Socialism vs. Capitalism

[BondiHarry]

Socialism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin. Both are rooted (as much as either has roots) in consumerism; the difference is just in the means of production. They are both about industrialism and so both are about consumerism - the difference is that capitalism is motivated by profit (avarice) whilst socialism is motivated by use. In capitalism, the point is to sell as many televisions as you can in order to reap the most profit. In socialism the point is to make sure everyone has a television. As such, socialism is superior to capitalism.

This does not mean that socialism is sufficiently moral though, as just because someone has a use for something, it does not follow that the appetite be fed. Further, socialism, by its nature (as over-centralised because of its equal worship with capitalism of efficiency), is as destructive of family and tradition as capitalism (through the primacy it gives to profit and consumption, often wrecking communities and families in the cause of greater profit) is.

If the choice was solely between those two, socialism just scrapes ahead...but it is by no means a moral choice in any wider and more realistic sense.

You might want to take a closer look at what avarice is. It is a malady that can be found in ANY economic system and personally, the economic system where one profits by providing goods and services that other people CHOOSE to buy (ie capitalism) is morally SUPERIOR to the economic systems which have confiscation of wealth by force (such as socialism) with the money used as the power brokers in government deem wise over how the one whose labor created that wealth deems wise and makes government and not GOD the determiner of who is a good steward and their reward. Capitalism has won the battle with state managed economies hands down in terms of creating wealth and raising the standard of living for more people. It does this in no small part because it enables the very kind of people that God favors (the poor and weak) to succeed when they have drive and vision, embarrassing the rich and powerful who so often become so enamored of their wealth and power they think THEY are the authors of their success and NOT God.

There is also the myth about 'profit' being a one sided street where if one party gains by a deal the other side loses when the reality is in a free market all parties to a deal can 'profit'.

 

[Leap]

You might want to take a closer look at what avarice is. It is a malady that can be found in ANY economic system

Indeed. The point I was making is that the profit motive is inherently avaricious and acquisitive.

the economic system where one profits by providing goods and services that other people CHOOSE to buy (ie capitalism) is morally SUPERIOR to the economic systems which have confiscation of wealth by force (such as socialism) with the money used as the power brokers in government deem wise over how the one whose labor created that wealth deems wise and makes government and not GOD the determiner of who is a good steward and their reward.

Capitalism makes the mistake of assuming that we own anything. We dont. Everything that we "own" is no more than held in stewardship (from those who came before and for those who come after us, who in turn will hold in stewardship after us). This is something that capitalism does not comprehend (and part of how capitalism is not remotely conservative).

Capitalism has won the battle with state managed economies hands down in terms of creating wealth and raising the standard of living for more people. It does this in no small part because it enables the very kind of people that God favors (the poor and weak) to succeed when they have drive and vision, embarrassing the rich and powerful who so often become so enamored of their wealth and power they think THEY are the authors of their success and NOT God.

Our capitalist society rose on the back of the poor and the weak and still does so today. It is no more moral than the theft you see in socialism, and rose on the teaching that acquisition and ambition are "moral" rather than "avarice".

Capitalism is a system of aspiration, ambition and acquisition, about people on the make. As such it is inherently against duty, service and custodianship (although those are by no means values of socialism either), and through such is in no place to claim any moral highground whatsoever.

 

[BondiHarry]

Indeed. The point I was making is that the profit motive is inherently avaricious and acquisitive.

Is the profit motive inherently avaricious and acquisitive? Again, in a free market two (or more parties) may agree to a deal in which ALL profit. If I grow wheat and am looking for a chest of drawers and I come across a carpenter who will make me such a chest and wants wheat, we may come to an agreement where I get what I want, he gets what he wants and we are both better off ... this is not a bad thing.

Capitalism makes the mistake of assuming that we own anything. We dont

There are Christian capitalists who know full well they are not true 'owners' of property but that God is the owner and they are but stewards. And God does appoint people to 'own' (ie steward) things ... why else would He have commandments against stealing and coveting?

Everything that we "own" is no more than held in stewardship (from those who came before and for those who come after us, who in turn will hold in stewardship after us).

