Bonded labor in South Asia


One of the most horrific forms of capitalist exploitation today is to be found in South Asia: bonded labor. This contemporary form of slavery, despite being illegal, is practiced in all sectors of South Asian economies, mainly in India, Nepal and Pakistan and exists both as a rural and urban phenomenon.

Bonded labor is “the status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or those of a person under his control as security for a debt, if the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined”. This condition is perpetuated by the fact wages paid to bonded laborers barely pay for the basic necessities for survival which, coupled with spiralling debts, trap workers in a superexploitative contractual (and even non-contractual) arrangements which can extend for long periods of time and even for multiple generations. There are many forms this exploitation can take, such as the bondage of tenants to landowners in what is portrayed as legal land lending contracts, seasonal bonded labor or the bondage of women and children.

The International Labour Organization (ILO)’s estimate for forced laborers in the world today is 20.9 million people. To go in further detail:

  • 18.7 million (90%) people are in forced labor in the private sector. Of these, 4.5 million (22%) are in forced sexual exploitation, and 14.2 million (68%) in forced labor in activities such as agriculture, construction, domestic work and manufacturing.
  • Women and girls represent the greater share of forced labor victims 11.4 million (55%), as compared to 9.5 million (45%) men and boys.
  • Adults are more affected than children 74% (15.4 million) of victims fall in the age group of 18 years and above, whereas children are 26% of the total (or 5.5 million child victims).
  • 2.2 million (10%) work in state-imposed forms of forced labor, for example in prisons under conditions which violate ILO standards, or in work imposed by the state military or by rebel armed forces.

South Asia is believed to have 9.5 million people in forced labor, the majority of who are in debt bondage. These statistics are either ignored or downplayed by government authorities in Nepal, Pakistan and India, making these governments complicit with the business, intentionally or not.

Like other types of labor in capitalism, bonded labor is continuously reinventing itself. While generational bonded labor has decreased with time, new forms of bonded labor are emerging and the number of chronically poor and landless workers that enter debt bondage is increasing. Being landless in countries where half or more of the population is employed in agriculture makes people vulnerable to debt bondage as they have to meet their survival needs.

Recently, as agriculture in South Asia undertook structural change, moving to cash-cropping for example, some impacts were felt on bonded labor itself. With the decline in the agricultural labor force as a result of mechanization, agricultural work has become more and more seasonal. This puts strains on the population working in the primary sector as they have to take advances on their remuneration, which then requires them to work the full season to receive the rest.

Wages for bonded labor are extremely low and the debt often takes whole families to repay, often with children working for free. In India, bonded labor is practiced in agriculture, silk farms and industries, rice mills, salt pans, fisheries, quarries and mines, forest work, match and firework industries, tea and cardamom farming, brick-kilns, shrimp farming, bidi, cigarette industry, domestic work, and textiles. Workers involved in power and handlooms, artificial gems work, shrimp farms, and weaving factories are particularly vulnerable to in bondage.

In Pakistan, it is widespread in agriculture, brick kiln work, cotton-seed production, and tanning, mines and carpet industries. A research by PILER in 2000 estimated that the total number of sharecroppers in debt bondage across the whole of Pakistan was over 1.8 million people, while a 2004 survey of brick kilns in Punjab, Pakistan, by the Federal Bureau of Statistics found that nearly 90 per cent of brick kilns workers were bonded. Another research carried out by PILER in Pakistan indicates that up to 1 million brick kiln workers in Pakistan are bonded. In Nepal it is found in agriculture, brick-kilns, and domestic work. The practice is also found in sweatshops of all three countries.

Indeed, the bourgeois state has introduced laws against bonded labor, but this change in form is not accompanied by a change in content. Laws only modify the superficial and nominal forms of bonded labor, but the coercion through indebtedness survives in more subtle forms, such as contracts modified so as to appear as law conforming. An example of this is the substitution of the Kamaiya system in Nepal where bonded workers would pay off loans, which is now illegal, into the Zirayat system, which is share-cropping under which produce is divided between landlords and tenants, and the latter are required to till additional land without being paid a wage.

Kamaiya has evolved even more in India, where workers who appear to be independent tenants continue to be bonded laborers. Tenants borrow money from their landlord for seeds, fertilizers and other farming costs. These costs add to the share that goes to the landowners effectively rendering the tenants’ return insufficient for them to repay the loan, thus bonding them to the landowners. Factors such as the informality of contracts, the illiteracy of those that sign them and subsistence wages enable employers to circumvent existing labor laws binding workers into persistent or repeated debt bondage where at the end of a contract a worker may find that he owes a debt to an employer with whom he has then no option but to enter into a new contract to pay off that debt.

