Socialism vs. Capitalism

[Johnnz]

Jim Wallis wrote recently:

"... Christians must never worship at the altar of politics. It is not our primary vocation and faith should not be squeezed into its narrow categories — that always misshapes our faith.

Our allegiance is to the kingdom of God, the new order that Jesus brought into the world and to our lives. And no political party will ever come close to representing that. People of faith should be the ultimate moral independents in politics, challenging both parties.


People of the kingdom should not serve politics; but we should serve the common good — seeking the welfare of the city we are in, as the prophet Jeremiah instructed. And we only engage politics when it is necessary to help the common good."


I have no issue with such a statement


John
NZ

 

[gluadys]

Socialism, controlled by the state, is a product of un-Godly Babylon and as such it is not scriptural and is not God's will...as this is not taught in God's Word.

Socialism doesn't come in only one form. Anarchist socialism proposes the abolition of all state structures. Even communism sees the effect of socialism as a withering away of the state.

Personally, I don't think you can have any human society without a government, but socialism is not a prescription for control by the state: rather for control of the state by the people.

Now, having said that, in the Bible we do see that the GOD'S PEOPLE (not, un-Godly government that rejects God) is supposed to be taking care of the poor.

You have to realize that government is the arm of the flesh, it is controlled by carnal men, and as such is ultimately controlled by satan.

If you don't see this now... one day in the not too distant future you will.

Some governments are certainly ungodly, but that is because governments are human and so are fallen like humans. The ideal upheld by the prophets is a government that abides by the covenant given through Moses. And that covenant gives the government specific responsibilities to see to the welfare of the poor--especially those who have no family network of support (widows, orphans, foreign residents). It also gives the government the right to collect taxes for this purpose. In fact, the division of taxes (tithes in the Old Testament) was 2/3 to support the priesthood (which was the principal arm of the government until the monarchy was set up) and 1/3 to support the poor. The king, judges and elders also had specific responsibilities to uphold the rights of the poor and it was for neglecting these responsibilities and permitting (even engaging in) the exploitation and oppression of the poor that the prophets condemned them and warned of God's judgment.

God's people are always to be charitable, but when it comes to the responsibility of government, it is not charity which is owed the poor, but justice. It is a huge misunderstanding to think of government programs as charity. They are not intended to be charity, but a way to provide the poor with what is their due.

So let the people, as individuals or in private organizations be charitable, and let governments uphold the just rights of the poor to be fed, clothed, sheltered, and have access to health care and education so that they need not be poor in perpetuity.

Jim Wallis wrote recently:

"... Christians must never worship at the altar of politics. It is not our primary vocation and faith should not be squeezed into its narrow categories — that always misshapes our faith.

Our allegiance is to the kingdom of God, the new order that Jesus brought into the world and to our lives. And no political party will ever come close to representing that. People of faith should be the ultimate moral independents in politics, challenging both parties.


People of the kingdom should not serve politics; but we should serve the common good — seeking the welfare of the city we are in, as the prophet Jeremiah instructed. And we only engage politics when it is necessary to help the common good."


I have no issue with such a statement


John
NZ

Amen. And when it is necessary for the common good, we must not refrain from engaging in politics. As people of the kingdom, our responsibility is to call government to fulfil its proper mandate, no matter what party currently holds power. Christians must recognize that all parties have their weaknesses and are prone to self-interest over public interest. We should never baptize any one party as a "Christian" party.

 

[James Clarkston]

socialism is not a prescription for control by the state: rather for control of the state by the people.

Yes, and when Jesus Christ is locked out of the conversation... it will ALWAYS end up being people that are controlled by the devil that are controlling the state.

This is why it's so wrong for Christians to support Babylon's governmental system.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, and when Jesus Christ is locked out of the conversation... it will ALWAYS end up being people that are controlled by the devil that are controlling the state.

Yes, that is why it is so difficult to get and maintain a democratic socialist government. It always gets ruined by the devil's lure: money--the corruptor of the public good.

This is why it's so wrong for Christians to support Babylon's governmental system.