NO! We are stewards for God, not other people (although proper stewardship does benefit others).

This is something that capitalism does not comprehend (and part of how capitalism is not remotely conservative).

Capitalism at least grasps that property is real and best handled by clearly identifiable owners (and again such owners may well be God's stewards).

Our capitalist society rose on the back of the poor and the weak and still does so today.

False on both counts. We don't even have a capitalist system in America today but a mixed economy with heavy government intervention which is the abrogation of the very basis of capitalism ie FREE MARKETS. And it is free markets which have allowed many of the poor to make outright fortunes and elevate many others out of poverty. It sounds like you subscribe to the theory that wealth is a finite, fixed amount when that is not true at all. Wealth can be created or destroyed and it is not a sign necessarily of the poor being exploited when some men become rich. There are 'poor' in America who live better than nobility did just a few short centuries ago.

It is no more moral than the theft you see in socialism, and rose on the teaching that acquisition and ambition are "moral" rather than "avarice".

Wealth acquired by labor (physical, intellectual or both) is noble, wealth acquired by theft is not so in that regard capitalism is clearly more 'moral' than socialism.

Capitalism is a system of aspiration, ambition and acquisition, about people on the make. As such it is inherently against duty, service and custodianship (although those are by no means values of socialism either), and through such is in no place to claim any moral highground whatsoever.

Aspiration, ambition and acquisition are not bad things and when we deal with one another as traders (as we do in captialism) rather than as looters (using force to take what we want, whether directly or by government proxy) it is indeed FAR MORE NOBLE. You presume to know the motives of those who wish to be free, to enjoy the liberty that God would have us enjoy, as being against duty, service and custodianship. How about showing something that will back up your claim here? Those who start their own small business in order to care for themselves and their families, in order to NOT be a burden to others and in order to have the money to help those in need as God commands them would certainly take exception to your broad brush description of capitalism. Are there 'capitalists' who wouldn't give God the time of day? Yes there are but there are also capitalists who are devoted to the Lord so you cannot attribute the motive behind capitalism to be base greed.

There is also the little matter that God does not give government any duty over the economy or taking care of the poor and needy ... and if HE doesn't it is rather presumptuous of men to decide God is wrong but we'll fix His oversight.

 

[pattersonabbie]

There Might Could Be A Christian "care And Care Alike" But Has One Ever Been Yet?

 

[pattersonabbie]

Prove It.

 

[Leap]

Is the profit motive inherently avaricious and acquisitive? Again, in a free market two (or more parties) may agree to a deal in which ALL profit. If I grow wheat and am looking for a chest of drawers and I come across a carpenter who will make me such a chest and wants wheat, we may come to an agreement where I get what I want, he gets what he wants and we are both better off ... this is not a bad thing.

Both sides gaining from a deal does not stop something being avaricious and acquisitive. And of course the profit motive is rooted in both of those things. Capitalism is not just trade. It is profit motive - the desire to get more out than you put in. THAT is avarice.

NO! We are stewards for God, not other people (although proper stewardship does benefit others).

We are both. The trust is handed on from our forebears and will be handed on to our children. Or do you not recognise the family either?

False on both counts. We don't even have a capitalist system in America today but a mixed economy with heavy government intervention which is the abrogation of the very basis of capitalism ie FREE MARKETS. And it is free markets which have allowed many of the poor to make outright fortunes and elevate many others out of poverty. It sounds like you subscribe to the theory that wealth is a finite, fixed amount when that is not true at all. Wealth can be created or destroyed and it is not a sign necessarily of the poor being exploited when some men become rich. There are 'poor' in America who live better than nobility did just a few short centuries ago.

Of course capitalism allows people to gain wealth though, not merely exchange it. That is it's point. The profit motive is about getting more than you give, which is, as I said, avaricious.

