Socialism vs. Capitalism

[BrianMaximus]

Socialism fails utterly as a 'Christian' system. We are to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness for the things we need, not a system which institutionalizes theft, encourages covetousness and makes the state into an idol. God warns us not to put our trust in princes/ie government (Psalm 146:3), that wealth gotten by vanity shall diminish (Proverbs 13:11) and I think it is clear that freer economic systems produce not only more wealth than statist systems but the lot of all men tend to be better under systems which are capitalist in nature.

Capitalism is more closely the economic expression of the liberty that God intends for men to have but I want to make clear that by capitalism I mean a truly free market system where men are free to operate as they desire so long as they do not initiate the use of force or fraud in their dealings. Many of the horrors that are laid at the feet of capitalism are actually the result of government involvement in commerce and not of a truly free market.

What the Bible suggests about government is that it is to secure the blessings of liberty, limit the predatory threat of evil men and ensure that justice is done. No where does the Bible suggest that government should redistribute wealth or otherwise engage in 'charity'.

Although capitalism is a superior system to socialism and more compatible with the teachings of the Bible so long as men are carnal and not surrendered to the holiness that God brings us, it will remain a flawed system with many men using the wealth that God blesses them with (Deuteronomy 8:18) on the lusts of the flesh rather than caring for those in need and fairly compensating the people in their employ.

Except that capitalism makes people steal more. Capitalist societies have higher crime rate (in theft that is), it promotes greed and envy. Socialism does not make you worship your government, in fact it makes you want to hate it because they're taking your money and giving it to someone else, because greed is a natural occurrence in humans. And only a few people benefit from a capitalist system, I.E. the wealthy ones, as with a socialist system the government attempts to make everyone equal by taking stuff from one person and giving it to another who has less to begin with and now they have the same share.

Again speaking about making the government an Idol, think about (semi)recent events in a capitalist society where, the free market depended on the government asking them for aid for their own mistakes. If capitalism makes people turn to the government more while socialism makes them turn on their government, which one makes the government into an idol?

 

[gluadys]

We are to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness for the things we need, not a system which institutionalizes theft, encourages covetousness and makes the state into an idol.

One could just as well call that a description of capitalism as we know it.

God warns us not to put our trust in princes/ie government (Psalm 146:3),

Socialism doesn't tell us to trust the government either. It tells us to BE the government. The only government we can trust is a government that is us, a government that we the people control.

that wealth gotten by vanity shall diminish (Proverbs 13:11) and I think it is clear that freer economic systems produce not only more wealth than statist systems but the lot of all men tend to be better under systems which are capitalist in nature.

Sure, but socialism is freer than unregulated capitalism. Capitalism without restraint imprisons people in poverty so that a few can be very rich. Poverty and liberty can't co-exist.

Capitalism is more closely the economic expression of the liberty that God intends for men to have but I want to make clear that by capitalism I mean a truly free market system where men are free to operate as they desire so long as they do not initiate the use of force or fraud in their dealings. Many of the horrors that are laid at the feet of capitalism are actually the result of government involvement in commerce and not of a truly free market.

Well, if you are going to defend an ideal of capitalism instead of the real thing, you need to look at the ideal of socialism as well. One can just as well say the failures of some socialist experiments are actually the result of tyrannical government involvement for the personal gain of the leaders and not of a genuine democratic socialism.

What the Bible suggests about government is that it is to secure the blessings of liberty, limit the predatory threat of evil men and ensure that justice is done. No where does the Bible suggest that government should redistribute wealth or otherwise engage in 'charity'.

When wealth is unjustly distributed, then redistributing wealth is needed to ensure justice is done. The Bible explicitly enjoins the following measures to redistribute wealth.

Property owners are not to maximize their profit by harvesting every last head of grain or every last grape or olive on their vines and trees, but leave a portion unharvested for the poor to glean.

Loans which could not be repaid within a reasonable time are to be cancelled. Those who were repaying loans by becoming slaves were to be released and given an ample provision of grain, oil, etc. with which to start a new life.

Every third year the annual tithe (which was a legal obligation like a tax--not a voluntary donation) was to be distributed to the poor. This was not a charitable gift; it was a right of the poor.

Every 50 years, all land outside of city walls which had been sold or lost due to unpaid mortgages was to be returned to the original owner or his heirs.


The Bible does enjoin charity, but these measures were not voluntary gifts; they were part of the Law. They were obligatory actions to assure the well-being of the poor and redistribute wealth more justly.

Many scholars believe the frequent references to debts and forgiving debts in Jesus' preaching indicate a call for a jubilee (50th) year in which all debts were to be cancelled. Debt is the prison of the poor then and now.