Historically, the work contract established between the employer and head of household required all members of laborers’ families to work for the employers, and individual family members did not need to establish such contracts with the employers. Women and girls are now, however, increasingly bonded in their own right. They are often bonded in domestic work, fish-processing, silk farming, bangle production, carpet making, and weaving industries. Women, in equal numbers to men, also work in quarries. There is also evidence that male emigration from one state of India to another has also pushed women into bondage in commercial agriculture. In Nepal, women under the Haliya system, another bonded labor practice in agriculture in the western hills of the country, often work for moneylender landlords, while their husbands work seasonally in India. The phenomenon of women increasingly being bonded in their own right is commonly referred to as ‘feminization of bonded labor’. Recent research also highlights relatively new kinds of bondage, including:

• Girls recruited in spinning mills in India for bonded work in return for their marriage cost. The girls, known as Sumangali, work up to three years before their parents are paid for their labor.

• Young boys trafficked from Bihar, West Bengal and neighbouring Nepal, are bonded in zardozi embroidery units in Delhi.

• Increased numbers of children in bondage in domestic work.

• The bonding of multiple wives into prostitution among the Koltas, the lowest caste in the region.


The main cause behind bonded labor, be it urban or rural, is the chronic poverty of South Asia, a result of the imperialist pillaging of the sub-continent in the past hundreds of years. Low incomes, deprivation of skills, education and access to health care, lack of property and social vulnerability caused by many factors are all factors that play into bonded labor. Very often, detrimental loan advances are concealed under contracts of long-term employment dictated by the employers, who have the economic advantage of owning property. The reserve army of the unemployed also plays its role, scaring workers into the acceptance of such contracts against their will. Needless to say, many workers’ wages are far below the legal minimum and barely meet subsistence wages. Coupled with their lack of what is normally called “social capital”, that is, social contacts and so on, this situation gives no opportunities to move out of poverty, but at the same time creates profitable opportunities for usurers and other capitalists. As they say, for every loss there’s a gain.

In South Asia, chronic poverty manifests as a mostly rural condition. Coincidentally, rural areas are where most of the South Asian population lives. The choices that rural life imposes on families in the subcontinent are very limited, and most are dependent on agriculture. It’s for this reason that landless workers are forced into seasonal agricultural production which can easily lead to debt bondage, a phenomenon that repeats itself since the advent of Indian independence from the British Empire, where the vast majority of agricultural laborers were not included in land distribution and wage labor became their only means of subsistence. Since then, the only beneficial land reforms have been practiced either by the Naxalites in their controlled areas, or by the government to pacify an outraged population.


This form of accumulation by dispossession is in effect, as Karl Marx reminds us, “the dissolution of private property based on the labor of its owner. Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent laboring-individual with the conditions of his labor, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labor of others, i.e., on wage-labor.”

On top of class-related chronic poverty, we see episodes of structural racism inducing chronic poverty, especially among marginalized groups such as the Dalits and indigenous peoples. The remnants of the caste system and of tribal identities make these groups more vulnerable to poverty and deprivation and, as a consequence, to bonded labor. To contribute to this self-perpetuating poverty, low education and access to free utilities hinder any possibility minorities may have of finding regular employment outside their villages. As a last instance of poverty-induced attacks on the livelihood of workers, we have child labor. Children as young as six are forced to enter bonded labor conditions by their own parents who can’t pay for the debt forced on them on their own.

The cornerstone of this situation is an especially unequal relationship existing between workers and capitalists at the advantage of the latter, of which debt is the primary method of control.

The first step towards bonded labor is recruitment, through which usually capitalists pay loan advances to workers and have the ability to intimidate workers if the contract is broken as usually this kind of employment is local. To further ensure the perpetuation of this arrangement, employers pay only subsistence wages which only barely cover food costs. Moreover, these payments are usually in kind, for example taking the form of credit arrangements with local grocers, making it impossible for workers to even choose what to buy for themselves. To this we add a lack of transparency by employers, who only notify the existence of debts only at the end of the workers’ work contracts.