Aspiration, ambition and acquisition are not bad things and when we deal with one another as traders (as we do in captialism) rather than as looters (using force to take what we want, whether directly or by government proxy) it is indeed FAR MORE NOBLE. You presume to know the motives of those who wish to be free, to enjoy the liberty that God would have us enjoy, as being against duty, service and custodianship. How about showing something that will back up your claim here? Those who start their own small business in order to care for themselves and their families, in order to NOT be a burden to others and in order to have the money to help those in need as God commands them would certainly take exception to your broad brush description of capitalism. Are there 'capitalists' who wouldn't give God the time of day? Yes there are but there are also capitalists who are devoted to the Lord so you cannot attribute the motive behind capitalism to be base greed.

There is nothing wrong in trade, but capitalism is not about trade. It is about profit. If I have spare carrots and you have spare potatos and we trade them, we both benefit but neither profits. Capitalism seeks to get a better "deal" though; so my giving less carrots than you give potatos is profit motive and thus capitalism.

It would help if capitalists did not corrupt the language by suggesting that benefit and gain are synonymous when they are not. If we swap our spare carrots evenly we both benefit but neither have gained (ie: profited) because neither has more than we had to begin with. Capitalism, profit motive, seeks to get more for less and thus is dishonest and acquisitiveness....and acquisitiveness denies custodianship because the custodian does not seek more.

The custodian is conservative, preserving what is. The capitalist is progressive, seeking to advance to a "higher" state. I sincerely wish that conservatives would grasp that basic principle.

 

[BondiHarry]

Both sides gaining from a deal does not stop something being avaricious and acquisitive. And of course the profit motive is rooted in both of those things. Capitalism is not just trade. It is profit motive - the desire to get more out than you put in. THAT is avarice.



We are both. The trust is handed on from our forebears and will be handed on to our children. Or do you not recognise the family either?



Of course capitalism allows people to gain wealth though, not merely exchange it. That is it's point. The profit motive is about getting more than you give, which is, as I said, avaricious.



There is nothing wrong in trade, but capitalism is not about trade. It is about profit. If I have spare carrots and you have spare potatos and we trade them, we both benefit but neither profits. Capitalism seeks to get a better "deal" though; so my giving less carrots than you give potatos is profit motive and thus capitalism.

It would help if capitalists did not corrupt the language by suggesting that benefit and gain are synonymous when they are not. If we swap our spare carrots evenly we both benefit but neither have gained (ie: profited) because neither has more than we had to begin with. Capitalism, profit motive, seeks to get more for less and thus is dishonest and acquisitiveness....and acquisitiveness denies custodianship because the custodian does not seek more.

The custodian is conservative, preserving what is. The capitalist is progressive, seeking to advance to a "higher" state. I sincerely wish that conservatives would grasp that basic principle.

Thanks for making my point, you DO believe that in a trade if one side PROFITS, the other side suffers loss ... and that is simply NOT TRUE in a free market. If I'm offered a deal where I see no profit, I can just walk away and seek to deal with others where I WILL profit. That is the beauty of liberty and free markets, there is competition and multiple choices UNLIKE in statist systems like socialism where the government mandates things which abrogate liberty and free choice.

You claim capitalism seeks to get more for less ... how can this happen in a market where there is open competition and consumers are free to choose who they will buy from? The desire for this might be there but the means does not exist in a free market. People do care about quality and service and if a business tries to 'profit' by cutting back on either, they will lose customers and therefore money. To 'profit' a 'capitalist' must either be a successful competitor ... or look to government to gain advantages he cannot gain in the free market (and this is the abrogation of capitalism, not a side effect of it). If a consumer decides a deal does benefit them, who are you to declare they are wrong and they are suffering 'loss'. For example, if I choose to take a job in a bakery where I'm paid only $3 an hour who are you to decide I'm being taken advantage of? I am learning how to better do something I love nor am I engaging in the 'greed' so many condemn capitalism for demanding far more pay than I would actually be willing to take.

 

[Leap]

Thanks for making my point, you DO believe that in a trade if one side PROFITS, the other side suffers loss ... and that is simply NOT TRUE in a free market.

I am not talking about a Free Market. I'm talking about Capitalism; which is a free market driven by profit motive. Please stop trying to change the goalposts on the discussion.