Right. That's why I keep preaching biblically-based socialism like that practiced by the early Church. It is totally opposed to devilish governmental systems.

 

[SharonL]

The Bible's description of helping others is not the same as Socialism - Socialism sounds good at the onset - but there are always people who will ruin it. The Bible says if you don't work, you don't eat. All of the stories about how people collect unemployment and just take a big vacation while the other half of the people are supporting them tells exactly why Socialism will not work.

There is a gal that is now an activist for the right things - her name is Star - can't remember her whole name - she tells about having an apartment with a swimming pool, going to the beach every day - having free medical care and on and on - said she did this for 6 years and had no desire to find work - this is what happens in a Socialist society - what incentive do the Socialist have to work hard - they can't get any farther ahead than those sitting on their behinds doing nothing but cashing their checks.

It is sad to say, but we are headed in that direction and this administration has a goal to makie this country a Socialist country. Every Socialist country that has this system has gone down - so why do they think it will work now. Right now we have more people paying the way while half of the people do not pay any taxes whatsoever - a system that is not sustainable.

 

[TheReasoner]

The Bible's description of helping others is not the same as Socialism - Socialism sounds good at the onset - but there are always people who will ruin it. The Bible says if you don't work, you don't eat. All of the stories about how people collect unemployment and just take a big vacation while the other half of the people are supporting them tells exactly why Socialism will not work.

There is a gal that is now an activist for the right things - her name is Star - can't remember her whole name - she tells about having an apartment with a swimming pool, going to the beach every day - having free medical care and on and on - said she did this for 6 years and had no desire to find work - this is what happens in a Socialist society - what incentive do the Socialist have to work hard - they can't get any farther ahead than those sitting on their behinds doing nothing but cashing their checks.

It is sad to say, but we are headed in that direction and this administration has a goal to makie this country a Socialist country. Every Socialist country that has this system has gone down - so why do they think it will work now. Right now we have more people paying the way while half of the people do not pay any taxes whatsoever - a system that is not sustainable.

First: It works fine in Scandinavia. And it has, for decades. It is the reason Scandinavia has fared this well in this and earlier financial crisis(es). Furthermore, it is also the reason Scandinavian nations top the list of freedom, stability, peacefulness and safety.

Second: Your country is moving towards fascism, not socialism. Just look at how torture is back on the agenda, and how many people believe in `american exceptionalism' not to mention the fear of enemies, real or imagined which is spreading in the states. Including but not limited to an unhistoric and irrational fear of a concept most - apparently including you - do not come close to understanding. These are fascist tendencies, not socialistic ones. If there had been a nationalization of production, natural resources and a significant increase in regulation designed to protect the people and workers from abuse by powerful corporations and rich individuals we`d see a move towards socialism. But the US has a very low level of progressive taxation, it is moving towards more privatization, not nationalization. It is working against - not for - unions. And regulations are cut and then cut some more. Not imposed. These are far right policies, not left at all. Not even center.
The current government in the US is not at all left wing, but rather slightly less right wing than the republicans.

So, no. You're not moving towards socialism. And please, stop pulling bible verses out of context to justify social darwinism.

 

[SharonL]

You are not describing the country I am living in. The unions are taking this country down with all their demands. The unions have destroyed our educational system - you can't get rid of a bad teacher if you even try - they have what they call rubber rooms where bad teachers have to come to just as if they were working, they do nothing for years and are still paid - what good has the union done there.

Between the unions and the government with all their outlandish benefits, our country will not survive in its present state. What new laws are not passed in congress - they are regulated by Executive order - breaking the backs of our business world.

I do not know what you are referring to as 'torture is coming back' - I know I have lived 76 years in this country, I've seen the success of hard working people and I've seen the downfall of the 'redistribution mind set' - I'll take the time of the hard working people any time.

 

[TheReasoner]

You are not describing the country I am living in. The unions are taking this country down with all their demands. The unions have destroyed our educational system - you can't get rid of a bad teacher if you even try - they have what they call rubber rooms where bad teachers have to come to just as if they were working, they do nothing for years and are still paid - what good has the union done there.

