"Christian Socialism" for our American Way ??

[2PhiloVoid]

Where political philosophy among Christians in America is concerned, we might ask ourselves whether or not a firm subscription to Socialism would be a better way to go than sticking with a continued adherence to a modern, individualist capitalism, one seemingly plagued by a constant allowance for the presence of economic and social fissures through which many U.S. citizens fall into economic and emotional ruin. Would it be better?

As a more trans-centralist and Purplish type of evaluator of American politics, I can honestly say I don't know, but Christian David Bentley Hart seems to intuit strongly--maybe even with a sense of 'knowing'--that firm advocacy for socialism would be the better social and economic route for Americans, especially Christian Americans, to make as we head into the future ...

Do you agree with Hart when he gives "Three Cheers for Socialism"... ?? [see his article below]

Three Cheers for Socialism | Commonweal Magazine

 

[chevyontheriver]

Christian David Bentley Hart seems to intuit strongly--maybe even with a sense of 'knowing'--that firm advocacy for socialism would be the better social and economic route for Americans, especially Christian Americans, to make as we head into the future ...

Do you agree with Hart when he gives "Three Cheers for Socialism"... ?

No. Not at all. Maybe a half cheer, but no more.

Politically I would not align with the Socialists or the Christian Socialists. I'm more of a Christian Democrat, but more of an old school Christian Democrat at that.

Economically I am not enamored of capitalism but would like to keep older and newer forms of socialism at a distance. That includes the now almost ubiquitous business socialism at a distance. I am more of a distributist of the sort Hilaire Belloc was, and Dorothy Day. Small is beautiful, small government, small business, agrarian small farm, owning the tools of production, cooperatives, and the like. Being makers rather than consumers, self-reliant and neighbor reliant instead of big box store reliant and government reliant. It's a pipe dream I know.

What is Distributism? Understanding a Controversial Alternative to Socialism and Plutocracy - The Imaginative Conservative

An Introduction to Distributism — The Distributist Review

Distributism - RationalWiki

 

[Not David]

Why people quote David B Hart of all people? Quote a saint.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Where political philosophy among Christians in America is concerned, we might ask ourselves whether or not a firm subscription to Socialism would be a better way to go than sticking with a continued adherence to a modern, individualist capitalism, one seemingly plagued by a constant allowance for the presence of economic and social fissures through which many U.S. citizens fall into economic and emotional ruin. Would it be better?

As a more trans-centralist and Purplish type of evaluator of American politics, I can honestly say I don't know, but Christian David Bentley Hart seems to intuit strongly--maybe even with a sense of 'knowing'--that firm advocacy for socialism would be the better social and economic route for Americans, especially Christian Americans, to make as we head into the future ...

Do you agree with Hart when he gives "Three Cheers for Socialism"... ?? [see his article below]

Three Cheers for Socialism | Commonweal Magazine

I wonder how many times I've been in on threads of this topic as well as Christian Anarchism going back to the early 2000s onward? It's been a lot especially in the days when Postmodern Christian web sites were kind of a hot thing, and lots of people were rethinking all their assumptions on Christianity.

Lots of people tend to focusing in on a few things going on in a few Bible passages and sort of ignore the greater context in favor of plugging something like a new Social Gospel etc.

 

[sandman]

A resounding 2 thumbs down and maybe some raised fingers ....
Socialism is not the utopia that plays in the dreamers mind....it's real life destruction of a society.

It hasn't worked since the pilgrims time (which is why they changed to "in essence" capitalism) it isn't working today (ask anyone who has immigrated from a socialist country) and it will not work for so many reasons.
The only way socialism could come close to working is.... if you could totally remove evil, power apathy, greed, laziness, control... etc ...then you may have a chance. Unfortunately, you probably have to remove ambition and incentives...as those lead to competition, which could cause strife and resentment.

The mindset of the blind, think that socialism has not been done the right way and that is why it hasn't worked ....I believe that is referred to as insanity.

As I see it .....the only way to make socialism work is through A.I. By taking all the human elements out of the equation the AOC's of the world can have their utopian society.

 

[ralliann]

No. Not at all. Maybe a half cheer, but no more.

Politically I would not align with the Socialists or the Christian Socialists. I'm more of a Christian Democrat, but more of an old school Christian Democrat at that.

