Skip to main content

Early this year (1998), my little sister asked me to look up some stuff on the 'net for a paper she was doing on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As I surfed, the Lord put a thought in my mind, "Did this man ever testify of Me?" I thought to myself, "Mmmmm. The world loved this man. If he was preaching the gospel, the world would have hated him." I started looking up Martin Luther King's writings. As I read, I realized that he was a stranger, a foreigner to me. Whenever he mentioned Jesus, it was along with mere mortals like Socrates or Ghandi. In his jailhouse letter, King lumped all religions into the same class. I could not find one "sermon" where he preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified. What I saw is that this man "preached" a social gospel using Black churches as his springboard.

King's philosophy is rather reminiscent of the Catholic Liberation Theology in South America. After several hours of reading of him on the 'net, I told my husband that this man was not our brother in Christ. Someone who called himself "Reverend" and preached in churches was obviously not saved. For 32 years, I'd heard great and favorable things about Martin Luther King, Jr. His name was, and is, synonymous with civil rights. But in 1998, the Lord Jesus Christ has shown me that "Reverend" Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was nothing short of an heretick. It was a strange revelation.

Well, all these months have passed and I thought my meditation on this was over--I was wrong. The Lord wanted me to see something else. Last night, my husband gave me some papers that my sister wanted me to have. It was the stuff that I had printed out for her on Martin Luther King, Jr. I didn't need that stuff back but the Lord wanted my mind to go back to this subject. Lo and behold, yesterday (it is about 3:30 am now) 10-7-98, I was surfing the 'net for information on King Charles I (son of King James VI & I) when I came upon an article for Martin Luther King, Jr. I clicked on the link, and amazingly, I was taken to Stanford University's repository for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s writings--they are on line. Their repository is a work in progress, but there is more than enough there for any human being to see that Martin Luther King, Jr. denied the most basic tenets of the Christian faith.



http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/king.htm
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I think he is remember more for his cause than he is for being a minister so I'm not incredible phased. However I don't think he should be portrayed as a saint either. He was a man. Many of his writing and speeches were plagiarized. He exploited and reportedly physically abused women and had a very sordid sexual affairs. One day the FBI recordings are going to get out and we need to go ahead and separate the man from his works.
I am not defending the man or anything he did-or may have done (or didn't do). I am questioning the tendency by some to denigrate an individual because they do not 'measure up' to some perceived notion of godliness. In other words, is it right to judge a man and/or his legacy solely because he does meet someone else's idea/definition of being a 'christian?'
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yo Brotha from anotha Motha:
But in 1998, the Lord Jesus Christ has shown me that "Reverend" Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was nothing short of an heretick. It was a strange revelation."
_________________________

Did the Lord show you the spelling and grammar of "an heretick" while you were exploring this issue? Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by Yo Brotha from anotha Motha:
Early this year (1998), my little sister asked me to look up some stuff on the 'net for a paper she was doing on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As I surfed, the Lord put a thought in my mind, "Did this man ever testify of Me?" I thought to myself, "Mmmmm. The world loved this man. If he was preaching the gospel, the world would have hated him." I started looking up Martin Luther King's writings. As I read, I realized that he was a stranger, a foreigner to me. Whenever he mentioned Jesus, it was along with mere mortals like Socrates or Ghandi. In his jailhouse letter, King lumped all religions into the same class. I could not find one "sermon" where he preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified. What I saw is that this man "preached" a social gospel using Black churches as his springboard.

King's philosophy is rather reminiscent of the Catholic Liberation Theology in South America. After several hours of reading of him on the 'net, I told my husband that this man was not our brother in Christ. Someone who called himself "Reverend" and preached in churches was obviously not saved. For 32 years, I'd heard great and favorable things about Martin Luther King, Jr. His name was, and is, synonymous with civil rights. But in 1998, the Lord Jesus Christ has shown me that "Reverend" Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was nothing short of an heretick. It was a strange revelation.