Ah. More trademark fascism, Sharon. This attitude is also fascist, and I fail to see any accuracy in it. Consider, Finland went from the worst to the best educational system in the west - and unions were an integral part of that fantastic job. Unions are central to democracy and represent a vital organ in today's political system. To eliminate them out of some misguided attempt at fixing stuff... Well, consider how that worked in Italy or Germany after the rise of fascism. I would say the problem is probably by now embedded in your culture. But the problem is not a few bad apples who abuse the system. But the culture in itself. For unions and indeed democracy to work (Yes yes I know the US is a republic - with democratic elections) there is a fundamental need for a cooperative mindset, not an egocentric one. And, the US has an egocentric culture. No doubt. It is materialistic, greedy, stingy, boastful, arrogant, unwilling to learn from the mistakes or successes of itself or others. As demonstrated by you in your adoption of fascistic mentality in response to an illusory enemy. Namely, the left.
If you care to verify, feel free. Compare how much each person in the US gives or how much of what the US has is given to aid. Consider also that you're number 38 in healthcare quality worldwide - to a large part due to the privatization - yet you will not follow paths other countries have taken which brought them up to first or second place. Because it is "socialistic" and because you do not want "your money" to go to people who "don't deserve it". Consider also the abortion debate. The US is pushed into ever higher abortion numbers, in part because the conservative mindset makes being a single mother socially unbearable and the conservative policies makes it financially impossible for many. When asked, most conservatives in the states I have spoken to are unwilling to shift money from the military to help for these women to give birth. Again, greed and vengefulness. Not Christlikeness. Yet they boast, don't they? Say the US is sooo charitable, or how the conservatives are the true christians and the liberal communist socialists are evil and anti-christian - when social democracy in many countries is based upon the teachings of Christ. And they keep pointing fingers, too. Deregulation does't work? Deregulate MORE. Too many poor? Well, it's just that salaries are too high and laws too soft. Too much crime? Harden the punishment. Which has brought you to have more prisoners than any other country in the world. And a recidivism rate of 60%. Other countries who have followed Christ`s command to treat even criminals with dignity and love have had the crime rates drop to the lowest in the world, and recidivism rates drop to 10 or 20%.
Yet that is considered unchristian and damaging by you conservatives in the states. Even though it is known to work and decreed by you GOD.

So I wonder, who do you REALLY worship?

Between the unions and the government with all their outlandish benefits, our country will not survive in its present state.

It has fared better, but the unions are not to blame. And you forget - YOU are the government. And the conservative approach is what got the US into the mess it`s in. Deregulation, liberal market strategies, reduction of rights, degradation of the legal system to a farce wherein indefinite detention and torture are now considered legitimate political arguments. It is not the liberals who have done that, but you. With your reaganomics, your lack of concern for the bigger picture and gross neglect of democratic principles and deviation from approaches known to work in numerous other nations.

What new laws are not passed in congress - they are regulated by Executive order - breaking the backs of our business world.

Says who? Glenn Beck? It was deregulation that brought about the crisis in the first place. It does not work. Never has.

I do not know what you are referring to as 'torture is coming back' - I know I have lived 76 years in this country, I've seen the success of hard working people and I've seen the downfall of the 'redistribution mind set' - I'll take the time of the hard working people any time.

I am referring to the candidates in your political party wanting to bring back torture as a means of interrogation.

You have lived for that long. Okay. If you say so. But why, then, have you not noticed how the conservatives are the ones to blame for your downfall? If you did even a small bit of double checking and not just believed the talking heads who fill you full of fear you'd see that you have never experienced real left wing policies. By checking you'd see that the nations in the west who HAVE have left you in the dust as far as healthcare, freedom, democracy, private purchasing power and general quality of living precisely because of the policies you insist destroy and only destroy. You will find that you have been fooled. Question is, do you have the guts as a 76 year old to do that, and admit your flaw? Neurologically speaking I doubt it, as people your age tend to be locked in their mindsets so firmly nothing can shake them. I admit I am very surprised though. You lived as fascism fell. You should have some recollection of the cost. And yet... You jump in bed with it? Why on earth would anyone do that?

