of biochemical, etc but GOD GAVE everything good. GOD gave knowledge of medicine and revealed to humanity how to heal others and make it so our bodies would heal a cut and not just bleed out and die. Its more intricate than that but that is the simplified version. Study genetics and protein synthesis and look into Newton's laws of motion and know that Mendel the father of genetics was a Christian monk.

I don't agree with Stone on most things but God does exist.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#30
I just want you to know this person you're conversing with is in the same boat as your chaplain

just in case you haven't figured it out on your own yet, but being an intelligent young man I'm sure you have. lol have fun. ;)

YouTube - Josh Wilson - I Refuse

note: She would not consider me Christian and has called me demon lead as well, oh wait that's her twin sister Paulnsilas...


run along now.
unless you're here to teach evolution.

actually...never mind.
you can have this thread.

se ya PR!
 
Apr 6, 2011
431
2
0
#31
*sigh*

1.) Evolution is evident today
2.) Numerous plot holes in the Bible.
3.) I take preference over science than faith.


Theres my evidence.
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#32
I'm sorry stone why are you running?

John 3:18-21 (New King James Version)

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”


1 John 2:8-10 (New King James Version)
8 Again, a new commandment I write to you, which thing is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining.
9 He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now. 10 He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him.

John 8:46-48 (New King James Version)

46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”
48 Then the Jews answered and said to Him, “Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?”

John 9:39-41 (New King James Version)

39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.”
40 Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, “Are we blind also?”
41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.

Matthew 13:13-15 (New King James Version)

13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:


‘ Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should[a]heal them
.’



note the I is JESUS.
 
Last edited:
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#33
*sigh*

1.) Evolution is evident today
2.) Numerous plot holes in the Bible.
3.) I take preference over science than faith.


Theres my evidence.
Do you really want to have a conversation about science and the Bible?

because I will oblige you but you might have to learn some more science terms and phrases in the Bible to follow along.
 
N

NMsmile

Guest
#35
I'm new at this site. I enjoyed reading this post. It was informative and educational. On the pharmacy thread ... It is apparent that we need to know what we are taking and what the effects are. Matthew 24:4 tells us, "And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you." I say this because there are untold numbers of Christians that are "addicted" to prescription medications because they didn't question their doctors about what was prescribed.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#36
I'm new at this site. I enjoyed reading this post. It was informative and educational. On the pharmacy thread ... It is apparent that we need to know what we are taking and what the effects are. Matthew 24:4 tells us, "And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you." I say this because there are untold numbers of Christians that are "addicted" to prescription medications because they didn't question their doctors about what was prescribed.

thank you NM.
i'm not advocating antimedicine.
just caution and awareness.

i think its more than a concern over medications.
these psychos are putting stuff in the water and food as well.

Bisphenol A for example in plastics "just happens" to sterilize people. it's always about eugenics.
they needed darwin's theory for that: survival of the fittest/"natural selection", whatever they want to call it.

marxists and fascists always do it this way.

i may continue posting if the thread doesn't go off the rails.

Henry Kissinger, 1978:

“U.S. policy toward the third world should be one of depopulation”
 
Last edited:

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#38
Nothing wrong with Marxism.
OK.
let's take a look at it. because that's where we are right now: entering the last phases of a global marxist state. absolute TYRANY. (don't forget Huxley's drugging of the masses so they will OBEY).

remember all the rough kids at school without dads? whose moms are on welfare?....read this excerpt carefully and see how and why they did it.:


III. By educating all children at the expense of the state.

Question 19: How will you arrange this kind of education during the period of transition?

Answer: All children will be educated in state establishments from the time when they can do without the first maternal care.



Manifesto of the Communist Party

Written: Late 1847;
First Published: February 1848;
Source: Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. One, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969, pp. 98-137;

Manifesto of the Communist Party





Works of Frederick Engels 1847

Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith

Source: MECW Volume 6, p. 92;
Written: by Engels, June 9 1847;
First published: in Gründungsdokumente des Bundes der Kommunisten, Hamburg, 1969.
Editor's Note: From Progress Prublishers.

Question 1: Are you a Communist?

Answer: Yes.

Question 2: What is the aim of the Communists?

Answer: To organise society in such a way that every member of it can develop and use all his capabilities and powers in complete freedom and without thereby infringing the basic conditions of this society.

Question 3: How do you wish to achieve this aim?

Answer: By the elimination of private property and its replacement by community of property.

Question 4: On what do you base your community of property?