Although capitalism is a superior system to socialism and more compatible with the teachings of the Bible so long as men are carnal and not surrendered to the holiness that God brings us, it will remain a flawed system with many men using the wealth that God blesses them with (Deuteronomy 8:18) on the lusts of the flesh rather than caring for those in need and fairly compensating the people in their employ.

Any system is subject to corruption, both capitalism and socialism. We have seen both. But to me, the underlying ideals of captalism are at odds with scripture. There is too much emphasis on individualism, on material success. Socialism, by contrast, encourages a community spirit, an ethic of "enough" rather than "more" and a rejection of institutionalized poverty.

And only a few people benefit from a capitalist system, I.E. the wealthy ones, as with a socialist system the government attempts to make everyone equal by taking stuff from one person and giving it to another who has less to begin with and now they have the same share.

I think it wrong to say a socialist system gives anything to people. "Giving" implies a voluntary generosity. Socialism is more about what the scriptures call defending the rights of the poor. A government does not "give" rights. A government is obligated to see that no one's rights are violated. Including their rights to basic physical needs, health care, education and rest/relaxation. Talking in terms of "giving" reinforces the notion that socialism is about government charity. It is not about charity; it is about justice.

In fact, it is about keeping covenant with each other and with God, as depicted in the covenant with Israel.

 

[supersoldier71]

Hm. Herein lies our chief disagreement I think. I wonder at your focus on yourself. I mean no offense, but this American love for individual profit over collective responsibility seems almost religious. I see no benefits for the people in this focus. What does it really benefit the individual if the collective suffers ? Are we not all part of the whole, and do we not as such hold a responsibility to one another?
I wonder, why do you think this way. Do you think there is merit in such focus on the individual? Do you think it sustainable to form a society where everyone cares for nought but themselves?

Still, perhaps it is rooted in a misunderstanding. What do you believe "redistributed wealth" entails? Many Americans I have spoken with use those words, but do not know what they mean.

Redistribution of wealth: "The transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others [by means] of a social mechanism such as taxation...."

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it. By some standards, my family and I have managed to become middle-class. I did not grow up that way. I've taken no handouts. What we have, we earned, and we didn't step on anyone's throat to get it. My only expectation is that if an uneducated guy from a funky housing project can achieve a measure of comfort and security, while financing three children in college, then I see no reason why anyone else cannot.

And having worked hard to earn these things, if anyone, be they a government or other entity tries to take these things from me, they are stealing from me. Giving to someone less fortunate that I am is one thing, my concern begins when you introduce governments and begin to redistribute my accumulated wealth to those less industrious than I.

So my question would be: since I managed to prosper and continue to prosper without any handouts at all from anyone, and I have managed to educate my children, provide healthcare for myself and my family and prepare for the time when I am no longer able to work; I feel that I have exercised good stewardship over the material wealth that God has given, why would I then hand it over to someone who has not managed what God has given them? Why would I expect that a government would be better able to manage my resources than I am? How many kids am I supposed to be responsible for feeding and educating? Why would I be responsible for feeding and educating someone else's? How many children can I be obligated to provide health care for? It's not enough that I have managed to provide for my own? Why should I be compelled to care for those who through their own choices cannot provide for themselves or their families? Further, why would I trust my government - or any government other than Christ's - to allocate resources in an equitable manner. I certainly don't trust my government to do that. My government "bailed out" billionaires.

No thank you. I'll manage my life myself, thank you.

 

[gluadys]

Redistribution of wealth: "The transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others [by means] of a social mechanism such as taxation...."

Yes, and scripture tells us this is exactly what one of the responsibilities of a government is: to assure that the injustice of poorly distributed wealth is remedied by measures which redistribute wealth.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it. By some standards, my family and I have managed to become middle-class. I did not grow up that way. I've taken no handouts. What we have, we earned, and we didn't step on anyone's throat to get it. My only expectation is that if an uneducated guy from a funky housing project can achieve a measure of comfort and security, while financing three children in college, then I see no reason why anyone else cannot.

You say you took no handouts. But what about that funky housing project you grew up in. Was it not built with taxpayer's money? Was your rent controlled to keep it within your income? You call yourself uneducated, and I suppose you mean you didn't go to college. But you did get some primary and secondary education. Didn't that come from taxpayer contributions? You probably live in a city or suburb where you have subsidized electricity, subsidized transit and roads and subsidized fuel and food. And no doubt you have tax supported garbage collection, mail delivery and police and fire protection. Everybody takes handouts: they just don't count them.

And there are good reasons why others cannot do as you did. For example, you are male and presumably married. Does that mean your family has two incomes? Can you imagine putting 3 kids through college on a single income as many women have to live on?