 

[gluadys]

The Bible's description of helping others is not the same as Socialism - Socialism sounds good at the onset - but there are always people who will ruin it.

Socialism is not about "helping" others. It is about social justice, seeing that everyone, without exception, has access to the means of life and livelihood that God intended them to have.

Depriving people of the means to get food, clothing and shelter; depriving people of health care; depriving people of education and training and credit to put into new enterprises---that is unjust. That is depriving people of their rights.

The worship of power and wealth, the corruption of judges, the oppression of the 99% by the elite is what the prophets condemned in ancient Israel. The burden of unpayable debts, the use of verbal trickery and verbal "fine print" to evade obligations set out in the law of Moses in regard to family and neighbours are some of the practices Jesus condemned.

All of these have their counterparts in modern states as well, and Christians have an obligation to imitate Jesus and the prophets in condemning them and demanding justice so that poverty is eradicated as God promised it would be when the basics of the covenant are kept.

The Bible says if you don't work, you don't eat.

And who, in Paul's day, were the people who could afford not to work?


It sure wasn't the poor.

And it is not the poor today either.

It is the wealthy who constitute the "leisure classes"; that is why they are called "the idle rich".

Paul was telling rich, young idlers, that this is not a way of life for a Christian. Work is not demeaning. Paul was wealthy, but he also worked with his hands (as a tentmaker) to earn his living. And he is telling young idlers not to spend their time as clients of wealthy patrons, but to engage in constructive work. Hence he adds "Let him who does not work, not eat."

The poor, on the other hand, lack food not because they do not work but because no one provides work for them to do, or pays them a living wage for what they can do. Or because they are too sick to work (living in poverty creates illness) and no one sees to it that they get the care (especially a healthy diet) they need to become fit to work. Or they have little education and few skills and no one is seeing to it that they learn how to support themselves

All of the stories about how people collect unemployment and just take a big vacation while the other half of the people are supporting them tells exactly why Socialism will not work.

What makes you think a socialist government would not penalize that sort of irresponsibility?

Besides, when people have to work 60 hours a week, juggling two and three jobs, just to get by, a spell of unemployment is the only time they get a much-needed vacation.

That's one of the benefits of a union job--the vacations are built into the contract. God's law also provides for days of rest. Depriving people of adequate down time so much so that they can only take a vacation when unemployed is another denial of rights to the poor.

There is a gal that is now an activist for the right things - her name is Star - can't remember her whole name - she tells about having an apartment with a swimming pool, going to the beach every day - having free medical care and on and on - said she did this for 6 years and had no desire to find work - this is what happens in a Socialist society - what incentive do the Socialist have to work hard - they can't get any farther ahead than those sitting on their behinds doing nothing but cashing their checks.

Where does scripture say we should be motivated to "get ahead"?

Where does scripture say we should spend all our time working hard? God freed people from the tyranny of endless labour in Egypt. (It was Pharoah who accused the people of laziness, just as the wealthy do today when people demand their rights.) When the Israelites had a land of their own, God provided that everyone of his people have time for rest and relaxation: even the land and the wild animals.

You don't mention how this activist earned the wherewithal to enjoy this lifestyle. I very much doubt it was through food stamps. And you don't say she was a government employee either. So, if private donors are providing her salary, how is that socialism?

Every Socialist country that has this system has gone down - so why do they think it will work now.

Not a fact. You may be cherry-picking your evidence.

Right now we have more people paying the way while half of the people do not pay any taxes whatsoever - a system that is not sustainable.

Too true. And most of the people not paying taxes are the wealthiest 1% and highly-profitable corporations. And to add insult to injury, they are often being subsidized by the hard-done-by taxpayers. Why are taxpayers being asked to provide more wealth to the already wealthy?

 

[SharonL]

WOW - I have to have some time to absorb all these Democratic talking points - unbelievable. I can say one thing - the left has certainly spread its talking points worldwide. It has taken many, many years to get the majority mindset to this point - I can't change that in a few minutes.