If I'm offered a deal where I see no profit, I can just walk away and seek to deal with others where I WILL profit. That is the beauty of liberty and free markets, there is competition and multiple choices UNLIKE in statist systems like socialism where the government mandates things which abrogate liberty and free choice.

There is no beauty in acquisivieness and avarice, and that is what you are promoting when you promote the profit motive.

You claim capitalism seeks to get more for less ... how can this happen in a market where there is open competition and consumers are free to choose who they will buy from? The desire for this might be there but the means does not exist in a free market. People do care about quality and service and if a business tries to 'profit' by cutting back on either, they will lose customers and therefore money. To 'profit' a 'capitalist' must either be a successful competitor ... or look to government to gain advantages he cannot gain in the free market (and this is the abrogation of capitalism, not a side effect of it). If a consumer decides a deal does benefit them, who are you to declare they are wrong and they are suffering 'loss'. For example, if I choose to take a job in a bakery where I'm paid only $3 an hour who are you to decide I'm being taken advantage of? I am learning how to better do something I love nor am I engaging in the 'greed' so many condemn capitalism for demanding far more pay than I would actually be willing to take.

I do not "claim" anything. Capitalism IS free trade with profit motive; so by definition it seek to get more for less. And your comments about people caring about quality and service really are quite nonsensical, given the amount of people who buy second-rate discount goods with built in obsolesence, usually at the behest of marketing (which shows how easily it is to repeatedly manipulate people in a market as well).

 

[BondiHarry]

I am not talking about a Free Market. I'm talking about Capitalism; which is a free market driven by profit motive. Please stop trying to change the goalposts on the discussion.

Then please define capitalism.

There is no beauty in acquisivieness and avarice, and that is what you are promoting when you promote the profit motive.



I do not "claim" anything. Capitalism IS free trade with profit motive; so by definition it seek to get more for less. And your comments about people caring about quality and service really are quite nonsensical, given the amount of people who buy second-rate discount goods with built in obsolesence, usually at the behest of marketing (which shows how easily it is to repeatedly manipulate people in a market as well).

You have this mistaken belief that profit is evil; it is not in and of itself evil. You'd be amazed how often God speaks of 'profit' in the Bible and not in the bad light you have for it http://ministerbook.com/search/?q=profit&selected_facets=bible_exact%3AKing+James+Version . The value of anything is subjective and what YOU may consider to be getting more for less may not be the same way I may view it. You may for example have no interest in classical music and wouldn't even think of wasting a dime to purchase the Time-Life 'Great Composers' series whereas I LOVE classical music and happily paid over a hundred dollars for that series and it has given me great enjoyment for years. On the other hand you might consider the money spent on a ski trip to Aspen to be well spent whereas since I have no interest in snow skiing, it would be wasted money to me.

Are you perhaps suggesting that a third party (you or the government) is wiser about how to spend the money an individual earns than they are? If so please explain how you came to this conclusion. If NOT, quit condemning the profit motive that arises in a free market.

 

[wholigan11]

Capitalism.

With socialism, you're punishing working people by taxing them so much and handing their hard-earned money to people who aren't willing to work (I'm not talking about people who are unable to work; that's a different story).

With capitalism (when it's not corrupt) people have freedom to do what they want in the working force. But I do not agree with businesses laying off people and sending jobs overseas just to keep more money to themselves.

 

[Leap]

Then please define capitalism.

I already have, several times.

"Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit."
Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Profits are without doubt the key driving force in a capitalist economy. No respectable entrepreneur would try to sell goods or services were they not to make some sort of profit out of it."
Philip Pilkington: Profits in a Capitalist Economy – Where Do They Come From, Where Do They Go? « naked capitalism

"Capitalism is a socio-economic system that allows private owners to profit from the goods and services they provide."
What Is Capitalism?

The "for profit" is integral to capitalism, and what marks its difference from a simple free-market.

You have this mistaken belief that profit is evil; it is not in and of itself evil.

