Communism- Socialism

ralliann said:

Wealth is not a problem in the scripture...

Gen 13:1 And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south.
2 And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.

Click to expand...

Jesus pronounced woes on the rich. As a Christian, I follow Jesus, not Abraham.

FireDragon76 said:

Jesus pronounced woes on the rich. As a Christian, I follow Jesus, not Abraham.

Click to expand...

The problem with being extremely wealthy at the time of Jesus is that wealth didn't generally arrive by honorable means. The economic provisions of the Mosaic Law should have curtailed both extreme poverty and extreme wealth, but by the time of Jesus there were wealthy people merely giving lip service to the economy of the Law, thus both extreme poverty and extreme wealth existed cheek to jowl.

That economic dysfunction had begun long before Jesus...it had definitely fallen into place by the time of Solomon.

Vambram said:

No, I am not. Socialism and Communism simply won't work here in the USA.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But what about Social-Liberalism, Ordo-Liberalism, and a dozen other settings on the economic dial that this conversation ignores?

Do you know how much money the Federal government put into the internet in the USA? Is that 'communism'? What about PPP's - Public Private Partnerships?

Are there industries that the government should nationalise for the public good? Just a sector or category here or there?
Or should we privatise the military?

What if the market gets something wrong?

What if Vladimir invades the USA after hypothetically de-nationalising defence - and as the choppers fly overhead and the tanks drive towards Washington, someone is there shouting "Don't worry - the market will sort it out!"

How do you define what the government should do and what the market should do? Where do you draw the line?

FireDragon76 said:

Jesus pronounced woes on the rich. As a Christian, I follow Jesus, not Abraham.

Click to expand...

Yes and Jesus never said to take from the ruch and give to the poor.
Jesus was dealing with heart matters and his kingdom. He was not dealing with government policy regarding taking money from one group and giving to another.

eclipsenow said:

Agreed. But what about Social-Liberalism, Ordo-Liberalism, and a dozen other settings on the economic dial that this conversation ignores?

Do you know how much money the Federal government put into the internet in the USA? Is that 'communism'? What about PPP's - Public Private Partnerships?

Are there industries that the government should nationalise for the public good? Just a sector or category here or there?
Or should we privatise the military?

What if the market gets something wrong?

What if Vladimir invades the USA after hypothetically de-nationalising defence - and as the choppers fly overhead and the tanks drive towards Washington, someone is there shouting "Don't worry - the market will sort it out!"

How do you define what the government should do and what the market should do? Where do you draw the line?

Click to expand...

There is a such thing as corporate socialism. Let's remember that "Citizens united" was supposedly a matter of "free speech".

rjs330 said:

Yes and Jesus never said to take from the ruch and give to the poor.
Jesus was dealing with heart matters and his kingdom. He was not dealing with government policy regarding taking money from one group and giving to another.

Click to expand...

It must be nice to have a safe milquetoast Jesus.

The real Jesus, however, is far more dangerous.

-CryptoLutheran

My answer is "No"

However, as others have mentioned, you need to clarify your terms.

For the definitions I usually go off of...

There's a subtle difference on paper, but virtually no difference in terms of real world outcomes and how things end up.

They obviously share similarities (like public control over the means of productions, and severe restriction of private property ownership).


Communism is based off of the Marx philosophy of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Socialism is based of the earlier Henry Saint Simone take of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution"

Marx basically modified (ripped off) Simone's idea (I guess proving that Communism always piggy backs and doesn't ever create anything, not even their own radical ideas lol)


So, on paper, there's still a slightly meritocratic element of Socialism that doesn't exist in Communism (for example, under Simone's theory, a doctor would still end up getting more resources and creature comforts than the janitor), but like I said, in terms of real world outcomes, there's not much difference once the the government runs out of other peoples' money to spend. Under Simone's ideal, the doctor will live better for the first 3-5 years, but once the money runs out, everybody cries.

The end result of both is "the government still forces you to complete a task at gunpoint, and then you wait in a bread line afterwards and hope they don't run out"


Now, I realize that some race to point out of the flaws of capitalism (of which there are several) as a means of somehow defending the other two systems... but I'm more of the mindset of that old quote that comes to mind "It's a terrible system, it's the worst system except for all of the other ones that have been tried"

ViaCrucis said:

Poverty is certainly a moral issue; but it has nothing to do with music and movies.

Click to expand...

Poverty has nothing to do with Music and Hollywood, in the modern context ??
Think again.
Family breakdown and moral decline are two contributors to poverty, and they have nothing to do with Music and Hollywood???