 

[TheReasoner]

WOW - I have to have some time to absorb all these Democratic talking points - unbelievable. I can say one thing - the left has certainly spread its talking points worldwide. It has taken many, many years to get the majority mindset to this point - I can't change that in a few minutes.

Talking points? Really? Check them, SharonL. And skip Glenn Beck's website. Check the hard numbers, the objective facts.
The one coming with unsubstantiated accusations here is you. You live in a polarized country where there is a lot of crap from both sides of the spectrum. I can get that you yourself become extreme as a result. It's the norm where you live after all. But it is no excuse for not staying informed, Sharon.

We see from an objective analysis of recent history that economic equality benefits every layer of society, it does not break society down either but stabilizes it and provides good soil for freedom and opportunity for all. You can check the numbers if you want, feel free. In fact, please do. Here's someone who has done so professionally:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

Consider each point of the Republican political position individually if you wish. Consider if it's historically backed or not, and expand your field of view to the world or at least the west as a whole. You will find that the policies on crime have worked against their intent, whereas a more Christ-like approach has worked very well when and where applied.
Consider the financial policies. Those got you into a crisis now, and several crisis before. The socialistic policies you fear have avoided crisis where applied, and a less laissez faire approach than Republicans often have is what finally stopped the depression. The conservatives wanted to trust in Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' and it only deepened the mire the world was in. It was only when this trust was broken that things got better.
Then there's the policy on war. I should not have to tell you what Christ said: Whosoever lives by the sword will die by the sword. If anything is more evil than killing and maiming other people, what would that be?
Consider the policy on healthcare: As it has been applied the US healthcare quality has dropped. Slowly but steadily. Now the US is number 38 in the world in terms of quality, yet no-one pays more. Yet the Republicans insist that they have the only good healthcare system in the world. And point to how terrible it is in Canada and Britain - even though both are FAR better than the states in this regard.
Consider aid, the US has since the 60s promised to give .7 percent of GDP in aid. It gives .1%. And of that around 90% is given to US based corporations. Meaning it ends up in US pockets, and helps rich americans, not poor people in need. Privately the US gives about the same percentage per capita - somewhat more. Far less than many other countries in the west. Yet conservatives are very very ready to boast about how charitable they are. Isn't that right? Why is that? The US has not kept it's promise, it does not come close even if you add both public and private donations. Some nations exceed their promise, both publicly and privately - and in those nations the people often view themselves as stingy and greedy. While Americans boast about their charity. Why is it that the most stingy is also the most boastful, Sharon?

I could go on. The list is loooong. And as I pointed out, the way you're moving is towards fascism, not socialism. If you do not believe me, read up on both.

 

[UnamSanctam]

OP:

Seeing as socialism is inherently anti-Christian, and reduces human beings to mere wheels in the great machinery of the State and the Party, it's a no-brainer.

 

[TheReasoner]

OP:

Seeing as socialism is inherently anti-Christian, and reduces human beings to mere wheels in the great machinery of the State and the Party, it's a no-brainer.

No it isn't. Read up before you make accusations UnamSanctam. Socialism comes in many flavors and is not always for a big state.

Right wing policies however ARE in direct violation of Christ's teachings, and often reduce human beings to commodities being traded.

 

[UnamSanctam]

No it isn't. Read up before you make accusations UnamSanctam. Socialism comes in many flavors and is not always for a big state.

Yes it is.
"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" ring a bell?

Right wing policies however ARE in direct violation of Christ's teachings, and often reduce human beings to commodities being traded.

So, freedom is apparently slavery. Welcome to Oceania.
There is no violation of Christ's teachings in allowing people freedom.

 

[TheReasoner]

Yes it is.
"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" ring a bell?

Sure. But you're referencing Marx. His is not the only version. And claiming it is is logically false.
Socialism comes in all flavors from the despotic one you just referenced to anarchic.
The same goes for right wing policies. You can have a bloodtirsty despotic manifestation or an anarchic laissez faire version. Both have been tried, both fail miserably.