Avarice is a sin that denies our true role (as servants and custodians) by intrinsically claiming that we can and should be masters and owners. It is based upon the values of ambition, aspiration and acquisition...the desire for more, seeing yourself as a ruler (whether "benign" or not) seeking 'subjects' rather than as a servant with an inherited sacred trust to keep. It is intrinsically tied with hubris.

If you find something that you have not worked for, an appletree in the wild for example, you have profited and there is no harm in that. If however you seek to profit, which essentially is ambition, aspiration and acquisitiveness, you are behaving in a sinful manner by making yourself ruler rather than servant. You are also promoting a social system that is inherently unstable, as everyone under profit motive constantly seeks to change their lot....a point of view that comes, fundamentally, from neophilia (the desire for new things and the discarding of the principle of inheritance/holding-in-trust upon which custodianship is based).

And an unstable system is clearly not a good thing; people need stability in their lives to grant them a modicum of security. It is only the immature who throw away security (think of the prodigal son).

Are you perhaps suggesting that a third party (you or the government) is wiser about how to spend the money an individual earns than they are? If so please explain how you came to this conclusion. If NOT, quit condemning the profit motive that arises in a free market.

Where did I say that? Being anti-profit is not the same as being pro a planned economy. There is a middle ground, where people trade for need rather than for profit. The thing that is wiser is tradition, which gives you a custodial role that in time you will bequeath to the next generation. This is, obviously, in marked opposition to the acquisitive role, as this latter is clearly about expanding your holdings (gaining aggrandising new ones) rather than simply inheriting a custodial role of care.

 

[JoeyArnold]

With socialism, you're punishing working people by taxing them so much and handing their hard-earned money to people who aren't willing to work (I'm not talking about people who are unable to work; that's a different story).

Socialism is like a dress code at school. Even if the government knows what is best for us, it still takes away from our freedom to make our own choices. Should we all be forced to live in same-size houses, with just one TV per house? Should we all be forced to not smoke? All men maybe created equal, but do they also have to live equally as well?

 

[wholigan11]

Socialism is like a dress code at school. Even if the government knows what is best for us, it still takes away from our freedom to make our own choices. Should we all be forced to live in same-size houses, with just one TV per house? Should we all be forced to not smoke? All men maybe created equal, but do they also have to live equally as well?

Isn't that more communism though?

 

[BondiHarry]

I already have, several times.

"Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit."
Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Profits are without doubt the key driving force in a capitalist economy. No respectable entrepreneur would try to sell goods or services were they not to make some sort of profit out of it."
Philip Pilkington: Profits in a Capitalist Economy – Where Do They Come From, Where Do They Go? « naked capitalism

"Capitalism is a socio-economic system that allows private owners to profit from the goods and services they provide."
What Is Capitalism?

The "for profit" is integral to capitalism, and what marks its difference from a simple free-market.

So you want to make a distinction between 'profit' and 'benefit' when such a distinction does not exist and then condemn 'profit' in a free market when consumers are free to not purchase a good or service if they find no benefit to themselves. Rather Orwellian IMO.

Avarice is a sin that denies our true role (as servants and custodians) by intrinsically claiming that we can and should be masters and owners.

May I remind you that in Jesus' parable about the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) the good servants were the ones who took what their master gave them and through trade doubled the amount ... they made a profit for their master by the same means you condemn.

It is based upon the values of ambition, aspiration and acquisition...the desire for more, seeing yourself as a ruler (whether "benign" or not) seeking 'subjects' rather than as a servant with an inherited sacred trust to keep. It is intrinsically tied with hubris.

Ambition, aspiration and acquisition are not sinful things in and of themselves. Is it sinful for a housewife to want to acquire a dish washer, a clothes washer or a clothes dryer? Is it sinful to want plumbing rather than taking a bucket to a river to get that water?

If you find something that you have not worked for, an appletree in the wild for example, you have profited and there is no harm in that. If however you seek to profit, which essentially is ambition, aspiration and acquisitiveness, you are behaving in a sinful manner by making yourself ruler rather than servant.

