Uh neither...A proper society should reward those who work hard and so doing have good achievements. On the other hand, a proper society should not penalize by lack of wealth those who try and fail or do not have the same opportunities that some people have. A proper society should not trample on those who have made mistakes but restore them when they try to do better. However, I do not think that human governments right now are equipped to create a completely just society, and therefore what ever economic system we follow will ultimate fail people.
Uh neither...A proper society should reward those who work hard and so doing have good achievements. On the other hand, a proper society should not penalize by lack of wealth those who try and fail or do not have the same opportunities that some people have. A proper society should not trample on those who have made mistakes but restore them when they try to do better. However, I do not think that human governments right now are equipped to create a completely just society, and therefore what ever economic system we follow will ultimate fail people.
True that. All human governments are human and therefore commit human sins and errors. So vigilance is always needed under any system. No system is incorruptible. We have seen horrendous atrocities committed by pro- and anti-capitalists, pro- and anti-socialists.
I agree with your characterization of a proper government. There is no need to encourage envy of the rich or discourage enterprise. But there is a need to make sure that no one is deprived of basic necessities.
Psychologically, we need to do what we can to discourage the sort of pride and arrogance which devalues people living in poverty and casually dismisses their needs as not worthy of attention. We need to do what we can to discourage the "us vs. them" attitudes that foster fear and division and conflict and see suffering as "what they deserve". And we need to encourage the empathy and compassion and solidarity that says "There, but for the grace of God, go I" and implements the Golden Rule on a social as well as individual level.
If we do that in all things, it won't really matter if the formal definition of the economic system is capitalist, socialist or mixed or something else altogether.
__________________ "Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert
Which do you think is better? Which is moral? Do you believe that Christ supports one or the other?
I am a Christian Socialist, so I believe in socialism. I see capitalism as cruel and unjust. I also believe that the Bible supports socialism.
Acts 2:44-45:
Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
Acts 4:32-35:
Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.
How do those passages you quoted apply to government? Why should they be interpreted as such?
I picked Socialism, but in reality, a nice mixture of both is best.
I think pure capitalism is rotten.
But with freedom, capitalism is inevitable.
I'm quite happy with the way my country works. We have capitalism. For sure. But we also have some socialistic policies and practices.
So you imprison political opponents in slave labor camps to work them to death from exhaustion and starvation, nationalize property, and think of humans as mere wheels in the machinery of state and in the service of the Party?
That's a different Australia than the one I've heard of......
Maybe you're thinking about not letting people lie and rot in the streets, for instance. That has nothing to do with socialism specifically (agreed - neither does the slave labor camps I mentioned...the rest is accurate though), but is a classic trait of Conservatism.
You DO know what the first welfare-state in the world was, right?
Last edited by UnamSanctam; 26th May 2012 at 06:08 AM.
So you imprison political opponents in slave labor camps to work them to death from exhaustion and starvation, nationalize property, and think of humans as mere wheels in the machinery of state and in the service of the Party?
That's a different Australia than the one I've heard of......
That's not the socialism I have heard of either.
I think a lot of the problems with a poll like this is that is does not allow for the fact that people have very different ideas of what socialism and/or capitalism are.
If people think the paragraph above describes socialism, of course they are against it.
But that is not the socialism people defend. The socialism people defend is much different.
Maybe you're thinking about not letting people lie and rot in the streets, for instance.
And if people think this describes capitalism, of course they are against it.
But that is not the capitalism people defend. The capitalism people defend is much different.
That has nothing to do with socialism specifically (agreed - neither does the slave labor camps I mentioned...the rest is accurate though), but is a classic trait of Conservatism.
No, none of it is accurate. The notion that people are mere wheels in the machinery of the state and the Party is not at all a good description of socialism.
Nationalism and one-party states are not essential characteristics of socialism in general. Perhaps of National Socialism as in 1930s Germany, but that was a perversity of socialism. Not a genuine model.
Also, many socialists have always opposed the Leninist/Maoist model of the Party as the vanguard of socialism and the imposition of a dictatorship to implement socialism.
In genuine socialism, people are not wheels in service to the state; they are the people who move the wheels of the state. And the essential difference between socialism and capitalism is that capitalism puts the state at the service of capitalists, while in socialism both the state and capital are servants of the people. Civil, social AND economic matters are all decided democratically. The economy is not exempt from democratic decision-making as it is under capitalism.
__________________ "Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert
How do those passages you quoted apply to government? Why should they be interpreted as such?
The church was to be the model of the Kingdom of God and the apostles were its first governors. So the model they set up is a micro-model for all governments.
Remember, in those days, no one thought in terms of separating church and state. So the model church was also a model state.
__________________ "Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert
There is no "easy going" way to say this:
Then you plain haven't been paying attention to the world around you, and to history.
I think a lot of the problems with a poll like this is that is does not allow for the fact that people have very different ideas of what socialism and/or capitalism are.
Originally Posted by gluadys
But that is not the socialism people defend. The socialism people defend is much different.
Then they have a false/watered down view of what socialism is.
I'm not saying that all who call themselves socialists are as eager to establish KZ-camps as the communists are, but that only means they're naive, and haven't learned from history.
Originally Posted by gluadys
No, none of it is accurate. The notion that people are mere wheels in the machinery of the state and the Party is not at all a good description of socialism.
So - what? That whole "dictatorship of the Proletariat"-thing was just something Marx threw in for feces and giggles? He didn't REALLY mean that the Workers and Peasants should violently overthrow the states, and that the desires of people to maintain what was theirs should be trampled by the "Workers and peasants", and society re-organized along collectivist lines, until the Great Classless Society could be established?
Originally Posted by gluadys
Nationalism and one-party states are not essential characteristics of socialism in general. Perhaps of National Socialism as in 1930s Germany, but that was a perversity of socialism. Not a genuine model.
LOL
Try the USSR, the entire Eastern Bloc of the Soviet Empire, Cuba, North Korea, etc.
Originally Posted by gluadys
Also, many socialists have always opposed the Leninist/Maoist model of the Party as the vanguard of socialism and the imposition of a dictatorship to implement socialism.
I know that many who call themselves socialists have taken this position. What I'm not willing to admit without further proof, is that they can do this and remain socialists. Socialism isn't just some ivory tower of altruism, and you can't just say: "Socialism simply means being nice to others" as the prevalent definition seems to be in threads like this - at least amongst those who call themselves socialists.
Originally Posted by gluadys
In genuine socialism, people are not wheels in service to the state; they are the people who move the wheels of the state. And the essential difference between socialism and capitalism is that capitalism puts the state at the service of capitalists,
No, the state allows people to make their own businesses where they can produce goods or services that others wish to purchase, and in order to deliver, they need to hire workers, who then get paid, so they can buy goods and services, etc.
Originally Posted by gluadys
while in socialism both the state and capital are servants of the people. Civil, social AND economic matters are all decided democratically. The economy is not exempt from democratic decision-making as it is under capitalism.
No, in socialism the government confiscates all you have, and graciously allows you a meagre part of it back as a courtesy. There is no democracy in socialism, and there can BE no democracy in socialism, because no socialist state would ever tolerate a people saying: "Hey....we actually think we can make better butter/bread/TVs/cars/etc than the government". And it will not tolerate any attempts to break the monopolies of government.
Linear Mode