Economically I am not enamored of capitalism but would like to keep older and newer forms of socialism at a distance. That includes the now almost ubiquitous business socialism at a distance. I am more of a distributist of the sort Hilaire Belloc was, and Dorothy Day. Small is beautiful, small government, small business, agrarian small farm, owning the tools of production, cooperatives, and the like. Being makers rather than consumers, self-reliant and neighbor reliant instead of big box store reliant and government reliant. It's a pipe dream I know.

What is Distributism? Understanding a Controversial Alternative to Socialism and Plutocracy - The Imaginative Conservative

An Introduction to Distributism — The Distributist Review

Distributism - RationalWiki

It is giving control over to secular power. No, thanks. Why someone would want that I don't understand.

 

[public hermit]

Where political philosophy among Christians in America is concerned, we might ask ourselves whether or not a firm subscription to Socialism would be a better way to go than sticking with a continued adherence to a modern, individualist capitalism, one seemingly plagued by a constant allowance for the presence of economic and social fissures through which many U.S. citizens fall into economic and emotional ruin. Would it be better?

As a more trans-centralist and Purplish type of evaluator of American politics, I can honestly say I don't know, but Christian David Bentley Hart seems to intuit strongly--maybe even with a sense of 'knowing'--that firm advocacy for socialism would be the better social and economic route for Americans, especially Christian Americans, to make as we head into the future ...

Do you agree with Hart when he gives "Three Cheers for Socialism"... ?? [see his article below]

Three Cheers for Socialism | Commonweal Magazine

Thanks for the article, Philo. I didn't give it a detailed analysis, by any means, but a couple things resonate with me. For instance, I'm not opposed to socialized health care of it works better than what we have, which is a disaster, I think. I think he raises legitimate points in that area.

He seems to think more socialized programs, or perhaps more socialized everything, is about the best Christians can do, in terms of civil obligations, given this society. Maybe that would be a good thing, and he points to live examples we can look too, but there's nothing particularly Christian in any that. To me, he's saying since we can't be responsible Christians on our own, at least we can support civil institutions to do the hard work for us. And, maybe he's right.

I think we have enough Christians and enough resources, that if we did it right, we could eliminate the whole fear of socialism because we just do it better. All this pearl grasping about socialism by Christians is embarrassing. If we don't want socialism, then let's organize and fulfill our calling as the church. Pick one social issue, poverty, and let's work together and be the institution that stands in the gap. We offer no real competition to urges for socialism. Seriously, it's embarrassing.

And, if that sounds to "pie in the sky" for Christians, the possibility that we could unite and address one social issue, then what are we really about? We don't need to agree on every jot and tittle of doctrine to work together on poverty. We don't need to worship together, if that hurts your feelings. All we need to do, is unite on the one thing our Lord and his apostles insisted on. We could do it. And, if we don't, then we shouldn't get all proud when a civil institution does.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thanks for the article, Philo. I didn't give it a detailed analysis, by any means, but a couple things resonate with me. For instance, I'm not opposed to socialized health care of it works better than what we have, which is a disaster, I think. I think he raises legitimate points in that area.

He seems to think more socialized programs, or perhaps more socialized everything, is about the best Christians can do, in terms of civil obligations, given this society. Maybe that would be a good thing, and he points to live examples we can look too, but there's nothing particularly Christian in any that. To me, he's saying since we can't be responsible Christians on our own, at least we can support civil institutions to do the hard work for us. And, maybe he's right.

I think we have enough Christians and enough resources, that if we did it right, we could eliminate the whole fear of socialism because we just do it better. All this pearl grasping about socialism by Christians is embarrassing. If we don't want socialism, then let's organize and fulfill our calling as the church. Pick one social issue, poverty, and let's work together and be the institution that stands in the gap. We offer no real competition to urges for socialism. Seriously, it's embarrassing.

And, if that sounds to "pie in the sky" for Christians, the possibility that we could unite and address one social issue, then what are we really about? We don't need to agree on every jot and tittle of doctrine to work together on poverty. We don't need to worship together, if that hurts your feelings. All we need to do, is unite on the one thing our Lord and his apostles insisted on. We could do it. And, if we don't, then we shouldn't get all proud when a civil institution does.

I like that, but name one real social issue that Christians in the USA might agree on. I don't know which that might be. We could solve it, whatever it is, in less than five years. But I don't think we could agree on it first.

 

[public hermit]

I like that, but name one real social issue that Christians in the USA might agree on. I don't know which that might be. We could solve it, whatever it is, in less than five years. But I don't think we could agree on it first.