Employers may also take advantage of the pervasive illiteracy in South Asian countrysides, having workers authorize contracts they can’t read through thumb prints, not giving them a copy and leaving them confused as to what the amount of money they owe is. For migrant laborers, the provision of housing is also a common method of controlling them as they are under constant surveillance and their movements can be more easily restricted. In some unregulated sectors, mostly in isolated work environments and where workers are required to live in work premises; they also face intimidation by security personnel and other armed individuals as a way of controlling them, especially in the brick-kilns industry.

Workers who challenge the employer’s debt calculation may also face intimidation or harassment directed at themselves of their families. In Rajasthan, employers have reportedly filed false cases against bonded laborers who have questioned the employer’s reckoning of their earnings, or spread false rumors about the laborer within his community leading to his being ostracized.

South Asian governments are at best indifferent to this cringing situation. Their weak legislation, its failed implementation and the constant deregulations imposed by international formations of capital such as the IMF and the World Bank is part of a possibly intentional policy to maintain South Asian production costs low and compete with the advanced economies of imperialist countries. These international representatives of imperialism call for the reduction of obligations and regulations for imperialist capital and for the liberalization of labor markets, in effect freeing the trans-national movement of capital and the global trade of cheap labor, materials and services, an effective class assault on the working population.

The people who suffer the most from this social arrangement are marginalized groups who, with limited economic opportunities and social prejudice pointed at them, can’t sustain good health, attain educational qualifications and fulfill their human needs, important for individual mental and physical well-being.

Bonded labor is especially exacerbated by the union of chronic poverty and social discrimination based on caste, ethnicity or religion. Over 90% of bonded laborers are from Dality, minorities and indigenous communities, as a result of the existing social system of castes. Bottom castes can’t perform work of the high castes, they can’t access high caste places of worship, can’t access the same water sources, can’t touch the food high caste persons eat or freely associate with high caste members. In most areas, they cannot sell drinks, food and products used for worship, limiting their access to economic opportunities.

Dalit communities especially are systematically degraded, humiliated and made servile to high caste people. If they decide to defy these exploitative, discriminatory and humiliating roles, they face social stigma and boycotts which further restricts any opportunity to overcome discrimination and its related social diseases, such as poverty and dependency.

This is not an isolated phenomenon, since 43% of the Indian population falls under low castes, of which 17% are Dalits. Debt bondage is also prevalent amongst minority ethnic groups in India and Nepal, such as the Adivasis in India and the Tharus in Nepal. Refugees and internally displaced people are also particularly vulnerable to been trafficked into bondage. Afghan children are reported to be working as bonded laborers in carpet factories and brick kilns in the North West Frontier province of Pakistan while Nepali children, displaced to various urban centers due to armed conflict, have been subsequently trapped in debt-bondage.

Another group discriminated in South Asia is that which holds up half of the sky, women. On top of being discriminated in regard to inheritance and decision making, restricted on their movement and subjugated to the male, women are also discriminated in the labor market. They are not remunerated equally and are systematically abused and harassed in the workplace. When they get off work, they are burdened by additional unpaid work withing the household. The combined effects of low education levels, work place discrimination, exclusion from family decision making processes and a lack of familial property rights increases South Asian women’s vulnerability to labor exploitation and dependency, and thus makes them susceptible to bondage, to the point women are bonded by their husbands into prostitution, embedded within the system of polygamy and bride procurement.

Women may then be sent to work in brothels, or alternatively ‘loaned’ to brothel owners, where their earnings are shared between the brothel owner and their husband. The bonded woman is not allowed to leave the brothel until the debt of her husband has been cleared. The bride price itself can be considered an advance on her labor. Extreme economic poverty and social discrimination excluding people from certain professions and businesses, pushes the socially excluded into bondage.

The continuation of slavery in the form of bonded labor in South Asia is a demonstration of the continuing failure of capitalism to fix problems on its own. Such failure is a direct product of the logic of capitalism, the logic of production for profit, which defies national constitutions and penal codes.

Bonded labor in South Asia is a product of poverty and social exclusion. Those who are enslaved are desperately poor with no assets other than themselves to sell, as Marx characterized capitalism 150 years ago. Bonded slaves are predominantly from marginalized groups, with various studies estimating that around 90% of bonded laborers come from these. The continuation and normalization of these slavish arrangements establish a culture of toleration for abuses of the most extreme kind, including slavery, to be perpetrated against vulnerable people from these sections of society.

If bonded labor is to be eradicated in South Asia, capitalism and the logic of accumulation must be toppled.


