Socialism vs. Capitalism

[FtcdatSAPoD]

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.

And this church project failed and the church needed financial support later on.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

Are the widow and orphan expected to work for their food?

We can't ignore the reality of families. 1 Timothy 5:16, "If any woman who is a believer has widows in her care, she should continue to help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need."

The Old Testament asked of widows that they go through the fields and pick up the leftovers (and that the field owners leave stuff behind). The poor were to accept their poorness and receive what others were giving away. This is hard medicine to swallow but when I was on the streets, I had to be humble and do this.

Most of the poor I have met have had family who could have taken care of them so are they really poor?

 

[pattersonabbie]

Socialism Has Stomped Him Out.

 

[pattersonabbie]

Christianity Needs To Do What She Was Told To Do And There Would Be No Need For Socialism.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

Christianity Needs To Do What She Was Told To Do And There Would Be No Need For Socialism.

For years the church was doing what she had been told to do but non-Christians became worried at the power of Christianity over poor people and needed to intervene. So they brought in socialism through corrupt politicians who were controlled by international bankers who needed more money-from-usury-interest profits. The international bankers love socialism because there is nothing like it to put a country into debt and into being beholden to them.

 

[Talen Ortz]

Libertian.

I think Jesus supports Liberty of the people. That's why Jesus did not send us to make disciples at sword-point.

Liberty includes allowing other people to do things you disagree about, so long as they do not infringe other people's rights.

 

[pattersonabbie]

WEll, you see, why did they think they needed to save the poor people from the Christians? I agree that christians should not be unkind, have biases, and judge too harshly which tends to happen but true Christians should serve with correct balance as the govenment tries to do.
And what christians are making people confess Christ by knife point , no one, but we are to tell the story and let them decide. Also, the rights we have are beause God gave them, without the true and living God you are running as fast as you can into the chains of tyrrany.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

WEll, you see, why did they think they needed to save the poor people from the Christians?

Like it or not, a corrupt government can make good use of addictive welfare recipients dependent on it. These people make a good voting base for corrupt government policies. Far too many people vote based on what the government does for them. They may disagree strongly with a war in Iraq but so what - as long as the welfare cheques keep coming c'est la vie. They may disagree with TSA tactics but as long as they get free medicare it doesn't matter.

If too many people become Christians, that is a big problem for most governments. If too many people get their lives straightened out and get jobs, then social workers have no jobs and police have no work to do and foster homes close down and social security budgets all over the place are unnecessary.

 

[pattersonabbie]

Good Point!
Thats why by conscience I will vote republican even if it makes my life harder and makes me have to start a business.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

Good Point!
Thats why by conscience I will vote republican even if it makes my life harder and makes me have to start a business.

Many Democrats simply cannot conceive that for some reason many Republicans are poor and actually voting Republican not because they will receive money (because they won't) but because they want the government out of their lives and they want to be left alone even if they are poor. An immigrant told me that his countrymen and kinsmen in the States ALL vote Democrat because they truly believe that the Democrats will give ALL of them money because they are a minority group. There are many things wrong with what this man told me. I was speechless because he was sincere about their attitudes. He did not agree totally with them but didn't disagree either. This attitude though is what I believe characterizes Democrats the most. Democrats want the government to babysit them in as many ways as possible.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Socialism allows one party to control it all. Therefore, if a Christian party were to come to power, it would be highly moral, and thus voted for it.

But that is in an idealistic world. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Given the position, I think the Christian party would stumble and become like any other socialist party, cold and religious with no room for love.

The most moral form would be a theocracy, but the Jews kinda put an end to that, and so we're left with all our imperfect social constructs, waiting for the Second Coming.

 

[pattersonabbie]

Moses said, I am continuing to tell you what the Lord God of the heavens and the earth told us. Your Lord God of the heavens told us" if you decide to have an earthly king the laws must be your king’s constant companion, so that he will learn to respect the Lord his God by obeying and regularly reading. This will prevent him from feeling he is better than his fellow citizens. Deuteronomy 17:18 through 19

 

[Iskra]

Socialism allows one party to control it all. Therefore, if a Christian party were to come to power, it would be highly moral, and thus voted for it.