You don't think poverty is a likely candidate for agreement among lots and lots of Christians, enough to make a sustained, unified effort? Maybe that's too broad?

 

[chevyontheriver]

You don't think poverty is a likely candidate for agreement among lots and lots of Christians, enough to make a sustained, unified effort? Maybe that's too broad?

Poverty would be a good and even an achievable goal. I think there would be enough Christians who would want to torpedo it though. There is a strong belief among some Christians that the poor are lazy and don't deserve a bit of help.

What I really would like to see is the Church disentangle from the government. Right now lot's of Catholic aid organizations take lots of Federal money. And that money has strings. That's how you get Catholic agencies that end up allied with all sorts of other organizations that push a lot of immoral things. All it would require is Catholics stepping up to the plate and using Federal money would not even be needed. We built hospitals and schools all over the country without Federal or State money. Now we're cheap and let the Feds feed us and get us dependent. I think our bishops are very dependent on it. But that's a whole other issue.

To your issue I think Christians acting like Christians one by one could have a cumulative effect to solve lots of social problems. Christians acting in concert could solve almost all the rest. But we haven't done our duty.

 

[ralliann]

Poverty would be a good and even an achievable goal. I think there would be enough Christians who would want to torpedo it though. There is a strong belief among some Christians that the poor are lazy and don't deserve a bit of help.

What I really would like to see is the Church disentangle from the government. Right now lot's of Catholic aid organizations take lots of Federal money. And that money has strings. That's how you get Catholic agencies that end up allied with all sorts of other organizations that push a lot of immoral things. All it would require is Catholics stepping up to the plate and using Federal money would not even be needed. We built hospitals and schools all over the country without Federal or State money. Now we're cheap and let the Feds feed us and get us dependent. I think our bishops are very dependent on it. But that's a whole other issue.

To your issue I think Christians acting like Christians one by one could have a cumulative effect to solve lots of social problems. Christians acting in concert could solve almost all the rest. But we haven't done our duty.

What has gone on in public schools for many years now was a big red flag that we as Christians just didn't do anything much about. We had a lot more leverage to stop what has come if we would have done it. Now with socialism we are taking it all the way

 

[eleos1954]

Where political philosophy among Christians in America is concerned, we might ask ourselves whether or not a firm subscription to Socialism would be a better way to go than sticking with a continued adherence to a modern, individualist capitalism, one seemingly plagued by a constant allowance for the presence of economic and social fissures through which many U.S. citizens fall into economic and emotional ruin. Would it be better?

As a more trans-centralist and Purplish type of evaluator of American politics, I can honestly say I don't know, but Christian David Bentley Hart seems to intuit strongly--maybe even with a sense of 'knowing'--that firm advocacy for socialism would be the better social and economic route for Americans, especially Christian Americans, to make as we head into the future ...

Do you agree with Hart when he gives "Three Cheers for Socialism"... ?? [see his article below]

Three Cheers for Socialism | Commonweal Magazine

Any government run by man is going to fail .... some worse than others.

Pick your poison .... but it's all poison.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wonder how many times I've been in on threads of this topic as well as Christian Anarchism going back to the early 2000s onward?

I'm sure you've encountered quite a few, but being that we're living in an era wherein 'liberality' and 'equality' are the everyday catchwords, I'm sure this won't be the last.

It's been a lot especially in the days when Postmodern Christian web sites were kind of a hot thing, and lots of people were rethinking all their assumptions on Christianity.

Well, that's not what this thread is for, and since we're in the Christian Philosophy section of these forums, I'll give you three guesses as to what my motives are for posting this article by Hart.

Lots of people tend to focusing in on a few things going on in a few Bible passages and sort of ignore the greater context in favor of plugging something like a new Social Gospel etc.

So, which part of Hart's view in his article do you most not agree with? I mean, it might help if you make a few comments about what Hart says rather than just saying that you don't appreciate him making a plug for Christian Socialism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why people quote David B Hart of all people? Quote a saint.

I'm quoting him because he makes a case for "Christian Socialism." Do you know of another Christian whom you consider to be a saint that also makes a case for "Christian Socialism"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A resounding 2 thumbs down and maybe some raised fingers ....
Socialism is not the utopia that plays in the dreamers mind....it's real life destruction of a society.