So, freedom is apparently slavery. Welcome to Oceania.
There is no violation of Christ's teachings in allowing people freedom.

I am not speaking against freedom, but for it Unam.

Freedom to sell one another is not freedom. Freedom to oppress is not freedom.

We need freedom from slavery, not freedom to enslave. We need freedom to welcome new countrymen, not closed borders and the racial segregation the right apparently wants.

 

[UnamSanctam]

Sure. But you're referencing Marx. His is not the only version. And claiming it is is logically false.
Socialism comes in all flavors from the despotic one you just referenced to anarchic.

Ah, yes. The classic:
"That's not REAL communism"-defense. Very similar to the
No true Scotsman-fallacy

I am not speaking against freedom, but for it Unam.

You can either have freedom, or you can have socialism. You cannot have both.

Freedom to sell one another is not freedom. Freedom to oppress is not freedom.

So, saying: "Now, we, the State, graciously will hand out the trinkets we feel you deserve, while you pay us what we feel we want", is freedom?

 

[gluadys]

Ah, yes. The classic:
"That's not REAL communism"-defense. Very similar to the
No true Scotsman-fallacy

But it is your fallacy. You are right to include Marxism as one kind of socialism--one that advocates state ownership of the means of production under a dictatorship of the proletariat.

But when you hold that no other form of socialism (democratic, cooperative, union-led, anarchic) is also socialism, it is you who is say that Marxism and only Marxism is true socialism. That is the No True Scotsman fallacy--excluding all other examples of socialism and insisting that only Marxism, which even many other socialists condemn, is the only version that is truly socialist.

You can either have freedom, or you can have socialism. You cannot have both.

You mean you can either have freedom or you can have dictatorship. You cannot have both. Whether the dictatorship is a dictatorship of the proletariat or of the plutocrats (as in the West today), it is not freedom.

But there are many versions of socialism which do not aim for a dictatorial role for any class.

So, saying: "Now, we, the State, graciously will hand out the trinkets we feel you deserve, while you pay us what we feel we want", is freedom?

Such a state, indeed, would be dictatorial. But, the ideal of socialism is to bring the state under the control of the people. The state should be a servant, not a ruler. And it should be a servant of the people not of the wealthiest corporations and lobbyists.

One of the great tragedies of modern America is that so many have lost the dream of democracy. I hardly ever hear an American any more speak of the government as an ally of the people, much less an instrument of the people to carry out their common project as citizens. The state is almost universally seen as something apart from and alien to the average American citizen.

Is this because big money speaks louder than votes in modern American politics?

Jesus told us you cannot serve both God and money. And to love our neighbour as ourselves, next to God. Prophets and apostles tell us that to love God means to love and serve each other.

It seems to me, no government can serve both money and the people it was created to serve. The influence of well-financed SuperPacs is one of the great obstacles to freedom in the U.S. today.

Indeed, there is no violation in Christ's teachings in allowing people freedom; there is violation in blocking access to income, credit, food, shelter, medicine, education, skills training and all those things people need to live in dignity. Poverty imposed from above (as most poverty is) is a form of slavery and oppression consistently denounced in scripture by Moses, the prophets, Christ and the apostles.

 

[UnamSanctam]

But it is your fallacy. You are right to include Marxism as one kind of socialism--one that advocates state ownership of the means of production under a dictatorship of the proletariat.

But when you hold that no other form of socialism (democratic, cooperative, union-led, anarchic) is also socialism, it is you who is say that Marxism and only Marxism is true socialism. That is the No True Scotsman fallacy--excluding all other examples of socialism and insisting that only Marxism, which even many other socialists condemn, is the only version that is truly socialist.

So....Marx basically was like this?
Marxism is the true socialism. The fact that other self-proclaimed socialists denounce it only means that they've watered down socialism/communism.

You mean you can either have freedom or you can have dictatorship. You cannot have both. Whether the dictatorship is a dictatorship of the proletariat or of the plutocrats (as in the West today), it is not freedom.