  1. And these people would be any better under YOUR economy? Communism/socialism/marxism has brought nothing but suffering and death. Contrary to popular belief, it is marxism – not capitalism – that is the real greed-based society. Whereas capitalism is a society based on thinking of the bigger picture, and acting as a member of society, communism/socialism is a society based on not thinking about the bigger picture, but thinking only of your personal lot, and wanting to steal as much as possible from those who have the most, for that very reason. Why is capitalism the society of social principle, whereas marxism is the society of myopic greed? Because the argument for capitalism is that people do not produce if they do not have an incentive to produce. Conversely, people do produce if they have an incentive to produce. Concurrently, people do not produce if they have an incentive not to produce. Conversely, people produce if they do not have an incentive not to produce. If you think not merely about your own lot, but about the economy at large, then you want to live in a society that has in place the highest incentives for people to produce, and the lowest incentives for people not to produce. So, you would want people to be rewarded for being productive, and you would want people punished for being unproductive. There are certain activities that are deemed of “negative productivity,” and these are called “crimes.” When people commit crimes, they should be tried and punished for them. But when people produce goods and services that help people, they should be rewarded for it. Capitalism is a society that punishes the evil-doers, and that rewards the noble-doers. By punishing the wrong doers with a rule-of-law, and by letting people keep the fruit of their labor, people have the minimum incentive to do wrong, and the maximum incentive to do right. Thus, if and when a business fails, it should be allowed to fail. Otherwise, you reward them for their failure, and businesses have less incentive to remain solvent if they know there will be a safety net to protect them.

    Marxism is just as evil in every other aspect. Marxism is the doctrine that there is no philosophical truth: there is no objective reality, and there is no objective morality. Rather, truth, in both metaphysics and ethics, is relative and subjective. From this rejection of philosophy comes egalitarianism, whereby everyone is deemed of equal virtue, and deserving of an equal amount of credit and wealth. That is how marxism is also the basis of not just socialism but also feminism, multiculturalism, postmodernism, environmentalism, race denial, disrespect of elders and so forth. Void of moral standards, marxism leads to a worship of equality and tolerance, albeit not tolerance of those who do not share the belief in marxism. If you are not a marxist, you are deemed a “fundamentalist” or an “idiot” of some sort and ostracized. Marxism has seeped into every aspect of society: politics, academia, the media, religion and everything in between. It is a menace to society and needs to be stamped out by men of good virtue.

    What religion are you, blogger? I would advise giving up on this travesty known as marxism and finding the Truth: the One, Absolute Truth. From there you will discover the mistakes you have made.

    1. Capitalism makes the rich, richer and the poor poorer. Not saying communism is the answer, however you can’t seriously tell me that the capitalist system is healthy for the world in general. We need something new, something better. The billionaires and trillionaires already have enough.

    2. “And these people would be any better under YOUR economy?”

      Indeed they would, as “my” economy would be under the control of and accountable to workers and their interests. This is also partly proved by the fact the Naxalite Maoist revolutionaries are gaining more and more support from the local population. If you want to know more, this is a good place to start:

      This video by dateline SBS shows how Maoists function and their relationship with the locals:

      This BBC video shows villagers supporting them and why:

      Even with their meager resources, Naxalites are doing whatever they can to support education:

      Naxalites urging the villagers to open schools:

      I could go on forever. On the other hand, the capitalist system is unable to provide for the broad masses as the requirements and conditions needed to be fulfilled for the growth of economic surplus to touch decent rates and approach the potential and needed surplus are either extremely hard or impossible to achieve. Roy F. Harrod, Evsey Domar Gerhard Colm and other economists who have written about development economics make this pretty clear, since consumption and investment are circumscribed by the requirements of profit maximization under monopoly and oligopoly, government spending is circumscribed by the social function of the state and Western development is circumscribed by the rates of exploitation in third world countries (as you may know, the third world supplies important raw materials cheaply, provides cheap labor, vast profits and investment outlets, which permits the industrialized west to develop the way it does but keeps these countries underdeveloped as a result… couple that with rapid population growth which outbalances economic growth, corruption of local government and profit withdrawals by foreign investors and you have the recipe for neo-colonialism). Truth is, and this should be obvious by now, instability, a tendency toward stagnation and crisis, chronic under-utilization of human and material resources, war, poverty, destitution and many other social ills are inherent in capitalism.

      “Communism/socialism/marxism has brought nothing but suffering and death.”