Well, all these months have passed and I thought my meditation on this was over--I was wrong. The Lord wanted me to see something else. Last night, my husband gave me some papers that my sister wanted me to have. It was the stuff that I had printed out for her on Martin Luther King, Jr. I didn't need that stuff back but the Lord wanted my mind to go back to this subject. Lo and behold, yesterday (it is about 3:30 am now) 10-7-98, I was surfing the 'net for information on King Charles I (son of King James VI & I) when I came upon an article for Martin Luther King, Jr. I clicked on the link, and amazingly, I was taken to Stanford University's repository for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s writings--they are on line. Their repository is a work in progress, but there is more than enough there for any human being to see that Martin Luther King, Jr. denied the most basic tenets of the Christian faith.



http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/king.htm


Maybe I read this wrong, but that link didn't go to the Stanford U's repository.. if it did, it didn't say anything about it..

Guess I am missing the point here.
quote:
Originally posted by Ubermensch:
I think he is remember more for his cause than he is for being a minister so I'm not incredible phased. However I don't think he should be portrayed as a saint either. He was a man. Many of his writing and speeches were plagiarized. He exploited and reportedly physically abused women and had a very sordid sexual affairs. One day the FBI recordings are going to get out and we need to go ahead and separate the man from his works.


I agree with you, Uber. MEN are just that, MEN... not perfect. The best ANY of us can do is TRY to do the right thing, and even then, we will still mess up, because we are imperfect human beings, just as MLK was.
quote:
Originally posted by Yo Brotha from anotha Motha:
Early this year (1998), my little sister asked me to look up some stuff on the 'net for a paper she was doing on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As I surfed, the Lord put a thought in my mind, "Did this man ever testify of Me?" I thought to myself, "Mmmmm. The world loved this man. If he was preaching the gospel, the world would have hated him." I started looking up Martin Luther King's writings. As I read, I realized that he was a stranger, a foreigner to me. Whenever he mentioned Jesus, it was along with mere mortals like Socrates or Ghandi. In his jailhouse letter, King lumped all religions into the same class. I could not find one "sermon" where he preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified. What I saw is that this man "preached" a social gospel using Black churches as his springboard.

King's philosophy is rather reminiscent of the Catholic Liberation Theology in South America. After several hours of reading of him on the 'net, I told my husband that this man was not our brother in Christ. Someone who called himself "Reverend" and preached in churches was obviously not saved. For 32 years, I'd heard great and favorable things about Martin Luther King, Jr. His name was, and is, synonymous with civil rights. But in 1998, the Lord Jesus Christ has shown me that "Reverend" Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was nothing short of an heretick. It was a strange revelation.

Well, all these months have passed and I thought my meditation on this was over--I was wrong. The Lord wanted me to see something else. Last night, my husband gave me some papers that my sister wanted me to have. It was the stuff that I had printed out for her on Martin Luther King, Jr. I didn't need that stuff back but the Lord wanted my mind to go back to this subject. Lo and behold, yesterday (it is about 3:30 am now) 10-7-98, I was surfing the 'net for information on King Charles I (son of King James VI & I) when I came upon an article for Martin Luther King, Jr. I clicked on the link, and amazingly, I was taken to Stanford University's repository for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s writings--they are on line. Their repository is a work in progress, but there is more than enough there for any human being to see that Martin Luther King, Jr. denied the most basic tenets of the Christian faith.