[/quote]Such a state, indeed, would be dictatorial. But, the ideal of socialism is to bring the state under the control of the people. The state should be a servant, not a ruler. And it should be a servant of the people not of the wealthiest corporations and lobbyists.[/quote]

I'm guessing you're referring to the West with the last sentence. It isn't accurate by a long shot, though.
I have very little concern for what the "ideal" is. It doesn't work, and it always and invariably turns out the way I just presented.

One of the great tragedies of modern America is that so many have lost the dream of democracy. I hardly ever hear an American any more speak of the government as an ally of the people, much less an instrument of the people to carry out their common project as citizens. The state is almost universally seen as something apart from and alien to the average American citizen.

Because of America's history.
America was not founded on an existing power structure, but on an idea: That the country should be a place where everyone would be free to settle, and build a life for themselves, free from the oppressive governments in Europe. To view "the state" as an instrument for social change is alien to the American psyche, both because the nation was not build on the government first getting the idea, then putting it into motion, but on the private initiative of its citizens, which the government then, in some cases, supported.

Is this because big money speaks louder than votes in modern American politics?

No, it's because of America's history as a nation of people that neither need or want a nanny state.

Jesus told us you cannot serve both God and money. And to love our neighbour as ourselves, next to God. Prophets and apostles tell us that to love God means to love and serve each other.

It seems to me, no government can serve both money and the people

Agreed. But the definition of exactly HOW one "serves the people" is one there is considerable dissention on.

 

[gluadys]

Marxism is the true socialism.

See? No True Scotsman fallacy confirmed in your own words.

The fact that other self-proclaimed socialists denounce it only means that they've watered down socialism/communism.

I take it you have never heard of the Fabians (British non-Marxist socialists) or of Peter Kropotkin or Bakhunin (Russian anarchist socialists) both of whom disagreed strongly with Marxism back in the 19th century before the Soviet Union was established. I think they would be vehement in saying it was Marxism that was watering down socialism.

I'm guessing you're referring to the West with the last sentence. It isn't accurate by a long shot, though.
I have very little concern for what the "ideal" is. It doesn't work, and it always and invariably turns out the way I just presented.

The same, of course, also applies to the ideal of capitalism. The devil is always at work to corrupt good government of any stripe. Benign monarchies or dictatorships give way to tyrannies. Aristocracies (government by "the best" in Plato's terms) give way to monopolistic oligopolies. Capitalism becomes plutocracy and socialism becomes a system of gulags.

Our task, like that of the prophets, is to call governments back to what they should be doing: serving the people.

Because of America's history.
America was not founded on an existing power structure, but on an idea: That the country should be a place where everyone would be free to settle, and build a life for themselves, free from the oppressive governments in Europe.

And none of those governments was either democratic or socialist.

To view "the state" as an instrument for social change is alien to the American psyche, both because the nation was not build on the government first getting the idea, then putting it into motion, but on the private initiative of its citizens, which the government then, in some cases, supported.

The only difference between the American ideal you describe here and socialism is that the government would not support the initiatives of citizens "in some cases" but would be obligated to do so in all cases.

In socialism, the citizens ARE the government and there is no idea put forth by the government other than one first put forward by the citizens.

No, it's because of America's history as a nation of people that neither need or want a nanny state.

You may wish to disparage neighbours looking out for each other and setting up communal structures (e.g. public roads, schools, mail delivery, hospitals, garbage collection, etc.) to do that as "a nanny state", but you will not find these things except where people have had the power to direct the government to create and maintain them.

Agreed. But the definition of exactly HOW one "serves the people" is one there is considerable dissention on.

Well, under socialism, the people decide exactly how through participatory and democratic decision-making processes that do not divide the government from the people.

 

[SharonL]

One of the posters posted some things about the US that are simply not true - it shows that people from other countries do not really know the US. It said that the US was the most selfish country - We give to other countries until we ourselves are about to go bankrupt (well - not withstanding all the waste in our government) - we are always one of the first at any disaster, individual churches give and do ministry work all over the world. We give billions to all the countries that hate us, which I don't understand. But I would like to know what they base these opinions on.