So if you come across something you had no hand in making and profit that is fine but if you apply yourself to improve your lot by your own effort you're being sinful ... MORE Orwellian thinking. Also not in line with God's word at all such as Deuteronomy 8:18 " remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth"

You are also promoting a social system that is inherently unstable, as everyone under profit motive constantly seeks to change their lot....a point of view that comes, fundamentally, from neophilia (the desire for new things and the discarding of the principle of inheritance/holding-in-trust upon which custodianship is based).

Not true at all. As a Holy Spirit filled man I have changed my lot greatly since coming to the Lord, losing the desire to own things just because they are available, losing interest in the many mindless shows on tv that exist just to kill time rather than use it wisely ... you seem to be arguing we should be content with whatever state we are in rather than working to improve that state.

And an unstable system is clearly not a good thing; people need stability in their lives to grant them a modicum of security. It is only the immature who throw away security (think of the prodigal son).

An immoral system is a worse thing than an unstable system (and if a system IS unstable we should analyze WHY it is so). SO, what in your opinion is the security we should be looking for?

Where did I say that? Being anti-profit is not the same as being pro a planned economy. There is a middle ground, where people trade for need rather than for profit. The thing that is wiser is tradition, which gives you a custodial role that in time you will bequeath to the next generation. This is, obviously, in marked opposition to the acquisitive role, as this latter is clearly about expanding your holdings (gaining aggrandising new ones) rather than simply inheriting a custodial role of care.

So in short it sounds once again you believe that wealth is a static quantity, can be neither created nor destroyed and we should just pass on what we have inherited but not add to it. THAT sounds a lot like the unfaithful servant in the parable of the talents. He did not trade or in any way increase the wealth of his master but returned only what he was give in the first place ... and he was condemned for it!

 

[JoeyArnold]

Isn't that more communism though?

i get confused between socialism & communism

 

[wholigan11]

i get confused between socialism & communism

Understandable. Communism did derive from socialism.

 

[gluadys]

Heaven might be socialistic, but life is capitalistic, full of choices, freedom.

So are you saying there is no freedom in heaven?

Why would you want to go there then?

Most people living today in countries with socialist policies also enjoy freedom. There are exceptions: e.g. North Korea. But that is because it is a military dictatorship which pretends to be socialist.

Countries with a strong democratic socialist tradition are typically freer and offer more people more choices than anti-socialist countries. Some examples: Canada, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, etc.

In Canada, for example, a pregnant woman has a choice of seeing a family doctor, an obstetrician or a midwife or all three--no matter what her income is. But in the USA her choices are much more restricted, entirely dependent on her income, and a woman with very low income has virtually no choice at all.

In Europe, most new mothers have the choice of remaining at home to care for their youngest children up to two years. In America, many new mothers have no option but to return to work in only 6-12 weeks--and often without reliable or affordable daycare for their children--while that is readily available in "socialist" Europe.

All the social democracies allow free enterprise by private corporations, showing that socialism and capitalism are not really incompatible. One can have a lot of overlap and it is a matter of emphasis.

Everyone knows that socialism can be (and historically has been) corrupted.
Everyone knows that capitalism can be (and historically has been) corrupted.

The problem with this sort of conversation is that most people contrast their ideal choice (whether socialism or capitalism) with a corruption of the other. What we should all learn is what the other person's ideal is; otherwise we are only knocking over straw men.

And we should also promote ideas of how to overcome the corruption of the system we favour.

For me, the safeguard against a corrupted socialism is democracy. That is why I have never supported Soviet/Chinese/Cuban/etc. style communism. And if I ever have to choose between socialism and democracy, I would go with democracy.

I think democracy is also the best safeguard against corruption in capitalism. When we let the rich undermine and disregard the will of the people, we take the potential benefits of capitalism away from the ordinary citizen and still more from the poor. We get then the situation of injustice described by Amos:

"They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals--
they trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth,
and push the afflicted out of the way."

Amos 2:6-7

 

[Leap]

So you want to make a distinction between 'profit' and 'benefit' when such a distinction does not exist and then condemn 'profit' in a free market when consumers are free to not purchase a good or service if they find no benefit to themselves. Rather Orwellian IMO.