Have you had to fight the demons of drug abuse, alcoholism or mental illness? Do you think you could have succeeded as well as you have with those problems? What about physical or mental disability or chronic medical problems? What if you had to deal with abusive parents, or if you had been wrung through the grinder of foster homes as a child? Would you have been as well prepared to take advantage of the opportunities life offered you?


You worked hard, but sometimes it takes a lot more hard work than you did to get the sort of success you have had. We shouldn't make it more difficult for anyone than we can help.

And having worked hard to earn these things, if anyone, be they a government or other entity tries to take these things from me, they are stealing from me. Giving to someone less fortunate that I am is one thing, my concern begins when you introduce governments and begin to redistribute my accumulated wealth to those less industrious than I.

The assumption that those who have less than you are also less industrious than you is called "poor-bashing". It is the economic equivalent of racism. A democratically elected government which has the support of the people to fund programs via taxation is not stealing from you. You are the one who owes something to the poor. And more than charity. You owe them the rights God gave them. As Jesus said: Much is expected from those to whom more has been given. You were given more than you accounted for even by society. And how much more: ambition, good health, a good mind--even if not formally educated, the support of a partner---how much more have you been given by your Creator?

As a citizen in a democracy, you have a say in how your taxes are spent. You can make your government spend wisely if you make use of your own power.

How many kids am I supposed to be responsible for feeding and educating?

That's easy. As many as you can.

Why would I be responsible for feeding and educating someone else's?

Because they are all God's children and God holds you accountable for everything you could have provided and didn't. And God will reward you for everything you do provide.

How many children can I be obligated to provide health care for? It's not enough that I have managed to provide for my own?

No, it's not enough. Not if you can do more.

Why should I be compelled to care for those who through their own choices cannot provide for themselves or their families?

You are assuming they did have choices. There is an old saying that you should judge no one until you have walked a mile in their shoes. Why should we punish someone who made poor choices in their youth? Is there anyone who had not? If a former drug addict is trying to stay clean and raise her family, why should she and her children be deprived of that opportunity. Is not putting obstacles in her way also a type of theft? Scripture has something to say about those who put a stumbling block in the path of the blind. I would say the same principle applies when one invokes punishing people for unwise choices by forcing them to live in poverty--and worse--raise their children in poverty. Doesn't that practically guarantee that the children will also make poor choices?

Further, why would I trust my government - or any government other than Christ's - to allocate resources in an equitable manner. I certainly don't trust my government to do that. My government "bailed out" billionaires.

No thank you. I'll manage my life myself, thank you.

Don't trust your government, or any government. When Israel's government went off the track and started favoring the rich over the poor, God sent the prophets to call them back to its duty of caring for all. You can do the same.

Bailing out the billionaires makes perfect sense in a capitalist system. It makes no sense in socialism. Nor in any society committed to justice for all.

 

[supersoldier71]

Yes, and scripture tells us this is exactly what one of the responsibilities of a government is: to assure that the injustice of poorly distributed wealth is remedied by measures which redistribute wealth.





You say you took no handouts. But what about that funky housing project you grew up in. Was it not built with taxpayer's money? Was your rent controlled to keep it within your income? You call yourself uneducated, and I suppose you mean you didn't go to college. But you did get some primary and secondary education. Didn't that come from taxpayer contributions? You probably live in a city or suburb where you have subsidized electricity, subsidized transit and roads and subsidized fuel and food. And no doubt you have tax supported garbage collection, mail delivery and police and fire protection. Everybody takes handouts: they just don't count them.

And there are good reasons why others cannot do as you did. For example, you are male and presumably married. Does that mean your family has two incomes? Can you imagine putting 3 kids through college on a single income as many women have to live on?

Have you had to fight the demons of drug abuse, alcoholism or mental illness? Do you think you could have succeeded as well as you have with those problems? What about physical or mental disability or chronic medical problems? What if you had to deal with abusive parents, or if you had been wrung through the grinder of foster homes as a child? Would you have been as well prepared to take advantage of the opportunities life offered you?


You worked hard, but sometimes it takes a lot more hard work than you did to get the sort of success you have had. We shouldn't make it more difficult for anyone than we can help.




The assumption that those who have less than you are also less industrious than you is called "poor-bashing". It is the economic equivalent of racism. A democratically elected government which has the support of the people to fund programs via taxation is not stealing from you. You are the one who owes something to the poor. And more than charity. You owe them the rights God gave them. As Jesus said: Much is expected from those to whom more has been given. You were given more than you accounted for even by society. And how much more: ambition, good health, a good mind--even if not formally educated, the support of a partner---how much more have you been given by your Creator?