http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/king.htm



Since Martin Luther King's day one of protesting for civil rights, he has been criticized for his accomplishments. So many thought that Martin Luther King was only protesting for poor blacks. Not true. He protested for all the poor, white or black. Our government tried very hard to discourage Martin Luther King, accusing him of being a communist, which was not true. Any time one comes out against the government or the war, you will be labeled as not patriotic, un-American, etc.. As to judge whether Martin Luther King was Christian or not, is not for us to judge. That's God's department. If Martin Luther King was caught sinning, how do you know that he didn't make things right before he died? Today, you will find people that did not support Martin Luther King. Condelissa Rice is one, Colen Powell is another. The rich blacks did not support Martin Luther Kings efforts and that also holds true today. I can't believe how many people are so naive and will not do research for truth. I talked to a man just the other day that brought up the KKK and he say's the KKK votes democrat. Back in the sixties, this was true. In the south, the KKK may vote democrat because the democrat party in the south is not liberal, it's conservative. the kkk in the south vote democrat and republican, the southern democrats do not recognize the National Democratic Party. Now, in the north, as you call it the blue states, the KKK would vote republican because the democrats in that area are a little bit more liberal. Anyway, that's my two cents worth.
The kkk in the south vote democrat and republican

Can you Imagine THE KKK VOTING LIBERAL? lmao!!!
quote:
Since Martin Luther King's day one of protesting for civil rights, he has been criticized for his accomplishments. So many thought that Martin Luther King was only protesting for poor blacks. Not true. He protested for all the poor, white or black. Our government tried very hard to discourage Martin Luther King, accusing him of being a communist, which was not true. Any time one comes out against the government or the war, you will be labeled as not patriotic, un-American, etc.. As to judge whether Martin Luther King was Christian or not, is not for us to judge. That's God's department. If Martin Luther King was caught sinning, how do you know that he didn't make things right before he died? Today, you will find people that did not support Martin Luther King. Condelissa Rice is one, Colen Powell is another. The rich blacks did not support Martin Luther Kings efforts and that also holds true today. I can't believe how many people are so naive and will not do research for truth. I talked to a man just the other day that brought up the KKK and he say's the KKK votes democrat. Back in the sixties, this was true. In the south, the KKK may vote democrat because the democrat party in the south is not liberal, it's conservative. the kkk in the south vote democrat and republican, the southern democrats do not recognize the National Democratic Party. Now, in the north, as you call it the blue states, the KKK would vote republican because the democrats in that area are a little bit more liberal. Anyway, that's my two cents worth.
The kkk in the south vote democrat and republican

Can you Imagine THE KKK VOTING LIBERAL? lmao!!!



?? What do the voting habits of the KKK have to do with this topic?
quote:
Originally posted by REDNEVEDNAV:
quote:
Since Martin Luther King's day one of protesting for civil rights, he has been criticized for his accomplishments. So many thought that Martin Luther King was only protesting for poor blacks. Not true. He protested for all the poor, white or black. Our government tried very hard to discourage Martin Luther King, accusing him of being a communist, which was not true. Any time one comes out against the government or the war, you will be labeled as not patriotic, un-American, etc.. As to judge whether Martin Luther King was Christian or not, is not for us to judge. That's God's department. If Martin Luther King was caught sinning, how do you know that he didn't make things right before he died? Today, you will find people that did not support Martin Luther King. Condelissa Rice is one, Colen Powell is another. The rich blacks did not support Martin Luther Kings efforts and that also holds true today. I can't believe how many people are so naive and will not do research for truth. I talked to a man just the other day that brought up the KKK and he say's the KKK votes democrat. Back in the sixties, this was true. In the south, the KKK may vote democrat because the democrat party in the south is not liberal, it's conservative. the kkk in the south vote democrat and republican, the southern democrats do not recognize the National Democratic Party. Now, in the north, as you call it the blue states, the KKK would vote republican because the democrats in that area are a little bit more liberal. Anyway, that's my two cents worth.
The kkk in the south vote democrat and republican

Can you Imagine THE KKK VOTING LIBERAL? lmao!!!



?? What do the voting habits of the KKK have to do with this topic?