It hasn't worked since the pilgrims time (which is why they changed to "in essence" capitalism) it isn't working today (ask anyone who has immigrated from a socialist country) and it will not work for so many reasons.
The only way socialism could come close to working is.... if you could totally remove evil, power apathy, greed, laziness, control... etc ...then you may have a chance. Unfortunately, you probably have to remove ambition and incentives...as those lead to competition, which could cause strife and resentment.

The mindset of the blind, think that socialism has not been done the right way and that is why it hasn't worked ....I believe that is referred to as insanity.

As I see it .....the only way to make socialism work is through A.I. By taking all the human elements out of the equation the AOC's of the world can have their utopian society.

Granted, socialism has its problems. But what do you see as differences here in what Hart cites as being present between the Socialism that we capitalist Christians all hate and despise versus the "Christian Socialism" that he's apparently highly in favor of?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What has gone on in public schools for many years now was a big red flag that we as Christians just didn't do anything much about. We had a lot more leverage to stop what has come if we would have done it. Now with socialism we are taking it all the way

So, do you think there would be any room at all for a Christianized Socialism as Hart describes as opposed to a secular form of Socialism?

 

[ralliann]

So, do you think there would be any room at all for a Christianized Socialism as Hart describes as opposed to a secular form of Socialism?

My ideas of socialism is very different and most likely unacceptable to most Christians, but it shouldn't. I don't think it would be able to be implemented today.
If men could have as many wives as they could support, the wealthier a man was the more children he would have. These children would of course of course make up a part of the society and his wealth would be distributed to them. Men which were of lesser wealth would have less wives. the basic idea would be the ability to take proper responsibiliy to your spouse and children. How different would society be if the vast majority of fathers provided well for their children, were responsible fathers. Responsible people would be the ones creating the vast majority of it's citizenship no matter the income level. The desire to gain wealth would no longer be just sheer greed and excess. One man has 1000, dollars, Another ten thousand. If the wealthier one has three wives, and five kids. He would have no more money per sey than the man that has ten times less, with one wife and two kids. He has two additional wives, a much bigger house to pay for, he has no more left over to over indulge his children or himself than the guy who has ten times less.
It was done in ancient times in the bible by holy men of God.
Genealogical socialism

 

[chevyontheriver]

Where political philosophy among Christians in America is concerned, we might ask ourselves whether or not a firm subscription to Socialism would be a better way to go than sticking with a continued adherence to a modern, individualist capitalism, one seemingly plagued by a constant allowance for the presence of economic and social fissures through which many U.S. citizens fall into economic and emotional ruin. Would it be better?

As a more trans-centralist and Purplish type of evaluator of American politics, I can honestly say I don't know, but Christian David Bentley Hart seems to intuit strongly--maybe even with a sense of 'knowing'--that firm advocacy for socialism would be the better social and economic route for Americans, especially Christian Americans, to make as we head into the future ...

Do you agree with Hart when he gives "Three Cheers for Socialism"... ?? [see his article below]

Three Cheers for Socialism | Commonweal Magazine

Reading it again I have some observations on the article. He says our new socialist option is not like the old totalitarianism of the USSR or the Nazi's. I see a proto-totalitarianism coming to fore. New socialism need not inexorably be totalitarian, but I suspect it is headed that way.

He really does not like the Acton Institute. Overpowering dislike. Actually there is a lot of polemic in the article as a whole.

He goes into great length about the evils of the current medical-insurance system of the USA. Fine, It's broken. But the predecessor of this system was put together by Catholic and Lutheran and denominational hospitals. Nurses were an evolution from medieval nuns. I think our modern system reached too far in the pursuit of immortality by medicine. We have the very best for some and a high price for all. So high some cannot attain. The old system, at least among Catholic hospitals free of the Feds money and rules, had room for those who could not pay.

Here's what I could see happening. We are on the threshold of a 'build back better' socialist evolution in society. Much of that has an ideological component demanding abortion access, transgender surgeries, and woke allegiance. There are Catholic hospitals that will not bend the knee to this. If they aviod having to close there is hope they can restructure to show a different path forward, both older and newer.

He writes "Contrary to conventional wisdom, Christianity has never really taken deep root in America or had any success in forming American consciousness; in its place, we have invented a kind of Orphic mystery religion of personal liberation, fecundated and sustained by a cult of Mammon."