As a citizen in a democracy, you have a say in how your taxes are spent. You can make your government spend wisely if you make use of your own power.









That's easy. As many as you can.




Because they are all God's children and God holds you accountable for everything you could have provided and didn't. And God will reward you for everything you do provide.






No, it's not enough. Not if you can do more.





You are assuming they did have choices. There is an old saying that you should judge no one until you have walked a mile in their shoes. Why should we punish someone who made poor choices in their youth? Is there anyone who had not? If a former drug addict is trying to stay clean and raise her family, why should she and her children be deprived of that opportunity. Is not putting obstacles in her way also a type of theft? Scripture has something to say about those who put a stumbling block in the path of the blind. I would say the same principle applies when one invokes punishing people for unwise choices by forcing them to live in poverty--and worse--raise their children in poverty. Doesn't that practically guarantee that the children will also make poor choices?






Don't trust your government, or any government. When Israel's government went off the track and started favoring the rich over the poor, God sent the prophets to call them back to its duty of caring for all. You can do the same.

Bailing out the billionaires makes perfect sense in a capitalist system. It makes no sense in socialism. Nor in any society committed to justice for all.

This is a specious argument because it presumes that I have never dealt with physical abuse or drug abuse and that my childhood was idyllic. It was not. But the Lord Jesus delivered me from that poverty to the profound blessings that I have today. By the standards of my childhood, I am not just middle-class, I am fabulously weathly! The Lord has blessed me and blessed my labors, and blessed my family. And in turn, I am to care for those less fortunute than I am. Jesus, the perfect King instructs me to do so.

My government declared "War on Poverty" and the result was more poor people than ever before. No thank you.

And you think it's reasonable to ask a citizen to be responsible for every child that they are "able" to care for?

According to your logic, I should never be able to enjoy anything I have earned. My house? Too big, if everyone doesn't have the same. The car I drive? Too expensive, if someone else has to walk. My clothes? Too nice, if someone else is wearing less.

Those "handouts" that you pointed out that have benefited me; sure, but I came from below average starting point and have achieved above average (speaking strictly of material things) results. Is equality of opportunity the goal, or equality of results? The former is worthy but impossible, the second is ridiculous.

Neither of us will ever see the other side of this argument, and that's fine.

Good day and God bless!

 

[gluadys]

This is a specious argument because it presumes that I have never dealt with physical abuse or drug abuse and that my childhood was idyllic. It was not. But the Lord Jesus delivered me from that poverty to the profound blessings that I have today. By the standards of my childhood, I am not just middle-class, I am fabulously weathly! The Lord has blessed me and blessed my labors, and blessed my family. And in turn, I am to care for those less fortunute than I am. Jesus, the perfect King instructs me to do so.

I never assume someone's childhood is idyllic, but if yours was not, you should be more respectful of people who are having a hard time just as you did. You were helped in some small measure. You shouldn't object to others being helped along the way too. After all, you can be a channel of the Lord's blessings, and you can help assure that your government will be too.

My government declared "War on Poverty" and the result was more poor people than ever before. No thank you.

That is the sort of thing that happens when Christians and other good people wash their hands of being citizens and holding their government accountable. As long as governments are more accountable to the banks and the big corporations than to you and me and the homeless person in the streets, that is the shoddy kind of government you will get. As the old proverb says: the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.

When you and other believers treat your government as your enemy instead of making it the servant of God it ought to be, you have no right to complain. Read Walter Wink on this.

And you think it's reasonable to ask a citizen to be responsible for every child that they are "able" to care for?

Absolutely. It takes a village to raise a child. It should not all be left to parents especially when they need help themselves.

According to your logic, I should never be able to enjoy anything I have earned. My house? Too big, if everyone doesn't have the same.

No, it's not about everyone having the same. You can keep your big house as long as no one has to sleep in the street or in a makeshift shelter or in a run-down roach-filled tenement. You can keep your car as long as those who can't afford one have affordable and efficient public transit. It's not about taking away anyone's privileges--especially when they are earned. But it is about setting a floor that no one falls through.

Those "handouts" that you pointed out that have benefited me; sure, but I came from below average starting point and have achieved above average (speaking strictly of material things) results.

And you expect everyone to be an above average achiever? Why isn't it ok to be an average achiever, or even a somewhat less than average achiever?

And maybe people have different sorts of things they want to achieve.

I mean kudos to you, but you don't have the right to set yourself up as a template for everyone else or to assume they have the same abilities or aspirations you do. That is like the eye saying it doesn't need an ear or a foot.

Is equality of opportunity the goal, or equality of results? The former is worthy but impossible, the second is ridiculous.

