Is Socialism Anti-Christian?

[solid_core]

It's a Socialist dictatorship. Get it??

Ok, most of African countries are Capitalist dictatorships. So what. Does that mean that capitalism cannot work anywhere else?

Do you agree that the quality of life in the USA is lower than in the most of first world countries with more socialistic inclinations?

Do not try to have an easy job comparing USA to Cuba. Lets compare equal ones.

 

[Albion]

Ok, most of African countries are Capitalist dictatorships. So what. .

Well, just this. No one on the freedom side of this debate is supporting dictatorships of any kind. You won't hear how central planning should run every aspect of everyone's life and that it would be good if that happened.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm talking about the economic system of left wing socialism specifically, I'm not talking about social liberalism (pro-choice, non-traditional marriage, etc.) which attaches itself to left wing socialism nowadays and clearly goes against the bible. But is the system where the government redistributes wealth, provides social assistance, and is highly involved in economic decisions and the social system unbiblical and anti-christian? If so can someone explain why? Is it bad because it's as if the government is replacing God and makes it easier for them to take our rights and freedoms away given they have so much control?

For myself, I'm more of a centrist if you had to place me somewhere. I'm very against abortion and the LGBT agenda, but on other matters as long as it doesn't get out of hand and out of control, I believe it's smart to have the government interfere in some cases or provide help to those who need it and can't provide for themselves. Some government spending is sometimes needed. I believe even though the government is corrupt, God can use the government in some situations for his purposes. I think in biblical times it was like that with the kingdoms and stuff.

I more or less agree with your position in your OP, so I don't have much to add. I'm thinking that with Romans 13 in hand, along with the what is narrated in the Old Testament, we see don't see God generally opposing human government and its economic choices ... unless those human choices in national leadership outright oppose Him.

And that's about all I have to say on the specifics which you've brought up here.

 

[solid_core]

Well, just this. No one on the freedom side of this debate is supporting dictatorships of any kind. You won't hear how central planning should run every aspect of everyone's life and that it would be good if that happened.

So we can agree the problem is dictorship, corruption, bad culture etc. In africa, in Venezuela, in Cuba...

Now, lets move to democratic countries. Lets compare the USA, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Austria, Netherlands etc.

Where is the quality of life higher?

 

[Albion]

So we can agree the problem is dictorship, corruption, bad culture etc.

The topic is Socialism, just as it has been from the start of the thread.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

There are poor socialist countries, there are poor capitalist countries. As you do not refer to Denmark, I do not refer to Cuba.

Having more socialistic politics in economy does not make people more poor, the opposite is true. What makes nation poor are wars, economic isolation, low education, bad culture, bad neighbouring countries, corrupted leadership, bad history, bad management of natural resources and many other complex issues.

Developed democratic nations with more socialistic economies perform better for people than the USA and people are happier there, because they have less existential worries. I am pretty sure that most Norwegians, Danish, Austrians, Swiss or Germans or Canadians have higher savings than most Americans. And, as a bonus, standardized education and healthcare.

Not necessarily.

Per capita GDP: (2018)

Switzerland: 82,796.55 USD
Norway: 81,697.25 USD
United States: 62,794.59 USD
Denmark: 61,350.35 USD
Austria: 51,461.95 USD
Germany: 47,603.03 USD
Canada: 46,232.99 USD



We can look at countries that have been part capitalist and part socialist, such as Germany and Korea. What does that tell us?

 

[solid_core]

Not necessarily.

Per capita GDP: (2018)

Switzerland: 82,796.55 USD
Norway: 81,697.25 USD
United States: 62,794.59 USD
Denmark: 61,350.35 USD
Austria: 51,461.95 USD
Germany: 47,603.03 USD
Canada: 46,232.99 USD



We can look at countries that have been part capitalist and part socialist, such as Germany and Korea. What does that tell us?

GDP is not the quality of life. GDP says how many products countries produce.

For example, if in some country people must have two full time jobs to pay their health expenditures or if they must work up to a high age or else they would die of hunger (the country does not have a pension system), the GDP will be higher, but the quality of life much lower.

And its a known thing that the workers in the USA must work much more to have the same standard the Europeans have. Do you even have a paid vacation? What about a paid maternal leave?

 

[Arcangl86]

GDP is not the quality of life. GDP says how many products countries produce.

For example, if in some country people must have two full time jobs to pay their health expenditures or if they must work up to a high age or else they would die of hunger (the country does not have a pension system), the GDP will be higher, but the quality of life much lower.

And its a known thing that the workers in the USA must work much more to have the same standard the Europeans have. Do you even have a paid vacation? What about a paid maternal leave?

Not required by law for either case. They are pretty common benefits, but they are just that. Benefits, on top of your pay check.

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

It's a Socialist dictatorship. Get it??

Cuba isn't a dictatorship. I heard Cuba is the only real socialist country left in the world and that is changing now as it is becoming more capitalist as it tries to cater to its number 1 industry which is tourism.

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

Socialism's most fundamental point is the redistribution of income by government force.

That is not true. It is actually about government control on economic production. Cuba has little to no tax. In Former Yugoslavia the citizens paid very little tax, Americans pay more. And like another poster said, if that were the case then every country is socialist then. Because wealth redistribution happens everywhere, only in some places it goes back to the people paying them, and in others (like the States) it goes towards the military or to bail out corporations more so than on social services. Either way, you are still paying taxes and it's going to someone else even in the United States.