I have 10 potatos and you have 10 carrots. We each swap 5 of each. I have gained 5 carrots and lost 5 potatos. You have gained 5 potatos and lost 5 carrots. We have both gained but neither of us has profited.

Not remotely "Orwellian".

May I remind you that in Jesus' parable about the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) the good servants were the ones who took what their master gave them and through trade doubled the amount ... they made a profit for their master by the same means you condemn.

May I remind you that this parable was using a worldly metaphor to describe a spiritual behaviour.

Ambition, aspiration and acquisition are not sinful things in and of themselves. Is it sinful for a housewife to want to acquire a dish washer, a clothes washer or a clothes dryer? Is it sinful to want plumbing rather than taking a bucket to a river to get that water?

Avarice is sinful, and avarice is seeking more (unless you lack basic necessities).

So if you come across something you had no hand in making and profit that is fine but if you apply yourself to improve your lot by your own effort you're being sinful ... MORE Orwellian thinking. Also not in line with God's word at all such as Deuteronomy 8:18 " remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth"

It is for God to give wealth, not for us to aspire to it.

An immoral system is a worse thing than an unstable system (and if a system IS unstable we should analyze WHY it is so). SO, what in your opinion is the security we should be looking for?

That is beyond the scope of this thread....

So in short it sounds once again you believe that wealth is a static quantity, can be neither created nor destroyed and we should just pass on what we have inherited but not add to it. THAT sounds a lot like the unfaithful servant in the parable of the talents. He did not trade or in any way increase the wealth of his master but returned only what he was give in the first place ... and he was condemned for it!

As I said, that was a worldly metaphor for spiritual activity that seeks to bring in more for God not more for yourself.

For someone with a Chesterton quote as their sig, you do show a marked lack of awareness of the problems with profit.

 

[gluadys]

Socialism as a voluntary association of people who share a common goal is one thing and compatible with God's word.

We are talking about a system of government. No form of government is voluntary. However, it may be democratic.

The question is whether the government (whatever its form) governs according to the will of God.

Socialism as a compulsory economic/government institution is NOT compatible with God's word at all. The latter does use force to confiscate the bread of a man's labor against his will and then use it in ways that he may find foolish, wasteful or even harmful to his fellow man.

That is not peculiar to socialism. Many Americans today find the way Congress chooses to spend their taxes foolish, wasteful and harmful to themselves and their fellows.

God however is not a socialist of the coercive economic/government model.

Given that God commanded the theocratic government of Israel to collect tithes and also commanded that 1/3 of the tithes collected be distributed to the poor of the land, I find your perspective rather difficult to justify.

He clearly tells His followers to "seek first the kingdom of God, AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS" and THEN the things we need will be added to us.

Just what do you think it means to seek the kingdom of God? It means to see that the commands of God on social order are implemented: commands that clearly demand attention to the needs and rights of the poor by those in authority.

Further, how can people reach their full potential when they have a master in government which dictates so much about how the wealth they create is used, how the businesses they own are to be run, how their children are to be educated and so forth?

You are creating a straw man to knock down.

I don't know of anything in socialist policy that would put a cap on how much wealth anyone can create, as long as they do no harm in the process.


All governments of every stripe make regulations on how businesses are run. After all, if one didn't, there would be no defence against crime-funded businesses. And for reasons of health and safety, it is only common-sense to demand that certain standards be kept in such matters as food production, construction and so on.

When governments fund schools they have the right to set the curriculum. But that doesn't stop a family that disagrees from opting for a private school or for home-schooling, so there is no restriction on how to educate your children.


How can anyone reach their full potential if, due to poverty, they suffered malnutrition during early childhood when their brain was developing? How can anyone reach their full potential when their parents have to work 2-3 jobs and have no time to see to their social, mental and spiritual development? How can anyone reach their full potential when they are denied a living wage for their labour?

How does a non-socialist government see to it that people are not deprived of fulfilling their potential by the impact of extreme poverty?

So the socialists might like to believe but this is not true.

You have obviously not studied the views and philosophy of Christian socialism. So you have no basis on which to say it is not true.