Equality of opportunity means people must really have opportunities. That means no children stunted by malnutrition because their mom had to take welfare. Childhood malnutrition has very negative effect on brain growth and shuts down the possibility of equal opportunity for a life-time.

Equality of opportunity means good education for all, even in the poorest neighbourhoods. It means, if anything, allocating more tax dollars to inner-city schools than to suburban schools where parents have the capacity to fundraise for extras like field trips to a museum.

Real equality of opportunity will make for a more equal equality of results as well. But that doesn't need to be the goal.

 

[supersoldier71]

I'd said that I wouldn't come back to this thread [shakes head]

So, I'm responsible for enabling anyone who wants to to have as many kids as they want, whenever they want?

Nope. I'm out.

 

[gluadys]

I'd said that I wouldn't come back to this thread [shakes head]

So, I'm responsible for enabling anyone who wants to to have as many kids as they want, whenever they want?

Nope. I'm out.

Well that' s a complete non-sequitor, isn't it? Who said anything about that?

I suppose then that you agree there should be no restrictions on a woman's right to choose abortion. In fact, you might like to adopt the Chinese policy of mandatory abortions.

Anyway, what's wrong with anyone having as many kids as they want? Most women don't want more than 2-3 and experience shows that when women get a decent education, access to birth control, and the right to decide when and how often they will have children, the birth rate goes down (abortion rate too).

You keep raising objections that are based on stereotyping rather than reality.

And your responses suppose that you and you alone are to be responsible for everybody without the help of anyone else. That is completely foreign to a socialist ideal where everybody has mutual responsibility. You would be able to count on people taking care of your kids, too, should you not be able to. No matter how many kids you have.

 

[jonsun80]

why cant we just take the good things from both and combine them? why one or the other? I think that is a false dichotomy to say that we can't mix them. In fact, most well to do nations do in fact mix the two. It seems to be only the really poor countries that are extreme one way or the other.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Redistribution of wealth: "The transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others [by means] of a social mechanism such as taxation...."

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it. By some standards, my family and I have managed to become middle-class. I did not grow up that way. I've taken no handouts. What we have, we earned, and we didn't step on anyone's throat to get it. My only expectation is that if an uneducated guy from a funky housing project can achieve a measure of comfort and security, while financing three children in college, then I see no reason why anyone else cannot.

And having worked hard to earn these things, if anyone, be they a government or other entity tries to take these things from me, they are stealing from me. Giving to someone less fortunate that I am is one thing, my concern begins when you introduce governments and begin to redistribute my accumulated wealth to those less industrious than I.

So my question would be: since I managed to prosper and continue to prosper without any handouts at all from anyone, and I have managed to educate my children, provide healthcare for myself and my family and prepare for the time when I am no longer able to work; I feel that I have exercised good stewardship over the material wealth that God has given, why would I then hand it over to someone who has not managed what God has given them? Why would I expect that a government would be better able to manage my resources than I am? How many kids am I supposed to be responsible for feeding and educating? Why would I be responsible for feeding and educating someone else's? How many children can I be obligated to provide health care for? It's not enough that I have managed to provide for my own? Why should I be compelled to care for those who through their own choices cannot provide for themselves or their families? Further, why would I trust my government - or any government other than Christ's - to allocate resources in an equitable manner. I certainly don't trust my government to do that. My government "bailed out" billionaires.

No thank you. I'll manage my life myself, thank you.

Comming from someone who appears to be claiming to be a member of the armed services... this is beyond ironic.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

why cant we just take the good things from both and combine them? why one or the other? I think that is a false dichotomy to say that we can't mix them. In fact, most well to do nations do in fact mix the two. It seems to be only the really poor countries that are extreme one way or the other.

BINGO! [/thread]

 

[gluadys]

why cant we just take the good things from both and combine them? why one or the other? I think that is a false dichotomy to say that we can't mix them. In fact, most well to do nations do in fact mix the two. It seems to be only the really poor countries that are extreme one way or the other.

I think it is probably a good idea to recognize that neither concept is monolithic. Both are based on some good ideals. And both are easily corrupted in practice when they slip out of democratic control.

There are really a lot of values that people share across the political spectrum. We all value freedom and dignity; we all feel people should take some responsibility both for themselves and for others. Most of us realize that being rich is not the be-all and end-all of life; if we have enough for comfort then the important things are family, friends, health and so forth.

My own bottom line is democracy--not socialism or capitalism. Both socialism and capitalism are terrible tyrants without democracy or with only a facade of democracy.

I think when people can really get together, share a vision of what they want, and choose how to create that vision, what we will get is the best of both.