Answer: Firstly, on the mass of productive forces and means of subsistence resulting from the development of industry, agriculture, trade and colonisation, and on the possibility inherent in machinery, chemical and other resources of their infinite extension.

Secondly, on the fact that in the consciousness or feeling of every individual there exist certain irrefutable basic principles which, being the result of the whole of historical development, require no proof.

Question 5: What are such principles?

Answer: For example, every individual strives to be happy. The happiness of the individual is inseparable from the happiness of all, etc.

Question 6: How do you wish to prepare the way for your community of property?

Answer: By enlightening and uniting the proletariat.

Question 7: What is the proletariat?

Answer: The proletariat is that class of society which lives exclusively by its labour and not on the profit from any kind of capital; that class whose weal and woe, whose life and death, therefore, depend on the alternation of times of good and bad business;. in a word, on the fluctuations of competition.

Question 8: Then there have not always been proletarians?

Answer: No. There have always been poor and working classes; and those who worked were almost always the poor. But there have not always been proletarians, just as competition has not always been free.

Question 9: How did the proletariat arise?

Answer: The proletariat came into being as a result of the introduction of the machines which have been invented since the middle of the last century and the most important of which are: the steam-engine, the spinning machine and the power loom. These machines, which were very expensive and could therefore only be purchased by rich people, supplanted the workers of the time, because by the use of machinery it was possible to produce commodities more quickly and cheaply than could the workers with their imperfect spinning wheels and hand-looms. The machines thus delivered industry entirely into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered the workers’ scanty property which consisted mainly of their tools, looms, etc., quite worthless, so that the capitalist was left with everything, the worker with nothing. In this way the factory system was introduced. Once the capitalists saw how advantageous this was for them, they sought to extend it to more and more branches of labour. They divided work more and more between the workers so that workers who formerly had made a whole article now produced only a part of it. Labour simplified in this way produced goods more quickly and therefore more cheaply and only now was it found in almost every branch of labour that here also machines could be used. As soon as any branch of labour went over to factory production it ended up, just as in the case of spinning and weaving. in the hands of the big capitalists, and the workers were deprived of the last remnants of their independence. We have gradually arrived at the position where almost all branches of labour are run on a factory basis. This has increasingly brought about the ruin of the previously existing middle class, especially of the small master craftsmen, completely transformed the previous position of the workers, and two new classes which are gradually swallowing up all other classes have come into being, namely:

I. The, class of the big capitalists, who in all advanced countries are in almost exclusive possession of the means of subsistence and those means (machines, factories, workshops, etc.) by which these means of subsistence are produced. This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie.

II. The class of the completely propertyless, who are compelled to sell their labour[70] to the first class, the bourgeois, simply to obtain from them in return their means of subsistence. Since the parties to this trading in labour are not equal, but the bourgeois have the advantage, the propertyless must submit to the bad conditions laid down by the bourgeois. This class, dependent on the bourgeois, is called the class of the proletarians or the proletariat.

Question 10: In what way does the proletarian differ from the slave?

Answer: The slave is sold once and for all, the proletarian has to sell himself by the day and by the hour. The slave is the property of one master and for that very reason has a guaranteed subsistence, however wretched it may be. The proletarian is, so to speak, the slave of the entire bourgeois class, not of one master, and therefore has no guaranteed subsistence, since nobody buys his labour if he does not need it. The slave is accounted a thing and not a member of civil society. The proletarian is recognised as a person, as a member of civil society. The slave may, therefore, have a better subsistence than the proletarian but the latter stands at a higher stage of development. The slave frees himself by becoming a proletarian, abolishing from the totality of property relationships only the relationship of slavery. The proletarian can free himself only by abolishing property in general.

Question 11: In what way does the proletarian differ from the serf?

Answer: The serf has the use of a piece of land, that is, of an instrument of production, in return for handing over a greater or lesser portion of the yield. The proletarian works with instruments of production which belong to someone else who, in return for his labour, hands over to him a portion, determined by competition, of the products. In the case of the serf, the share of the labourer is determined by his own labour, that is, by himself. In the case of the proletarian it is determined by competition, therefore in the first place by the bourgeois. The serf has guaranteed subsistence, the proletarian has not. The serf frees himself by driving out his feudal lord and becoming a property owner himself, thus entering into competition and joining for the time being the possessing class, the privileged class. The proletarian frees himself by doing away with property, competition, and all class differences.

Question 12: In what way does the proletarian differ from the handicraftsman?