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

Not sure what you mean by admiration, he said "what is of Caesar, give to Caesar".

If its of Caesar, its not stealing. Its actually stealing to keep the money (not to pay taxes).

That's a good point. I haven't thought of that before but it makes sense.

 

[solid_core]

Not required by law for either case. They are pretty common benefits, but they are just that. Benefits, on top of your pay check.

In Europe, its a law.

You also cannot be fired just from day to day, there is a two months or a three months period. Depends on a country. Countries are trying to give as much securities to common people as possible.

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

So you have an option to participate or not? No?....then it is not a choice. And if you don't go to college or want to use the national healthcare system?....oh well, you get to pay for them anyways. BTW, by your statement of 'higher taxes' you admit none of it is free....whether you use it or not.

For health care, nobody would choose not to use it. If you're dying and in pain you would most definitely want to use the health care system, and that can happen to anyone at anytime.

For education, even if you don't use it, if other people use it they end up getting good jobs and that stimulates the economy. So the guy who did not use it can still get a decent job working for someone who did use it, if that makes sense.

But what I do agree with you on is mistrust of the government and the corruption and control governments have. If this wasn't the case, then I wouldn't care. But I am always leery about that and do not want to give up our individual human rights. So there needs to be a balance because of that.

 

[Albion]

Cuba isn't a dictatorship.

.
Oh, please.

 

[Albion]

That is not true.

Well, yes it is. That is the fundamental objective of all forms of Socialism.

It is actually about government control on economic production.

Government ownership (not just control) of the wealth-producing industries is the main vehicle for enabling the state to redistribute the wealth.

And like another poster said, if that were the case then every country is socialist then.

That's nonsense. A country or a government doesn't become Socialist merely because there are taxes. But how the taxes are levied, how much they are, and on whom they are levied can be one means by which a for achieving a redistribution of wealth can be done.

Because wealth redistribution happens everywhere....

Not by the use of government force, and not at the level that Socialism demands.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, yes it is. That is the fundamental objective of all forms of Socialism.


Government ownership (not just control) of the wealth-producing industries is the main vehicle for enabling the state to redistribute the wealth.


That's nonsense. A country or a government doesn't become Socialist merely because there are taxes. But how the taxes are levied, how much they are, and on whom they are levied can be one means by which a for achieving a redistribution of wealth can be done.


Not by the use of government force, and not at the level that Socialism demands.

In other words, it's "socialism" when the government uses it's power to redistribute wealth to people you don't approve of.

 

[Dryskale]

Well, yes it is. That is the fundamental objective of all forms of Socialism.

No its not. The core aspect of socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. What you are referring to is a centralized economy. Lenin and Trotsky popularized snd spread this version of socialism. However Socialism can interact in a market as well. Krorpotkin advocated for liberatarian socialism where groups form and handle production in the formnof guilds, unions, and syndicates.

Government ownership (not just control) of the wealth-producing industries is the main vehicle for enabling the state to redistribute the wealth.

Wealth redistribution is a revolutionary tactic and not a specific act of socialism as a system. Markets under socialism would have taxes to pay for infrastructure, but not necessarily as direct payments to other groups. The USSR used redistribution to move resources to sectors that under performed in a centralized system.

That's nonsense. A country or a government doesn't become Socialist merely because there are taxes. But how the taxes are levied, how much they are, and on whom they are levied can be one means by which a for achieving a redistribution of wealth can be done.

Now you are confusing socialism with progressive taxation.

Not by the use of government force, and not at the level that Socialism demands.

Just like capitalism, socialism doesn't demand anything specifically. Now you are bering into specific policy territory.

 

[Albion]

No its not. The core aspect of socialism is collective ownership of the means of production.

But for no particular end or purpose? I guess just having everybody working away every day but without any connection to earnings or income is supposed to be the plan.

However Socialism can interact in a market as well. Krorpotkin advocated for liberatarian socialism where groups form and handle production in the form of guilds, unions, and syndicates.

Well, yes, in the 19th century all sorts of theories were attached to the word Socialism because that was the hot topic in some circles, but that's all that what you are referring to here amounts to. And all of them are gone with the wind, so they're irrelevant to a discussion of Socialism in today's world.

 

[Dryskale]

But for no particular end or purpose? I guess just having everybody working away every day but without any connection to earnings or income is supposed to be the plan.

It does not look like you read my entire post before responding. Socialism can be market or central based. If a cooperative collectively own a business and split the revenue through a democratic means, its still socialism. As I mentioned you seem to be critiquing a specific type of socialism, not the foundation of the system itself.

Well, yes, in the 19th century all sorts of theories were attached to the word Socialism because that was the hot topic in some circles,

Several hundred years really. Capitaliam, Fuedal8sm, and Socialism all existed in varying stages around the world, these syatems jus did not have formal names or theories until sociology and philosophy made declerations of catagorilization

but that's all that what you are referring to here amounts to. And all of them are gone with the wind, so they're irrelevant to a discussion of Socialism in today's world.

The same thing can be said about capitalism and feudalism. Modern economics and politics have outgrown the original labels of these systems.

 

[Albion]

It does not look like you read my entire post before responding. Socialism can be market or central based. If a cooperative collectively own a business and split the revenue through a democratic means, its still socialism.

Not if it's a voluntary undertaking. That would violate a basic concept of Socialism. It would not be Socialism any more than a monastery is or some religious cult in which all possessions are held in common because of a particular passage from the New Testament.