Stewardship Within Socialist and Capitalist Contexts

Is it not true that, under the current spiritual configuration (with Lucifer still in power in the heavenlies) that capitalism and socialism essentially operate by the same principles? That is, "To him who has [and produces increase] will more be given." Which is to say that, a capitalist produces dividends with his own money and is, thereby, further empowered to either spend it on himself or to use his power to invest in more things which may produce dividends. Socialism, in these terms, is essentially the appointment of individuals who produce dividends for the organization (whether a "corporation" or a "government" - it makes only superficial difference). A wise socialist or corporate organization would promote individuals who produce dividends faithfully over the long-term for the organization.

If this above terminology is correct, then the essential problem in today’s society is emphatically not that it is capitalist or socialist, but that the powers that be are subordinate to Lucifer who is not rewarding according to merit but according to his self-destructive agenda. under Lucifer, the current capitalist fears the loss of his capital if he should begin to serve Jehovah to a greater degree than previous. Lucifer effects this confiscation of capital by spiritual means, as he did in the story of Job. Were Jehovah to take command tomorrow, the appointments of stewards would be based upon merit as to which would produce best dividends as perceived by Jehovah and His administrators.

In a divine socialist society, promotion of stewards should be according to the saying, "to him who has will more be given." A steward who earns good dividends while managing a facility could be promoted to managing twice as many people and/or twice as many physical resources. If the steward is not self indulgent, he requires no more salary than he did previous to his promotion, for, he is "not in it for the money."

God would take away actual coins from the steward [so to speak] based on the performance of the steward. A god-fearing capitalist would have an increase in money and this would be the equivalent to a promotion in the socialist society. Yet this money is always "on loan" from Jehovah who could remove it from the steward suddenly whenever the steward is self-oriented to a degree outside the standards of that time and place.

The amplified explanation as to why today’s capitalism is essentially the same as socialism is contained in this. Since administration is either "government" or "corporation", one who has money as the means by which he may hire others under him (incorporation). One who has socialist administrative authority has, similarly, the means by which he may hire or fire others under his jurisdiction (government). Even a "self-employed" capitalist who has only one "employee" is actually hiring and firing people when he chooses to do business with someone, say to repair his car or be his insurance agent.

If this above model/terminology-system is correct, then, is it true that the rich young ruler who was told to sell all in his hand and give to the poor and to have treasure in heaven and to come be following Jesus was simply being told that, in Jehovah’s estimation, he was not qualified to be steward over that quantity of power at that time? That, the man needed to learn first things first so that he could become, later, again steward over large amounts of responsibility. In other words, the rich man was not in error by mere fact of possessing stewardship over money, but was in error by maintaining stewardship which was 1) Lucifer-granted rather than Jehovah-granted, 2) In excess of what the man was capable of optimally managing. That is, this particular rich man did not use the dividends for the long-term good of the children of God, but indulged the dividends, somehow, upon himself. In contrast, a rich (or highly placed administrator) in God’s kingdom is someone who yields all dividends and increase of whatever kind to Jehovah so as to serve the best long-term good of all.

Therefore, similarly in a divine socialistic administration, an individual who is in a position of authority may be asked by a higher administrator to "step down" so as to further the good of the society. This would be the socialist equivalent of the statement by Jesus addressed to the rich young ruler.

Moreover, the essence of the command of the Lord is not that possessing money or power are wrong but only that the times and seasons are in the Lord’s hands and He knows how to optimize the administrative stewardships. The proverb is in not true which says that "power corrupts". IF the above model or terminology-system is correct, how do we construe the word of the Lord which says, "You cannot serve God and mammon." Tentatively I suppose that the term "mammon", in this context, refers to the serving of wealth as an end apart from God, or, more to the point, in this Lucifer-led age, mammon is certainly granted more to those loyal to Lucifer rather than to Jehovah, yet from the beginning it was not so. In this age, mammon is concurrent with the serving of appearances rather than realities. In ages governed by the Lord, mammon and other forms of power are only permitted to accumulate in the hands of the righteous. Yet, if one possesses wealth (which is mammon) then if one truly were to subordinate it to Jehovah, then it would not be one’s "master" and there would be no conflict of interest.

Power "corrupts" only because we have been accustomed to rebelling against Jehovah and His righteousness. Therefore, we should limit ourselves as to how much power we allow ourselves to possess. Government which has plurality and has "checks and balances" is necessary while we are still fallible human beings.