But that is in an idealistic world. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Given the position, I think the Christian party would stumble and become like any other socialist party, cold and religious with no room for love.

The most moral form would be a theocracy, but the Jews kinda put an end to that, and so we're left with all our imperfect social constructs, waiting for the Second Coming.

Socialism has nothing to do with one party political systems. The one party system of the Soviet union and its satellites is a result of the leninist understanding of the term proletarian dictatorship. Socialism is an economic system based on one or another method of collective ownership of the means of production and/or redistribution of the results of production.

One version of socialism is marxism, based on the writing of Marx and Engels. Marx says surprisingly little about the organisation of society after the presumed revolution and introduction of socialism. His theories certainly doesn't demand one party control of society.

 

[Girder of Loins]

I was thinking of the modern style of socialism, as(like you said) there is not a definite "system" for social structure.

 

[Iskra]

I was thinking of the modern style of socialism, as(like you said) there is not a definite "system" for social structure.

Modern socialism, I really don't know what you would mean. Is it Cuba you are refering to?

My home country Sweden has been ruled by the social democratic party for the better part of the last century. This democratic socialism has existed under a parlamental democratic system with multipel parties. Only once during the whole century has the social democrats had moore than 50% of the votes, and that was during the war when the country was ruled by a collected goverment from all parties.

I repat that socialism is one or moore economic models and not a political system. Just as little as capitalism says about the number of parties and the level of democracy do socialism.

 

[SharonL]

The Constitution worked for over 200 years - why do we need to change things now.

 

[Assyrian]

The Constitution worked for over 200 years - why do we need to change things now.

Hasn't the Constitution been changed a few times since then? You know, amendments like getting rid of slavery, giving women the vote and limiting presidents to two terms.

 

[Ringo84]

I won't make a "yes/no" decision over whether one economic system is more "moral" than the other; in the real world, ethics are much more "gray" than such rigid, binary choices.

There are moral aspects of each system. What's great about Capitalism is that is rewards hard work and entrepreneurship. If you have a good idea and you're willing to invest in that idea, you can be rewarded by making money off of it. What's great about Socialism is its fairness - allowing workers to control their destinies instead of being controlled by faceless corporate entities than ride roughshod over them.

At the same time, there are disadvantages to each system. There is a tendency in Capitalism to value profit over most everything else. There has never been a successful Socialist country, where restrictive government puts its people into a stranglehold.

I see this question as an issue of balance. I prefer Capitalism, but too much Capitalism (ie: unfettered free markets) can be as harmful as too little Capitalism (for the sake of argument, we'll call that Socialism). We should, therefore, find the right balance of Capitalism that rewards hard work while placing reasonable restrictions on business than protects the rights and interests of consumers.
Ringo

 

[Exchange]

Socialism allows one party to control it all. Therefore, if a Christian party were to come to power, it would be highly moral, and thus voted for it.

But that is in an idealistic world. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Given the position, I think the Christian party would stumble and become like any other socialist party, cold and religious with no room for love.

The most moral form would be a theocracy, but the Jews kinda put an end to that, and so we're left with all our imperfect social constructs, waiting for the Second Coming.

Socialism is too broad to judge as one ideology, most socialist parties accept capitalism to a degree, as seen by European social-democrats, which do not control everything in their countries.

When you say a Christian Party, do you mean something similar to the Christian Democratic parties of Europe?

 

[vjcoppola]

Jews and Christians share the view that a man has inherent dignity and worth due to the fact that he was created in God's image. In socialism/Marxism and some of the philosophies lad led to it a mans worth is what he can provide the State. Essentially men are slaves of the state. We can debate at what point of taxation we become slaves, over 50% or 100% perhaps but the goal of socialism is 100%. That is when all property becomes property of the state.

A common idea these days is that socialism is somehow like Christianity because it is "concerned" about the poor. One of Marx's goals was to create a society without a need for charity (love) but instead stressed justice. Christians note; none of us can stand up to justice nor can we provide it. We require mercy and we are called to be merciful, loving.

When Jesus speaks of care for the poor, a class of people He said will always exist, he expects personal sacrifice on our part, not for our glory but for His. He never suggests that we become holy by using someone else's money to help the poor. Those who want that kind of system are simply stealing someone's money to promote themselves.