1335. All "politicians" who fight for social unselfishness or the abolition of economic differences in station in favour of the natural differences in station – which can be only the "spiritual difference" or the difference that is not determined by whether one is rich or poor, and cannot be measured by the size of one's bank account – are "communists". But this does not of course mean that all those who call themselves "communists" today are real "communists", just as not everything that is proclaimed to be "communism" today is "communism" in its purest form either. The criterion for assessing a real "communist" is the "World Redeemer" himself, the source of the new, incipient "communism". And it must be admitted, must it not, that the way beings practise "communism" or their way of being still leaves much to be desired? As long as the individual can still commit acts of terrorism and take revenge on, plunder, rob and maltreat the possessing classes, it has nothing to do with true "communism". Such a being is a "false prophet" within "communism". A being that inflicts acts of terrorism and violence on other beings merely because they belong to the economic upper class, reveals by his actions that he is "dictatorially" minded. But "dictatorship" is "mental regimentation" of the beings, and "mental regimentation" of the beings is in turn the same as "mental imprisonment". Since "mental imprisonment" is the cessation of all cultural development, and is thereby "antisocial", the source of such a manifestation cannot of course possibly represent "communism", which is the very culmination of the opposite of every form of "antisocial" manifestation. The fixed, principal point of pure "communism" is of course solely "giving rather than receiving". How else could freedom's community spirit of solidarity gain strength and energy to become the culture of neighbourly love and "peace on Earth" that was heralded as "good will" to all men when Jesus was born on Christmas night? A being who uses violence and force to terrorise other beings because they belong to an economic upper class, or because they have a "political" view that approves of the economic upper class, is an "intolerant" being. Its "intolerance", its indignation, hatred and persecution of beings that think differently show that it is itself as far from being "communist" as is possible. Its anger and intolerance reveal its as-yet intense self-worship, for what are anger, hatred and intolerance other than its reaction to other beings' obstruction of or opposition to the satisfaction of its own selfish desires? Unselfish desires would never give rise to indignation or anger. Desires that give rise to such phenomena can, when analysed, always inevitably be traced back to "selfishness".
      What "selfishness" can then be hidden under this being's professed "communism"? Is it not, indeed, conceivable that it is the desire for a higher economic standard for this being itself that dominates the consciousness of such beings, while "communism" itself is, on the contrary, merely a "means" whereby it believes it will be able to attain this goal? With exaggerated force it therefore swears by "communism" as long as it cannot see any other way of bettering its private economy. For this reason the spread of "communism" cannot go quickly enough. They persecute and vent their anger on everything that can hinder their presumed way to "prosperity" or a "sound economic basis". That the real ideal or goal of such beings is not "communism" itself or a collective manifestation of neighbourly love is evidenced by the fact that, if they suddenly and unexpectedly came into a lot of money, inherited a fortune or the like, they would instantly switch to the side of capitalism and would there doggedly combat any real "communist" attempt to undermine their financial circumstances or right to own their inherited fortune. Here we must remember that a very great majority of those beings who are interested in "communism" today are all those who are on the side of those of limited means, all those who live in poverty or in more or less poor and unhealthy economic circumstances. Here the desire for comfortable economic circumstances is of course tremendously strong or of paramount importance. It is naturally a matter of course that this desire for comfortable circumstances makes thousands of impecunious beings sympathise with everything that they believe can destroy the possessing classes in favour of a raising of their own circumstances by enriching them in one way or another. Indeed, there are beings that even take the view that "communism" will quite literally and instantaneously take the fortunes of the rich by force and share them equally among all beings. They do not understand at all that this cannot possibly be "communism", but is an act of sheer violence, robbery and assault, quite apart from the fact that such a course of action would be quite in vain. Before half an hour had elapsed after the distribution, the cunning and clever would again have usurped the money and assets from the naive and less clever, and the world would again be full of millionaires and tramps. To the extent that a "communist" society is based on such methods, it will be forced back, in the course of years, to many of the "capitalist" conditions and class differences. The "capitalist" desires and tendencies are thus still far too strong or dominant among individual members of such a "communist" society. They are as yet not at all finished with the "urge to possess", the desire for a "fortune". Economic differences in station are still to some extent an ideal for these beings. If the opposite were the case this return to "capitalist" phenomena in a "communist society" would of course prove impossible, not to mention absolutely meaningless.