      And here your entire compendium of knowledge comes from just-so stories. Let’s simply examine the statistics around the Physical Quality of Life Index. At the level of economic development socialist states were equivalent with middle income capitalist states. At every indicator they proved to be superior to these countries as well as often equivalent and sometimes exceeding the high income capitalist states. According to a 1982 study published in Critical Sociologist examining the averages of the 13 socialist countries during the mid-1970s (, the PQLI for socialist countries was 88, compared to the middle income capitalist countries’ 66 and the high income capitalist countries’ 89. Life expectancy at birth was 68 for socialist countries, compared to the 60 for middle income capitalist countries and 69 for high income capitalist countries. Infant mortality per thousand was 41 for socialist states, compared to the 78 for middle income capitalist countries and 31 for high income. Literacy was 93% compared with the middle income capitalist countries’ 62% and high income capitalist countries’ 87%. Secondary school enrollment for socialist countries was 62% compared with the middle income capitalist countries’ 42% and high income capitalist countries’ 75%. Higher education enrollment for socialist countries was 15% compared with the 10% for middle income capitalist countries and 21% percent for high income capitalist countries. Women as percentage of labor force were 44% for socialist countries compared to the 26% for middle income capitalist countries and 33% for high income capitalist countries. The unemployment rate for socialist countries was non-existent, compared to the 7.4% for middle income capitalist countries and 2.3% for high income socialist countries. The annual inflation rate was 2% for socialist countries compared with the 21% for middle income capitalist countries and 13% high income capitalist countries. The Income of the lowest 20% of socialist countries was 9.9% of national income compared with the 4.6% of national income for middle income capitalist countries and 5.1% of national income for high income capitalist countries. Income of the highest 5% of the population was 11.3% of national income compared with the 28.3% of national income for the middle income capitalist countries and 17.7% for high income capitalist countries. The gini index for socialist countries was .244 compared with the .506 for middle income capitalist countries and .400 for high income capitalist countries. A 1988 study published in the Journal of Public Health Policy, a year before the fall of the Berlin Wall, showed that socialist countries retained this advantage ( This data is even more impressive if one considers that the majority of these states began as lower income societies.

      To conclude from these statistics, socialist societies had better performance in these categories than capitalist states at the same level of economic development and some could compete in terms of overall quality of life with societies at a higher level of economic development. One could expect that given an equivalent economic development to the higher income nations, socialist societies could achieve a greater quality of life for its citizens. This data is even more impressive if one considers that most of the socialist states began at a low level of economic development and had only possessed that social system for a few decades. Furthermore, since the socialist nations had egalitarian class structures, the statistics are more accurate in describing the overall experience of citizens, while capitalist countries, with their highly stratified classes, could have a discrepancy between how wide sections of society actually lived and the PQLI indicators.

      Examining the Soviet Union, the first socialist society, gives us a more detailed look at the accomplishments of communism. Beginning as an underdeveloped peasant country, the Soviet Union followed a path of development that exceeded those which remained in the capitalist world. The Soviet Union’s GDP growth was greater than that of India, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. In 50 years the Soviet Union increased their industrial production from 12% of that in the US to 80%. Education and healthcare were free and food and housing were subsidized. Employment was guaranteed, with stringent boundaries placed on dismissals. All prices were regulated. Housing, medicine, transport, and insurance accounted for 15% of a Soviet family’s income as opposed to the 50% of an American family’s income. Real disposable income increased by an average of 3% a year from 1970-1980 and from 1940 to 1980 real wages of office and factory workers increased by 3.7 times. In the 1970s, the Soviet Union spent 23% of their net material product on social consumption, as oppose to the US spending 17% of their GNP on social spending (the differential is quite big, since NMP excludes much of what is included in GNP). Participation in management was protected in the Constitution and there was real involvement of the Soviet worker in decision making processes through General Enterprise Meetings, where managers would be criticized by the workers, Permanent Production Conferences, a council devoted to examining the enterprise’s practices, and the Enterprises Branches of the Unions and Communist Party. The first was often the most impotent, while the Unions would play the most active role in checking management and often disputes over unfair treatment of workers would be taken to the courts. Western analysts found that in 50% of all cases, the courts ruled in favor of the workers. Studies of émigré attitude demonstrated that there was strong support for the socio-economic aspect of the Soviet system.

