Socialism vs. Capitalism

[Johnnz]

People should be able to use their money, however they choose. If I have more money I should have the option of buying nicer things, should I choose not to OK but I should have that option.

Sorry. We offer ourselves to God (Rom 12:1). All his is, not ours to decide on.

John
NZ

 

[TheReasoner]

Well what is it?

Short answer? A financial system. Usually motivated in it's structure by the value of each human being, the sanctity of life and the sustainability of society so our children can have a bright future, too. As has been said, for many socialists justice and equal opportunity for all to succeed according to their ability - not hampered by any social standing their parents might have had. In other words I suppose we might say: An enabling system based on mutual responsibility, brotherhood and compassion.

But, read up on it. For example here: Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As you're Christian you could learn something from this too: Christian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of course, there's communism as well, which is something different.
Here you'll find much which is familiar to you, I am sure:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

But note that this is also not black and white. Read for example the section on christian communism. Which does not fit the Maoist, Leninist, or any of the Marxist lines of communism. It is expanded upon here:
Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have literary recommendations if you want to go in-depth, but this is good surface skimming. Now, I am not a communist. Let me stress that. But as a Christian and a budding scientist I feel it is my obligation to get informed before I judge. I hope you take the time to do the same, and so do not fall into the ditch my wife's family fell into by extreme misapplication and misrepresentation of huge ideological spans.

People should be able to use their money, however they choose. If I have more money I should have the option of buying nicer things, should I choose not to OK but I should have that option.

Johnnz had a point. But even if you disagree with it there is the matter of your responsibilities. We are adult members of society. That brings with it certain responsibilities which we must take care of. What we have in terms of material goods brings with it a responsibility to others. In part becuase those who are strong can lift more of a burden, in part because the accumulation of such wealth depends on a functional society, and in part because that's what it means to be a decent human being, and especially a christian. Furthermore, it's not really 'ours', is it? We can't take it to heaven, and no good ever comes from selfishness and greed. Our purpose is to love others and do good. So to give up a portion of what money we move around the financial markets (We seldom actually 'make' money, we often just move it around in clever ways) to pay for the system that allows this market to exist makes perfect sense. Furthermore, to pay into it so that a skilled person of poor birth can succeed - by enabling him or her through school systems, healthcare, legal system etc. - we both help everyone else and ourselves.

I am not saying it's perfect. But it's good. And it is based on christian values.

 

[Johnnz]

People should be able to use their money, however they choose. If I have more money I should have the option of buying nicer things, should I choose not to OK but I should have that option.

I should also have mentioned the story of Lazarus. That is a story about responsibility for what does with one's wealth in the here and now. Lazarus indulged himself whilst ignoring the poor man outside his gates. That is the real point of that story.

John
NZ

 

[gluadys]

I should also have mentioned the story of Lazarus. That is a story about responsibility for what does with one's wealth in the here and now. Lazarus indulged himself whilst ignoring the poor man outside his gates. That is the real point of that story.

John
NZ

Actually, Lazarus was the poor man at the gate. The rich man is not named but is traditionally called Dives. However, despite the name mix-up, the point is valid.

God commands justice, for everyone. Rich and poor alike.

And since the poor are poor because they have been deprived of justice by the powerful, God makes the rulers (i.e. the government) responsible for upholding their right to justice. See Psalm 72 esp. vv 2, 4 and 12-14 and Proverbs 31:1-9. Note that both are addressed to kings.

According to God's command, the principal duty of a government is to stand as a bulwark between the vulnerable poor and those who would exploit them unjustly. Not to be an instrument aiding in their exploitation through unjust laws that favour the rich and powerful.

People should be able to use their money, however they choose. If I have more money I should have the option of buying nicer things, should I choose not to OK but I should have that option.

But Christ says:
Give to everyone who begs from you and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. Matt. 5:42

If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. . . . Be merciful as your Father is merciful. Luke 6:34-35

And the apostle James says:
If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, . . . and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? Faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

You do indeed have the right to buy nice things---provided you have first fulfilled your responsibility to those in need. You do not have the right to spend on your own comfort unless you are also spending to relieve the poor of their misery.

As the great 2nd century preacher, St. John Chrysostom of Ephesus, told his congregation: every extra shirt in your closet is a theft from those who have no shirt.

God does not give you the option you claim for yourself. All you have is from God--even what you work for--and God's command is that you use it to do good. What if the day comes when you cannot work? What would you expect or hope for from others? Then, do now for others what you would have them do for you.

And since personal charity is insufficient to meet all needs effectively, it is still more incumbent on government to attend to the needs of the poor and to eradicate poverty to the fullest possible extent through fair laws and economic policies.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It allows people to want to work hard. If I work hard USUALLY I will have more money and can buy more. If someone NEEDS help and is trying I will give them food water clothes (to COVER them, but it is a FACT of life the better money you have the better off you are abd that is GOOD. It motivates people to work hard.

 

[SharonL]

It is not the governments duty to provide for the people - only to keep us safe. Back when there was not so much government intervention (you know - the good ole days - LOL) a long time ago - people took care of people and did a much better job.

My grandmother always kept food that she could quickly get to for the hobo population (back then they were called hobo) - we always helped those who needed clothing, food, rides, whatever - I can always remember helping my neighbor - but the neighborhood where I live now - you could lay dead in your house for months before anyone would check on you.