The poor do not have an inherent 'right' to the wealth of others

And others do not have a right to the goods and persons of the poor.
This is what Jesus and the prophets before him, and the law of Moses, and the admonishments to kings and other authorities in scripture are about.

Consider what Jesus says of the scribes in Luke 20:47 or how he condemns the practice of the Pharisees and lawyers in Luke 11:42 & 46 or again in Matthew 15:5-7.

Jesus is not talking about giving the poor a right to another's goods, but about restoring their own goods to them which have been taken away by the force of abusive power---much as many Americans in these last few years have seen their homes and savings taken away from them by the fraudulent practices of the rich.

Or as one mother on welfare once told us: "I don't want your money. But I want to keep what I have earned." (She was speaking of how so much is deducted from her welfare cheque when she works that it isn't worth it to work. But, like most people on assistance, she wants to work, she wants to support herself. She wants to live with the dignity of financial independence.)

When empires of wealth are founded on the oppression and exploitation of the poor, they are not legitimate and the poor have the right to take back what was stolen from them through injustice--including legalized injustice.

Jesus' preaching on charity and doing unto the least of these deals with how we should treat those in need, it was not intended to suggest the poor could forcibly TAKE what they wanted from those who are better off ... it is better to be poor but holy than better off and sinful.

It is a category mistake to confuse socialist government policies with charity. Socialism is not about charity. It is about justice--especially the protection of the poor from the depredations of the wealthy. It is about protecting the right of the poor to have a home and food on the table either though a decently-paying job or, if necessary, through public assistance. It is about protecting the right of the poor to improve themselves through freely-available education. It is about protecting the right of the poor to prosecute a slum landlord who doesn't maintain the property. It is about protecting the right of the poor to be treated with dignity no matter what their gender, skin colour, age, or national origin.

The bible doesn't speak of the middle-class because no middle-class as such existed in ancient times, but much that it says about protecting the rights of the poor can apply to the middle-class as well. So we can include such things as protecting a prosperous middle-class town from invasion by a corporation which runs their businesses into bankruptcy. Or fouls their water-supply with fracking. Or destroys their livelihoods (as many along the Gulf coast have experienced) with major oil spills and little to no compensation.

These things are not matters of charity; they are matters of justice, and a responsibility of governing authorities which they ignore at the peril of God's judgment on them and their nation.

And how does this passage in any way justify society forcibly taking the bread of one man's labor and giving it to another?

Again, you set up a straw man. What you are describing has nothing to do with socialism.

Socialism is more about the poor man being able to keep his own bread and not have to fork it over to the rich in order to pay his rent or purchase needed medicine. It is about making sure the poor man gets paid enough for his labour that he can purchase bread in the first place. And pay his rent and get what health care he needs. And send his children to school and get shoes for them to wear.

That is the sort of justice socialism is about.

And it is not inconsistent with capitalism either.

You can have a country in which wealth is generated by capital enterprises that also attends to the needs and rights of the poor as commanded in scripture.

 

[gluadys]

Socialism is like a dress code at school. Even if the government knows what is best for us, it still takes away from our freedom to make our own choices. Should we all be forced to live in same-size houses, with just one TV per house? Should we all be forced to not smoke? All men maybe created equal, but do they also have to live equally as well?

You are simply indicating that you don't know much about socialism.

Socialism is not about forcing every one to wear the same uniform.

It is about not forcing anyone to wear rags.

Especially it is about not forcing thousands of people to wear rags so that the President's wife can have 3,000 pairs of shoes in her closet.
(You may be too young to get that reference. It was Imelda Marcos, wife of the Philippine dictator in the 1980s.)

Socialism is about opening up opportunities to everyone so they can each choose for themselves--as long as they don't block off other's choices by depriving them of the same opportunities.

A person who is always hungry and can't afford to take care of themselves is deprived of the opportunity to make free choices.

We don't have to decree that everyone eat the same food in order to make sure no one goes hungry (except as a voluntary fast).

And we don't have to decree that everyone wear a uniform in order to make sure everyone has the clothing they need.