Well, it all goes back to the start of the KKK and black's, as if you didn't know, Martin Luther fought the KKK as well.
quote:
Originally posted by PBA:
quote:
Originally posted by REDNEVEDNAV:
quote:
Since Martin Luther King's day one of protesting for civil rights, he has been criticized for his accomplishments. So many thought that Martin Luther King was only protesting for poor blacks. Not true. He protested for all the poor, white or black. Our government tried very hard to discourage Martin Luther King, accusing him of being a communist, which was not true. Any time one comes out against the government or the war, you will be labeled as not patriotic, un-American, etc.. As to judge whether Martin Luther King was Christian or not, is not for us to judge. That's God's department. If Martin Luther King was caught sinning, how do you know that he didn't make things right before he died? Today, you will find people that did not support Martin Luther King. Condelissa Rice is one, Colen Powell is another. The rich blacks did not support Martin Luther Kings efforts and that also holds true today. I can't believe how many people are so naive and will not do research for truth. I talked to a man just the other day that brought up the KKK and he say's the KKK votes democrat. Back in the sixties, this was true. In the south, the KKK may vote democrat because the democrat party in the south is not liberal, it's conservative. the kkk in the south vote democrat and republican, the southern democrats do not recognize the National Democratic Party. Now, in the north, as you call it the blue states, the KKK would vote republican because the democrats in that area are a little bit more liberal. Anyway, that's my two cents worth.
The kkk in the south vote democrat and republican

Can you Imagine THE KKK VOTING LIBERAL? lmao!!!



?? What do the voting habits of the KKK have to do with this topic?


Well, it all goes back to the start of the KKK and black's, as if you didn't know, Martin Luther fought the KKK as well.


Ok...so what do the voting habits of the KKK have to do with the topic??
quote:
Originally posted by REDNEVEDNAV:
This subject of this topic was regarding the questioning of MLK's preachings and if they were of a 'christian' nature.

What do the voting habits of the KKK have to do with this. What do the political affiliations of the KKK have to do with this?


Ok...so what do the voting habits of the KKK have to do with the topic?? It did not have that much to do with the topic other than the fact I wanted it in there. Maybe I should said oh,by the way i thought you might like to know. anyway, to answer your question so you want have to wonder why I added it.
quote:
Originally posted by PBA:
quote:
Originally posted by REDNEVEDNAV:
This subject of this topic was regarding the questioning of MLK's preachings and if they were of a 'christian' nature.

What do the voting habits of the KKK have to do with this. What do the political affiliations of the KKK have to do with this?


Ok...so what do the voting habits of the KKK have to do with the topic?? It did not have that much to do with the topic other than the fact I wanted it in there. Maybe I should said oh,by the way i thought you might like to know. anyway, to answer your question so you want have to wonder why I added it.


From the TimesDaily Member Agreement for this Forum:

"Users agree to not deliberately disrupt discussions with repetitive messages, meaningless messages, junk mail, chain letters, or "spam."

Keep all messages on topic for the particular Forum to which you are posting."
quote:
Originally posted by Yo Brotha from anotha Motha:
Early this year (1998), my little sister asked me to look up some stuff on the 'net for a paper she was doing on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As I surfed, the Lord put a thought in my mind, "Did this man ever testify of Me?" I thought to myself, "Mmmmm. The world loved this man. If he was preaching the gospel, the world would have hated him." I started looking up Martin Luther King's writings. As I read, I realized that he was a stranger, a foreigner to me. Whenever he mentioned Jesus, it was along with mere mortals like Socrates or Ghandi. In his jailhouse letter, King lumped all religions into the same class. I could not find one "sermon" where he preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified. What I saw is that this man "preached" a social gospel using Black churches as his springboard.

King's philosophy is rather reminiscent of the Catholic Liberation Theology in South America. After several hours of reading of him on the 'net, I told my husband that this man was not our brother in Christ. Someone who called himself "Reverend" and preached in churches was obviously not saved. For 32 years, I'd heard great and favorable things about Martin Luther King, Jr. His name was, and is, synonymous with civil rights. But in 1998, the Lord Jesus Christ has shown me that "Reverend" Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was nothing short of an heretick. It was a strange revelation.