      One of the most dramatic examples of socialism’s superiority is in the differences between India’s and China’s development after independence. India went on the road of capitalism, while China under the CPC instituted a planned economy. A century of colonial domination had stunted the growth of these societies. Life expectancy in both countries was around 35. Illiteracy and severe health problems were rampant. China’s socialist path of development proved to be superior in lifting the material level of the masses than India’s capitalist path. Life expectancy in China rose from 35 in 1950 to 66.8 by 1980. By 1981, infant mortality in China was 56 per 1000, while infant mortality in India was 112 per thousand. By 1980 illiteracy in China was 32.9%, compared to India’s 59%. The PQLI of China in 1981 was 67, while India’s was 44. This is particularly amazing since India did not suffer the turmoil caused by the 1958-1961 famine. In fact, the peak of famine deaths in 1960 was the same as the “normal” death rate in India according to Indian economist Utsa Patnaik. The hue and cry over Maoist crimes often overlooks the fact that by 1958, China’s death rate had gone down from 20% to 12%.

      In surveys of Eastern European popular opinion, large proportions of the population think life was better under communism. 35% of Poles, 39% of Czechs, 42% of Slovaks, 42 % of Lithuanians, 45% of Russians, 49% of Romanians, 62% of Bulgarians, 62% of Ukrainians, and 72% of Hungarians polled in favor communism.

      “Contrary to popular belief, it is marxism – not capitalism – that is the real greed-based society. Whereas capitalism is a society based on thinking of the bigger picture, and acting as a member of society, communism/socialism is a society based on not thinking about the bigger picture, but thinking only of your personal lot, and wanting to steal as much as possible from those who have the most, for that very reason.

      I have no use for childish argumentation such as “capitalism is greedy”, the Marxist critique of capitalism is more profound than this and shakes the very material foundations of this system. Capitalism is not based on thinking about the bigger picture, it is based on the logic of capital accumulation M-C-(M+ΔM) (money-commodity-more money). If this cycle stops at any time, you have a crisis. As for your claim that socialism doesn’t take into account the bigger picture, this is self-evidently false since the socialist economies of the past century were planned economies. For this very reason it was compulsory for them to take the bigger picture into account. Plus, what you say is empirically false:

      “Why is capitalism the society of social principle, whereas marxism is the society of myopic greed? Because the argument for capitalism is that people do not produce if they do not have an incentive to produce.”

      See and this is the problem: firstly, socialist planned economies ran exactly on that principle, that if one contributed more then one would have to be rewarded more, this can be easily found on the Soviet constitutions; secondly, this argument is simply false:

      Oh, and Marxism is not a society…

      “By punishing the wrong doers with a rule-of-law, and by letting people keep the fruit of their labor *rambling*”

      This is another problem, law exists in socialist societies and in capitalism the majority of the people are not allowed to keep the fruit of their labor. Since you wouldn’t accept any sort of Marxian explanation out of principle, let me link you to a neoclassical explanation of the concept of exploitation:

      “That is how marxism is also the basis of not just socialism but also feminism, multiculturalism, postmodernism, environmentalism, race denial, disrespect of elders and so forth.”

      And here is where you reveal yourself as racist, patriarchal and segregationist. Feminism, environmentalism and race denial are based on science and modern scientific achievements and discoveries (for instance:, while multiculturalism is built on the rejection of racism and the lack of prejudice.

      “Void of moral standards, marxism leads to a worship of equality and tolerance, albeit not tolerance of those who do not share the belief in marxism. If you are not a marxist, you are deemed a “fundamentalist” or an “idiot” of some sort and ostracized.”

      Well yeah we are working for equality and tolerance, since we are set on a firmly scientific basis. You don’t offend us by saying we want all men and women to be equal regardless of their race, gender, age etc.

      Also I’m interested to know, where specifically are you called a fundamentalist or an idiot for not being a Marxist? The United States? The country which has mounted the largest anti-communist campaign in the history of mankind? Do me a favor and think before you type.

      “What religion are you, blogger? I would advise giving up on this travesty known as marxism and finding the Truth: the One, Absolute Truth. From there you will discover the mistakes you have made.”

      I assume you’re alluding to religion, specifically Christianity. Now here’s something interesting for you:

      Matthew 19:21
      Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

      Matthew 21:12–14
      And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.

      Mark 12:28–31:
      And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

      Leviticus 25:35-38
      Now in case a countryman of yours becomes poor and his means with regard to you falter, then you are to sustain him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. ‘Do not take usurious interest from him, but revere your God, that your countryman may live with you. ‘You shall not give him your silver at interest, nor your food for gain. ‘I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s