I think he's half right here. American politics, even the best, is not Christian politics. But then, aside from the idea that the State shall not control the Church, a fleeting concept, there is little of positive Christian politics to be had. The Medieval period had some positives but generally there has never been a Christian politics worthy of the name. And I don't think socialism is it.

I think the Christian Democrats might be halfway there. But is their day past in Europe? It never got off the ground here. The American Solidarity Party has not figured out how to launch. So we are left with our 'right' and our 'left' and no middle. I'm not confident in either.

I'm a pessimist on a lot of things. A pessimist on ecumenism, a pessimist politically, also economically. Were it not for my Lord I would have despaired utterly. In him I have some hope for a future that is not bone crushing. So bone-crushing capitalism - no. And not socialism either, as it is far too likely to be totalitarian. I need something more human scale and not grandiose economic systems. I had enough of those in college macroeconomics.

I'm done rambling for a while. Sorry.

 

[ralliann]

The public school issue has old anti-Catholic roots

Reading it again I have some observations on the article. He says our new socialist option is not like the old totalitarianism of the USSR or the Nazi's. I see a proto-totalitarianism coming to fore. New socialism need not inexorably be totalitarian, but I suspect it is headed that way.

He really does not like the Acton Institute. Overpowering dislike. Actually there is a lot of polemic in the article as a whole.

He goes into great length about the evils of the current medical-insurance system of the USA. Fine, It's broken. But the predecessor of this system was put together by Catholic and Lutheran and denominational hospitals. Nurses were an evolution from medieval nuns. I think our modern system reached too far in the pursuit of immortality by medicine. We have the very best for some and a high price for all. So high some cannot attain. The old system, at least among Catholic hospitals free of the Feds money and rules, had room for those who could not pay.

Here's what I could see happening. We are on the threshold of a 'build back better' socialist evolution in society. Much of that has an ideological component demanding abortion access, transgender surgeries, and woke allegiance. There are Catholic hospitals that will not bend the knee to this. If they aviod having to close there is hope they can restructure to show a different path forward, both older and newer.

He writes "Contrary to conventional wisdom, Christianity has never really taken deep root in America or had any success in forming American consciousness; in its place, we have invented a kind of Orphic mystery religion of personal liberation, fecundated and sustained by a cult of Mammon."

I think he's half right here. American politics, even the best, is not Christian politics. But then, aside from the idea that the State shall not control the Church, a fleeting concept, there is little of positive Christian politics to be had. The Medieval period had some positives but generally there has never been a Christian politics worthy of the name. And I don't think socialism is it.

I think the Christian Democrats might be halfway there. But is their day past in Europe? It never got off the ground here. The American Solidarity Party has not figured out how to launch. So we are left with our 'right' and our 'left' and no middle. I'm not confident in either.

I'm a pessimist on a lot of things. A pessimist on ecumenism, a pessimist politically, also economically. Were it not for my Lord I would have despaired utterly. In him I have some hope for a future that is not bone crushing. So bone-crushing capitalism - no. And not socialism either, as it is far too likely to be totalitarian. I need something more human scale and not grandiose economic systems. I had enough of those in college macroeconomics.

I'm done rambling for a while. Sorry.

Thanks for the ramble. It was an interesting read. All I have to say is...what is intended for evil God can use for the Good. All I feel I can do at this point is pray. I have really been considering the Catholic Church, or Orthodox. But, it's just so hard with everything that is going on.

 

[chevyontheriver]

My ideas of socialism is very different and most likely unacceptable to most Christians, but it shouldn't. I don't think it would be able to be implemented today.
If men could have as many wives as they could support, the wealthier a man was the more children he would have. These children would of course of course make up a part of the society and his wealth would be distributed to them. Men which were of lesser wealth would have less wives. the basic idea would be the ability to take proper responsibiliy to your spouse and children. How different would society be if the vast majority of fathers provided well for their children, were responsible fathers. Responsible people would be the ones creating the vast majority of it's citizenship no matter the income level. The desire to gain wealth would no longer be just sheer greed and excess. One man has 1000, dollars, Another ten thousand. If the wealthier one has three wives, and five kids. He would have no more money per sey than the man that has ten times less, with one wife and two kids. He has two additional wives, a much bigger house to pay for, he has no more left over to over indulge his children or himself than the guy who has ten times less.
It was done in ancient times in the bible by holy men of God.
Genealogical socialism

Having seen polygamy in person, I'll pass.