Well, all these months have passed and I thought my meditation on this was over--I was wrong. The Lord wanted me to see something else. Last night, my husband gave me some papers that my sister wanted me to have. It was the stuff that I had printed out for her on Martin Luther King, Jr. I didn't need that stuff back but the Lord wanted my mind to go back to this subject. Lo and behold, yesterday (it is about 3:30 am now) 10-7-98, I was surfing the 'net for information on King Charles I (son of King James VI & I) when I came upon an article for Martin Luther King, Jr. I clicked on the link, and amazingly, I was taken to Stanford University's repository for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s writings--they are on line. Their repository is a work in progress, but there is more than enough there for any human being to see that Martin Luther King, Jr. denied the most basic tenets of the Christian faith.



http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/king.htm


In his last speach Dr. King refered to the story of the Good Samaritan. He had an interesting take on that story, he said that the people who passed without helping said to themselves, "what MIGHT happen to me if I help this man." The Samaritan said to himself "What will happen to this man if I don't Help Him."
JESUS CHRIST APPROVE THIS MESSAGE, BUT I PAID FOR IT. He attoned for my sins, but he did not prevent me from sinning.
Hear Dr. King audio:"The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery." - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), US civil rights leader.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16183.htm
To begin with Martin Luther King was an ordained Minister,Do a search on his Biography and you will see he graduated from a collage but I don't remember the details. His father was also a Minister.

Obviously the writer either was not alive when he was alive because the World did not "love" this man. Growing up at the time I remember he was continually vilified in the media until his famous "I have a Dream Speech" and the civil rights cause was taken up by Northern Liberals and Hollywood. He began to be accepted when LBJ pushed through a civil rights law but he was still hated by many. This hatred continued in many for years as is obvious by the writer of the letter. And it was all "revealed to her" by Jesus too. WOW!

In his struggles in the South he was beaten, threatened and jailed. There was a famous time when the churches he preached at were surrounded by a mob of angry whites who pelted the church with rocks and verbal threats. Probably happened more then once too.

When he began to speak out against inequality for working people and against the Vietnam war he again fell out of favor.

Now that he is dead they look back on him with praise being that he is no longer a threat to their bigotry and greed.

He was a light unto this world and taught the same values as Jesus. I think the writer should keep reading.
quote:
Originally posted by dbt123:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yo Brotha from anotha Motha:
But in 1998, the Lord Jesus Christ has shown me that "Reverend" Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was nothing short of an heretick. It was a strange revelation."
_________________________

Did the Lord show you the spelling and grammar of "an heretick" while you were exploring this issue? Roll Eyes


we got us a spellin' xpert here!
M.L.K. jr. was a civil rights activist. I never held him in the same regard as a BillY Graham by any way. He had his ageeda and worked it. He opened a lot of eyes in this country. But he was no saint by any means. Just look at his troops, Jesse [I never had a job} Jackson. To make him larger than life is just wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by pawspalace:
quote:
Originally posted by for change:
If Dr. King had been white I don't believe this forum would exist. Even the screen name "Yo Brotha from Anotha Moth" and the picture with it sounds and looks racist to me.

OUCH!!!! Big Grin


What is racist about the pic and name? Could someone please explain it to me?
Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican


By Frances Rice

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fusea...ican&tp_preview=true
The staff at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project discovered a lot of plagiarism in Martin Luther King's writings and in a 1991 article in THE JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY said that "plagiarism was a general pattern evident in nearly all of his academic writings" including his doctoral dissertation. ( not Christian like)


One of King's closest associates addressed rumors about King's sexual activities in his 1989 book, "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down."
He said that King did have a weakness for women and engaged in extramarital affairs.
He denied reports that he was attracted to white women and said he never knew of King to be involved with a white woman.
As a part of its surveillance activities, the FBI did document some sexual encounters involving Martin Luther King. ( not Christian like)
1. Martin Luther King Jr. was NO Christian. King propagated a social Gospel of ecumenism (which is still strongly followed today by African Americans), but King certainly did NOT preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

2. Martin Luther King Jr. was NO Baptist Preacher. Many of King's doctrines were way out in left field. He denied the bodily resurrection of Christ and believed that spirituality could be gained through "religious experience" as he termed it.