Our major problems today in both so-called socialist and so-called capitalist regimes is lack of democracy--of government that is really by the people for the people.

 

[Iskra]

I'm not socialist, and i'm certainly not communist, but I must object to some missinformation or lack of knowledge that I see in this thread.

First of all socialism and communism are not the same thing, and communism is in no way in opposition to democracy.

In marxist theory (which of course is only one of many theories regarding communism) proletarian dictatorship is the political system and socialism is the economical system that are the means to create communism. In the communist society true democracy is inevitable.

Interesting to remember is also the fact that Marx in fact was an opponent to the idea of state ownership. His idea was that state ownership leads to a situation where the state has power over the people, insted of the oposite which is the goal for communism.

Soviet union was, by it's own definition, not a communist society but a society whith a socialist economy ruled by proletarian dictatorship. The union was led by the communist party and had communism as the future goal for society.

In non-marxist teories other ideas and uses of the word exist.

When it comes to wheter or not socialism is based on underved handouts for lazy people or not it might be interesting to remember that it was the soviet union that had these words in it's constitution: "he who does not work shall not eat."

 

[Johnnz]

Whatever ones preference the prophetic denunciation of self seeking wealth needs to be taken up by Christians today.

Amos 8:4-6
4 Hear this, you who trample the needy
and do away with the poor of the land,

5 saying,

"When will the New Moon be over
that we may sell grain,
and the Sabbath be ended
that we may market wheat?"—
skimping the measure,
boosting the price
and cheating with dishonest scales,
6 buying the poor with silver
and the needy for a pair of sandals,
selling even the sweepings with the wheat. NIV

Isa 5:8
Woe to you who add house to house
and join field to field
till no space is left
and you live alone in the land. NIV

Those who fail to care for the poor and powerless while growing their own power and wealth are frequently denounced by the prophets.

John
NZ

 

[gmeades]

As has been pointed out previously, the examples given from Acts in the original post were not examples of socialism or communism. They were an example of communalism which individuals of their own free will had chosen to partake in. They did this for a reason, which was to devote themselves to God and to the preaching the gospel, they were living together as a family for a common purpose, which had nothing to do with the form of Government or economic system is best for a society.

That aside, Jesus himself said “you will always have the poor among you” in John 12:8, Matt 26:11, Mark 14:7. That certainly doesn’t sound like he was in favor of redistributing the income of those who have earned it.

The fact is, the bible does not promote socialism or communism, by which the Government is responsible to collect taxes and set up programs and redistribute funds as it sees fit.

The bible teaches dependence on God to provide for our needs, not putting the Government in Gods place to take care of everybody. By elevating the government to this position, one effectively displaces God. In doing this, one shows they no longer trust in God. Instead of belief and trust in God they choose to place their dependence on the Government. (a violation of the first commandment - Thou shalt have no other Gods before me Ex 20:3 - for those of a religious bent)

If that is your belief, you are not walking the walk of a Christian who believes and trusts in his spiritual father to provide for him, but you are walking the walk of the natural man, the 5 sense man who cannot trust God and only believes what he can see first before he will believe, and does not believe God.

The bible teaches individual responsibility. It teaches the law of sowing and reaping – what a man sows that shall he reap; God blesses individuals, and teaches the consequences of not being productive to those who do not take individual responsibility - “if a man does not choose to work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thes 3:10). Notice that it does not say if a man doesn’t work then the government will take over, give him food stamps and put him on welfare so he can live off of other people’s labor. The bible teaches individualism, the individual is responsible for himself.

Capitalism itself is simply a system of exchange. It is a value exchange where one item of value is exchanged for another item of value, as determined by the parties involved in the exchange. It promotes free will, freedom of the individual to choose, and the ability to prosper according to the benefit provided to others.

God is an individual God who prospers individuals and people who honor him.

Genesis 39:2
And the LORD was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian.

Even as a slave, God prospered Joseph because Joseph obeyed God. God prospers individuals according to their faith in him.

In every verse where it mentions God prospering people in the Old Testament, it says the Lord was with them.

God made Abraham the richest man in the world at that time. He did the same with Isaac, with David, and Solomon. God made each of these individuals to prosper, and these were each the wealthiest men of their day.

Even Job, after going through the lowest point in his life, having lost everything, regained double his former prosperity afterward when God blessed him as a faithful believer. He made Job, an individual, rich because all through his trials he held steadfast to his belief in God. (Job 42:10-12)

God blesses the righteous, individuals who know, trust, and believe God (proverbs 10:6).