Answer: As opposed to the proletarian, the so-called handicraftsman, who still existed nearly everywhere during the last century and still exists here and there, is at most a temporary proletarian. His aim is to acquire capital himself and so to exploit other workers. He can often achieve this aim where the craft guilds still exist or where freedom to follow a trade has not yet led to the organisation of handwork on a factory basis and to intense competition. But as soon as the factory system is introduced into handwork and competition is in full swing, this prospect is eliminated and the handicraftsman becomes more and more a proletarian. The handicraftsman therefore frees himself either by becoming a bourgeois or in general passing over into the middle class, or, by becoming a proletarian as a result of competition (as now happens in most cases) and joining the movement of the proletariat — i. e., the more or less conscious communist movement.

Question 13: Then you do not believe that community of property has been possible at any time?

Answer: No. Communism has only arisen since machinery and other inventions made it possible to hold out the prospect of an all-sided development, a happy existence, for all members of society. Communism is the theory of a liberation which was not possible for the slaves, the serfs, or the handicraftsmen, but only for the proletarians and hence it belongs of necessity to the 19th century and was not possible in any earlier period.

Question 14: Let m go back to the sixth question. As you wish to prepare for community of property by the enlightening and uniting of the proletariat, then you reject revolution?

Answer: We are convinced not only of the uselessness but even of the harmfulness of all conspiracies. We are also aware that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily but that everywhere and at all times they are the necessary consequence of circumstances which are not in any way whatever dependent either on the will or on the leadership of individual parties or of whole classes. But we also see that the development of the proletariat in almost all countries of the world is forcibly repressed by the possessing classes and that thus a revolution is being forcibly worked for by the opponents of communism. If, in the end, the oppressed proletariat is thus driven into a revolution, then we will defend the cause of the proletariat just as well by our deeds as now by our words.

Question 15: Do you intend to replace the existing social order by community of Property at one stroke?

Answer: We have no such intention. The development of the masses cannot he ordered by decree. It is determined by the development of the conditions in which these masses live, and therefore proceeds gradually.

Question 16: How do you think the transition from the present situation to community of Property is to be effected?

Answer: The first, fundamental condition for the introduction of community of property is the political liberation of the proletariat through a democratic constitution.

Question 17: What will be your first measure once you have established democracy?


Answer: Guaranteeing the subsistence of the proletariat.
Question 18: How will you do this?

Answer. I. By limiting private property in such a way that it gradually prepares the way for its transformation into social property, e. g., by progressive taxation, limitation of the right of inheritance in favour of the state, etc., etc.

II. By employing workers in national workshops and factories and on national estates.

III. By educating all children at the expense of the state.

Question 19: How will you arrange this kind of education during the period of transition?

Answer: All children will be educated in state establishments from the time when they can do without the first maternal care.

Question 20: Will not the introduction of community of property be accompanied by the proclamation of the community of women?

Answer: By no means. We will only interfere in the personal relationship between men and women or with the family in general to the extent that the maintenance of the existing institution would disturb the new social order. Besides, we are well aware that the family relationship has been modified in the course of history by the property relationships and by periods of development, and that consequently the ending of private property will also have a most important influence on it.

Question 21: Will nationalities continue to exist under communism?

Answer: The nationalities of the peoples who join together according to the principle of community will be just as much compelled by this union to merge with one another and thereby supersede themselves as the various differences between estates and classes disappear through the superseding of their basis — private property.

Question 22. Do Communists reject existing religions?

Answer: All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is that stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and supersedes them.

In the name and on the mandate of the Congress.

Secretary: Heide [Alias of Wilhelm Wolff in the League of the Just]
President: Karl Schill [Alias of Karl Schapper in the League of the Just]
London, June 9, 1847

Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith by Frederick Engels
 
Last edited:
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#39
first make a distinction between SOCIAL DARWINISM and natural selection and you might learn something. ummm like Catholic and protestant if it helps you know that there is a BIG difference between the two.
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#40
OK.
let's take a look at it. because that's where we are right now: entering the last phases of a global marxist state. absolute TYRANY. (don't forget Huxley's drugging of the masses so they will OBEY).

remember all the rough kids at school without dads? whose moms are on welfare?....read this excerpt carefully and see how and why they did it.:


III. By educating all children at the expense of the state.

Question 19: How will you arrange this kind of education during the period of transition?

Answer: All children will be educated in state establishments from the time when they can do without the first maternal care.