3. The "social justice" which Christianity Today praises was nothing less than a continued Communist conspiracy to destabilize America. This "social justice" has spawned feminism, homosexuality, gay-marriage, abortion, and a host of other evils in America. Freedom without moral restraint is no freedom at all and can only lead to certain bondage. The social justice which King propagated was not just a fight for equality amongst African Americans, but was largely a campaign to morally bankrupt America. Communism found a willing servant in Martin Luther King Jr. Today, America is largely Communist. Unbeknownst to most Americans, Karl Marx's 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto have been fulfilled already in America. For example, the 10th plank called for the creation of a public school system. The 5th plank called for a central bank. Communism's ultimate goal is the total destruction of America's sovereignty, economy, land ownership rights, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution, and Christianity
quote:
Originally posted by PBA:
Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican


By Frances Rice

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fusea...ican&tp_preview=true




Typical distortions from the Right Wing. Today's Republicans have even twisted Kings words to be against Affirmative Action (and a love it) .... "and now Socialism."
The fear card. We will be enslaved by "Big Government." Actually King was more for Socialism and spoke out against the brutality and corruption of Capitalism.

Socialism means the people, through the power of the vote, control the government and use it for the benefit of society and ensure all citizen can truly have a level playing ground so they can utilize their abilities and secure their "Inalienable Rights" to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." It also protect the basic Human Rights of those who may not be as gifted and talented as others. Just because a person is not very smart or has problems adjusting in society should not condemn them to a life of poverty, suffering and a denial of basic services and quality of life.

We saw the gains of working people with a mix during the programs of the New Deal during and after WW2. It is being rolled back by the Republicans since the "Reagan Revolution" and we have seen the steady decline of our wages and quality of life, which African Americans and the poor suffer disproportionally more from, while the wealthy have prospered.

The Democrats and Republicans have a long history of discrimination against African Americans, it's why Whites have made gains in society while most Blacks have not. Both parties have failed Blacks and still are a disappointment but today, despite their rhetoric about "Personal Responsibility" and such, the Republicans remain the party of the Wealthy, and continues to use the codes words developed by Nixon and Reagan. It was Nixon who developed the Southern Strategy of using code words like "States Rights" and Reagan's "Welfare Queens."

Sadly, the Democratic Party, which for a while was the party of working people, is being corrupted by corporate power. Still it has more African Americans elected to office then Republicans. The African Americans we see in the Republican Party are wealthy and support corporate power. Just because they are Black does not mean they represent the interests of all African Americans.

Average African Americans realize they need help to over come the hurdles place before them in society by racism and discrimination. Poor schools and lower opportunities are a fact.

We just saw the race card being played out again in the Tennessee race against the African American candidate Ford, (I already forgot his first name) with the TV commercial with the white woman. I read Ford's positions and he was no liberal but somewhat conservative himself. It was the race card.

The Democratic Party has been a disappointment to African Americans and has frequently not delivered on it's promises. It has taken them for granted because the Republicans have represented the white wealthy and played the race card.
If the republicans want to include more African Americans in it's party they will have to change their politics.
quote:
Socialism means the people, through the power of the vote, control the government and use it for the benefit of society and ensure all citizen can truly have a level playing ground so they can utilize their abilities and secure their "Inalienable Rights" to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." It also protect the basic Human Rights of those who may not be as gifted and talented as others.


Wrong.

From American Heritiage Dictionary.

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

Look at countries in history that were socialist. USSR, North Korea, China, Cuba, how are their human rights records?

In a socalist society, the people don't control the government, the government controls the people.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×