A believers walk is an individual thing, and there are over 130 verses in the bible that state that God will bless or has blessed individuals who believe and trust in him. There is not one verse in the entire Bible where God says for men to set up distribution systems of their own to take from one group of people by force and to redistribute to others who do not believe or trust in God. That is not scriptural at all, but is the reasoning of the natural man, operating solely by his five senses.

In fact, the Bible says that it is a mans individual responsibility to provide for his family and relatives, not the Governments, and that if he doesn’t do this then he has “denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever”. See 1 Tim 5:8

Socialism and Communism are both wealth destroying systems, taking from those who produce, demoralizing and disincentivizing them, and redistributing to those who do not produce. They both elevate the Government above God as the provider for mans needs, and as such they are contrary to Gods word.

Capitalism (also known as the “Free Enterprise System” in accordance with free will, one of Gods primary tenants) on the other hand, rewards the individual, encourages production and creativity, and is a wealth creation system for those who utilize it by providing greater value to others, and which rewards them for doing so. In the free enterprise system, man depends on God for his needs to be met, for market conditions to be favorable, and for God to prosper him. In so doing, it places God first, where he belongs.

There are a number of verses saying that a man should profit from his labor, should enjoy the fruit of his labor, enjoy the first fruits of his labor, and so on. There are no verses stating someone else should receive the profits from his labor, or decide how much of his profits he should be able to keep, or that anyone should take from his profits and give it to someone else. Isa 3:10, 2 Tim 2:6 etc.

There is also the aspect of Abrahams blessing. Abrahams blessing was not given to all men, it was given to the seed of Abraham. Abrahams faith was counted as righteousness by God because he believed Gods promise to give him a son when he was 100 years old and to make him the father of many nations. There are a number of blessings mentioned in the old testament which were given to Abrahams decendants, one of which was prosperity. According to Gods word, he did not promise prosperity to everyone, he promised it specifically to Abrahams seed. So, who are Abrahams seed? Individuals who through faith believe God raised jesus from the dead and have received his spirit within according to Gal 3:29.

As far as the question of what to do with the poor, Gods word teaches charity, giving with a cheerful heart to those in need. It is done by individuals of their own free will, not by some third party dicating what they think is fair or how much of ones own labor he is allowed to keep. Deut 15:11 Proverbs 22:9 Psalms 41:1-2 Luke 6:38 1 Tim 6:17-18etc.

As society's are comprised of believers and unbelievers, which form of Government or economic system is best for everyone is open to interpretation and opinion. Which form of Government or economic system is in accordance with Gods word, however, is one that puts God first; provides man with the full rewards of his labor; protects mans individual sovereignty, rights and freedoms; and allows God to prosper those individuals he determines is right and proper. By that definition, Capitalism meets the criteria on every count, while Socialism, unfortunately, does not.

He who trusts in the LORD will prosper.
Proverbs 28:25b

 

[Assyrian]

That aside, Jesus himself said “you will always have the poor among you” in John 12:8, Matt 26:11, Mark 14:7. That certainly doesn’t sound like he was in favor of redistributing the income of those who have earned it.

Depends. Was Jesus saying:
You will always have poor people because God wants them poor?
You will always have poor people so there is no point in redistributing wealth?
Or,
Stop criticising Mary for her beautiful act of devotion with the expensive perfume, you will always have plenty of opportunities to give to the poor in the future?

 

[BondiHarry]

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.

Capitalism is more compatible with Biblical teaching in that it respects free markets and does not make of government an idol which can steal the bread of one man's labor to give it to another man but both socialism and capitalism are flawed because neither system acknowledges God or has as a priority following God's moral laws.

 

[gluadys]

As has been pointed out previously, the examples given from Acts in the original post were not examples of socialism or communism. They were an example of communalism which individuals of their own free will had chosen to partake in. They did this for a reason, which was to devote themselves to God and to the preaching the gospel, they were living together as a family for a common purpose, which had nothing to do with the form of Government or economic system is best for a society.

Labels, shmables. The church was to be a self-governing body and as it grew it was to exemplify how people are to live together in a community. So they began small--as they had to. And they didn't try to reform the current government--as they had no power to.

That doesn't mean we cant learn from the principles they instituted for their own self-governance. And it doesn't mean we can't aim to institute the same principles in the case where the national government and our government are one and the same. We can have an impact on our national government the early church could never hope to have on Jerusalem or Rome.

That aside, Jesus himself said “you will always have the poor among you” in John 12:8, Matt 26:11, Mark 14:7. That certainly doesn’t sound like he was in favor of redistributing the income of those who have earned it.

Doesn't sound like he was against it either.

The fact is, the bible does not promote socialism or communism, by which the Government is responsible to collect taxes and set up programs and redistribute funds as it sees fit.