Manifesto of the Communist Party

Written: Late 1847;
First Published: February 1848;
Source: Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. One, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969, pp. 98-137;

Manifesto of the Communist Party





Works of Frederick Engels 1847

Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith

Source: MECW Volume 6, p. 92;
Written: by Engels, June 9 1847;
First published: in Gründungsdokumente des Bundes der Kommunisten, Hamburg, 1969.
Editor's Note: From Progress Prublishers.

Question 1: Are you a Communist?

Answer: Yes.

Question 2: What is the aim of the Communists?

Answer: To organise society in such a way that every member of it can develop and use all his capabilities and powers in complete freedom and without thereby infringing the basic conditions of this society.

Question 3: How do you wish to achieve this aim?

Answer: By the elimination of private property and its replacement by community of property.

Question 4: On what do you base your community of property?

Answer: Firstly, on the mass of productive forces and means of subsistence resulting from the development of industry, agriculture, trade and colonisation, and on the possibility inherent in machinery, chemical and other resources of their infinite extension.

Secondly, on the fact that in the consciousness or feeling of every individual there exist certain irrefutable basic principles which, being the result of the whole of historical development, require no proof.

Question 5: What are such principles?

Answer: For example, every individual strives to be happy. The happiness of the individual is inseparable from the happiness of all, etc.

Question 6: How do you wish to prepare the way for your community of property?

Answer: By enlightening and uniting the proletariat.

Question 7: What is the proletariat?

Answer: The proletariat is that class of society which lives exclusively by its labour and not on the profit from any kind of capital; that class whose weal and woe, whose life and death, therefore, depend on the alternation of times of good and bad business;. in a word, on the fluctuations of competition.

Question 8: Then there have not always been proletarians?

Answer: No. There have always been poor and working classes; and those who worked were almost always the poor. But there have not always been proletarians, just as competition has not always been free.

Question 9: How did the proletariat arise?

Answer: The proletariat came into being as a result of the introduction of the machines which have been invented since the middle of the last century and the most important of which are: the steam-engine, the spinning machine and the power loom. These machines, which were very expensive and could therefore only be purchased by rich people, supplanted the workers of the time, because by the use of machinery it was possible to produce commodities more quickly and cheaply than could the workers with their imperfect spinning wheels and hand-looms. The machines thus delivered industry entirely into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered the workers’ scanty property which consisted mainly of their tools, looms, etc., quite worthless, so that the capitalist was left with everything, the worker with nothing. In this way the factory system was introduced. Once the capitalists saw how advantageous this was for them, they sought to extend it to more and more branches of labour. They divided work more and more between the workers so that workers who formerly had made a whole article now produced only a part of it. Labour simplified in this way produced goods more quickly and therefore more cheaply and only now was it found in almost every branch of labour that here also machines could be used. As soon as any branch of labour went over to factory production it ended up, just as in the case of spinning and weaving. in the hands of the big capitalists, and the workers were deprived of the last remnants of their independence. We have gradually arrived at the position where almost all branches of labour are run on a factory basis. This has increasingly brought about the ruin of the previously existing middle class, especially of the small master craftsmen, completely transformed the previous position of the workers, and two new classes which are gradually swallowing up all other classes have come into being, namely:

I. The, class of the big capitalists, who in all advanced countries are in almost exclusive possession of the means of subsistence and those means (machines, factories, workshops, etc.) by which these means of subsistence are produced. This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie.

II. The class of the completely propertyless, who are compelled to sell their labour[70] to the first class, the bourgeois, simply to obtain from them in return their means of subsistence. Since the parties to this trading in labour are not equal, but the bourgeois have the advantage, the propertyless must submit to the bad conditions laid down by the bourgeois. This class, dependent on the bourgeois, is called the class of the proletarians or the proletariat.

Question 10: In what way does the proletarian differ from the slave?

Answer: The slave is sold once and for all, the proletarian has to sell himself by the day and by the hour. The slave is the property of one master and for that very reason has a guaranteed subsistence, however wretched it may be. The proletarian is, so to speak, the slave of the entire bourgeois class, not of one master, and therefore has no guaranteed subsistence, since nobody buys his labour if he does not need it. The slave is accounted a thing and not a member of civil society. The proletarian is recognised as a person, as a member of civil society. The slave may, therefore, have a better subsistence than the proletarian but the latter stands at a higher stage of development. The slave frees himself by becoming a proletarian, abolishing from the totality of property relationships only the relationship of slavery. The proletarian can free himself only by abolishing property in general.

Question 11: In what way does the proletarian differ from the serf?