The fact is the law of Moses does make the government responsible to collect taxes, but not to redistribute funds as it sees fit. The redistribution was to be 2/3 for the support of the priests and Levites (who had no land to provide an income for themselves) and 1/3 to the poor.

This is set out explicitly in the laws concerning tithes--which were a compulsory contribution like a tax, not a voluntary donation to the priests.

There were additional laws on redistributing wealth, including the principal capital asset,land, in the sabbath and jubilee laws.

The bible teaches dependence on God to provide for our needs, not putting the Government in Gods place to take care of everybody.

The bible teaches that the government is God's servant and its service to God is to take care of everybody, especially the poor.

It is indeed idolatry to put government in the place of God, but it is not idolatry to call government to its proper vocation under God.

Furthermore, in a democracy, the government is not only God's servant, but our servant. We are all called to look after each other, especially the poor among us. Government is our common servant to help us do that.

The bible teaches individual responsibility. It teaches the law of sowing and reaping – what a man sows that shall he reap; God blesses individuals, and teaches the consequences of not being productive to those who do not take individual responsibility - “if a man does not choose to work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thes 3:10). Notice that it does not say if a man doesn’t work then the government will take over, give him food stamps and put him on welfare so he can live off of other people’s labor. The bible teaches individualism, the individual is responsible for himself.

In Paul's time, those who did not work were the rich, not the poor. Indeed, this has been so common through history that the phrase "the idle rich" is a cliche in the English language.

An individual who has no access to food--because the idle rich have hoarded it and driven the price out of his reach--is not responsible for his own poverty, and is more than deserving of assistance. Indeed, he cannot take responsibility in any other way until he is provided with the means to live. So you have the proper order reversed.

The first responsibility of any society is to see to it that its members can shoulder their individual responsibility by seeing that they are well-fed, well-housed, decently clothed, and have the education and means to maintain their health and be fit for work.

Also, don't forget that the majority of people benefitting from food stamps are children who have no responsibility for their own poverty. It is neither good morals nor good economics to punish them with malnutrition which assures they will never develop enough mentally or physically to be capable of responsible adulthood.

What you are doing is called "poor-bashing" and is as offensive as racism.

Capitalism itself is simply a system of exchange. It is a value exchange where one item of value is exchanged for another item of value, as determined by the parties involved in the exchange. It promotes free will, freedom of the individual to choose, and the ability to prosper according to the benefit provided to others.

I wonder where the bible promotes any of these values. My bible promotes submitting to the will of God, choosing to follow the example of Christ, being content with what is sufficient and giving as generously as one can to the poor.

God is an individual God who prospers individuals and people who honor him.

And part of honoring God is obeying his commandments, including those which provide for the poor. In fact, it was principally the oppression of the poor--especially by the rulers who had explicit commands to defend the poor--that led to the downfall of Israel.

In fact, what you are proposing is works-salvation, the sort of thing promoted by Job's comforters who saw poverty and misfortune as a sign of God's displeasure at sin, and by those who saw a man's blindness as a consequence of either his own or his parent's sin.

God explicitly condemned this theology both in Job's time and in Jesus' teaching.

In every verse where it mentions God prospering people in the Old Testament, it says the Lord was with them.

Indeed, the Lord was with them as long as they obeyed his commands, which include the commands to "let there be no poor among you." Indeed, God promises prosperity when his commands are obeyed and specifically promises that when his statutes are kept "there will be no poor among you."

God blesses the righteous, individuals who know, trust, and believe God (proverbs 10:6).

A believers walk is an individual thing, and there are over 130 verses in the bible that state that God will bless or has blessed individuals who believe and trust in him.

Trusting in God means, among other things, trusting that God will provide enough to carry out his commands to be generous to the poor. If, then, having enough--individually or communally--to provide for the poor, we fail to do so, then we are neither trusting nor obeying God.

There is not one verse in the entire Bible where God says for men to set up distribution systems of their own to take from one group of people by force and to redistribute to others who do not believe or trust in God. That is not scriptural at all, but is the reasoning of the natural man, operating solely by his five senses.

Yes, there is, for the commands to provide for the poor---though the collection and distribution of tithe revenues---mention explicitly widows, orphans and aliens residing in the land. It can be assumed that aliens were not worshipers of the God of Israel, so the command to care for the poor from the common wealth of the nation extends to those who do not believe or trust in God.

 

[Cash80]

I voted for capitalism because I believe it's biblically based.

 

[BondiHarry]

The bible teaches that the government is God's servant and its service to God is to take care of everybody, especially the poor

Would you care to show the scripture which says this? We as individuals and the church itself are the ones tasked with helping those in need ... NOT the government.