Answer: The serf has the use of a piece of land, that is, of an instrument of production, in return for handing over a greater or lesser portion of the yield. The proletarian works with instruments of production which belong to someone else who, in return for his labour, hands over to him a portion, determined by competition, of the products. In the case of the serf, the share of the labourer is determined by his own labour, that is, by himself. In the case of the proletarian it is determined by competition, therefore in the first place by the bourgeois. The serf has guaranteed subsistence, the proletarian has not. The serf frees himself by driving out his feudal lord and becoming a property owner himself, thus entering into competition and joining for the time being the possessing class, the privileged class. The proletarian frees himself by doing away with property, competition, and all class differences.

Question 12: In what way does the proletarian differ from the handicraftsman?

Answer: As opposed to the proletarian, the so-called handicraftsman, who still existed nearly everywhere during the last century and still exists here and there, is at most a temporary proletarian. His aim is to acquire capital himself and so to exploit other workers. He can often achieve this aim where the craft guilds still exist or where freedom to follow a trade has not yet led to the organisation of handwork on a factory basis and to intense competition. But as soon as the factory system is introduced into handwork and competition is in full swing, this prospect is eliminated and the handicraftsman becomes more and more a proletarian. The handicraftsman therefore frees himself either by becoming a bourgeois or in general passing over into the middle class, or, by becoming a proletarian as a result of competition (as now happens in most cases) and joining the movement of the proletariat — i. e., the more or less conscious communist movement.

Question 13: Then you do not believe that community of property has been possible at any time?

Answer: No. Communism has only arisen since machinery and other inventions made it possible to hold out the prospect of an all-sided development, a happy existence, for all members of society. Communism is the theory of a liberation which was not possible for the slaves, the serfs, or the handicraftsmen, but only for the proletarians and hence it belongs of necessity to the 19th century and was not possible in any earlier period.

Question 14: Let m go back to the sixth question. As you wish to prepare for community of property by the enlightening and uniting of the proletariat, then you reject revolution?

Answer: We are convinced not only of the uselessness but even of the harmfulness of all conspiracies. We are also aware that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily but that everywhere and at all times they are the necessary consequence of circumstances which are not in any way whatever dependent either on the will or on the leadership of individual parties or of whole classes. But we also see that the development of the proletariat in almost all countries of the world is forcibly repressed by the possessing classes and that thus a revolution is being forcibly worked for by the opponents of communism. If, in the end, the oppressed proletariat is thus driven into a revolution, then we will defend the cause of the proletariat just as well by our deeds as now by our words.

Question 15: Do you intend to replace the existing social order by community of Property at one stroke?

Answer: We have no such intention. The development of the masses cannot he ordered by decree. It is determined by the development of the conditions in which these masses live, and therefore proceeds gradually.

Question 16: How do you think the transition from the present situation to community of Property is to be effected?

Answer: The first, fundamental condition for the introduction of community of property is the political liberation of the proletariat through a democratic constitution.

Question 17: What will be your first measure once you have established democracy?


Answer: Guaranteeing the subsistence of the proletariat.
Question 18: How will you do this?

Answer. I. By limiting private property in such a way that it gradually prepares the way for its transformation into social property, e. g., by progressive taxation, limitation of the right of inheritance in favour of the state, etc., etc.

II. By employing workers in national workshops and factories and on national estates.

III. By educating all children at the expense of the state.

Question 19: How will you arrange this kind of education during the period of transition?

Answer: All children will be educated in state establishments from the time when they can do without the first maternal care.

Question 20: Will not the introduction of community of property be accompanied by the proclamation of the community of women?

Answer: By no means. We will only interfere in the personal relationship between men and women or with the family in general to the extent that the maintenance of the existing institution would disturb the new social order. Besides, we are well aware that the family relationship has been modified in the course of history by the property relationships and by periods of development, and that consequently the ending of private property will also have a most important influence on it.

Question 21: Will nationalities continue to exist under communism?

Answer: The nationalities of the peoples who join together according to the principle of community will be just as much compelled by this union to merge with one another and thereby supersede themselves as the various differences between estates and classes disappear through the superseding of their basis — private property.

Question 22. Do Communists reject existing religions?

Answer: All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is that stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and supersedes them.

In the name and on the mandate of the Congress.

Secretary: Heide [Alias of Wilhelm Wolff in the League of the Just]
President: Karl Schill [Alias of Karl Schapper in the League of the Just]
London, June 9, 1847

Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith by Frederick Engels

social darwinism, no scientific basis, used to justify hate crimes and rejected by the scientific community who actually believe it or not has some Christians in their ranks...