All the government does is make people rely on them - that is how they control them - the old German and Japan way was to keep people hungry and cold and you can keep them under control (many years ago)

Government does not keep people poor - this has always been the land of opportunity. I volunteer at the hospital and I see people come in all the time - they ask for a business card so they can show they came to look for a job - they don't even ask for a job, just a business card - why should they work - they get almost 2 years of unemployment. If they truely need it, fine - but not if they don't try to work. I see signs out around me for hiring - but people think they are beneath these jobs anymore - the government has sucked the desire out of our people by providing for them when they don't try to provide for themselves.

 

[TheReasoner]

It allows people to want to work hard. If I work hard USUALLY I will have more money and can buy more. If someone NEEDS help and is trying I will give them food water clothes (to COVER them, but it is a FACT of life the better money you have the better off you are abd that is GOOD. It motivates people to work hard.

I don't think you'll find a period in recent times when more people were motivated to work than in financial crisis. Does that mean we need a crisis? During the depression people were desperate for work. Many would do anything at all, and work as hard as possible if they did get a job. Desperation is a strong motivational factor. That does not mean it is good to increase people's desperation.

Will you? Not if you're a factory worker or a mechanic. Why shouldn't they be allowed to make a decent living off of such jobs, but others who work less than hard at other things get a ton of money? And what about those who are smart but born to a poor family, should university be denied them due to poverty? Or what if someone gets sick, should they die if they cannot afford insurance? If someone is sick or is in an accident and cannot work - not from choice but from a cruel lot cast to them in life - should society put salt in the wound like you suggest, or should we as fellow humans help them back on their feet so we can all benefit from having them back in the workforce if possible, or having them lead dignified lives if they are crippled?

I don't see how it is good to be better off the more money you have. Is it not better if we could all live fulfilling lives, and not have a huge gap between rich and poor?

 

[gluadys]

If I work hard USUALLY I will have more money and can buy more.

That is not a fact.

Most people who work very hard live in poverty.

Especially if they are women and/or members of a non-white ethnic group.


The reason they do not have more money is not because they fail to work hard but because they are unpaid, underpaid, paid below minimum wage---if there IS a minimum wage---and are unable to negotiate better wages.

Young women in China work 12 hour shifts 6 days a week and are paid less than $2 a day (yes, that's a day, not an hour).

How could they be working any harder?

There are many more like them in the world than those who are able to reap a just reward for their labour, even in America.

What are you doing about that?

Do you really think problems like these can be solved through personal charity?

 

[gluadys]

It is not the governments duty to provide for the people - only to keep us safe.

Actually, according to scripture, it is the government's duty to provide for the people. (See citations in my earlier post).

One of the works of God is Providence--that is to be a provider. Humankind, made in the image of God is to imitate God as provider. That is what is meant by being given dominion over the earth. The role of the dominus (lord) of a household, was to provide--not just for the safety--but for the needs of everyone in the household.

So the role of a governor is to see that the governed are well-provided for.

Obviously, one of the best ways to do that is to see that all who can work have both the opportunity to work and a fair recompense for their labour.

And for those currently unable to work, due to youth, lack of education, illness, etc. they need the means to create/restore their ability to work.

And as for the aged, they have earned a decent pension. (Social Security).

There is certainly nothing wrong in relying on the government in a democracy, since the people are the government. The people both mandate the provision of these services and pay for them via taxation. They are entitled to the services they have paid for.

And don't think the poor don't pay taxes. They may not pay income tax, but they pay property tax (included in their rent) and sales taxes just like the rest of us.

Back when there was not so much government intervention (you know - the good ole days - LOL) a long time ago - people took care of people and did a much better job.

Did they? You mean those good ole days when Jim Crow laws segregated schools and made sure black children got a sub-standard education, when red-lining residential neighbourhoods kept middle-class Jews and Blacks from purchasing homes near white neighbours, when poor women with five or six kids were not allowed to learn about birth control so they could limit their family to what they could afford? Good ole days like that? All of those were the result of government intervention at the time.

Now you have a black president because you got rid of laws like that.

Personal charity cannot compensate for unjust laws and social structures. You have to work collectively to get rid of social injustice.

My grandmother always kept food that she could quickly get to for the hobo population (back then they were called hobo) - we always helped those who needed clothing, food, rides, whatever.

And did that help any one of them stop being hobos?
Hobos disappeared when the government invested in jobs for people by creating new infrastructure.

All the government does is make people rely on them - that is how they control them - the old German and Japan way was to keep people hungry and cold and you can keep them under control (many years ago)

And now big corporations make people rely on them by keeping them hungry and cold and desperate to work for the merest pittance.

Whether it is government or business that does the oppressing, it is not just.
And such injustice will always persist as long as the government is dependent on the donations of big corporations.

That's why you need a government beholden to the people, not the big financial institutions. A government beholden to the people will legislate for the people, not for those whose greed takes homes and livelihoods away from the people.

Government does not keep people poor - this has always been the land of opportunity.

Depends on the government. As you say, the governments of old Germany and Japan did keep people poor. This land is only a land of opportunity as long as the government keeps it that way. For many generations it was not a land of opportunity for blacks, Jews, Catholics or women. It is still a land of very limited opportunity for American Indians, South Asians, Muslims and Mexicans.

It takes constant vigilance to keep providing everyone with a fair chance to do well.

 

[Johnnz]

America was founded by people escaping from oppressive government and church structures that existed at that time in Europe. That implanted very deep seated attitudes about personal freedom and resistance to central government. Whereas I can support those views to some extent, there is the reality of living in a modern world of large, with international institutions, great diversity, the concentrations of power and wealth amongst relatively few, and real hardship for a huge percentage of humanity. But then, Paul faced a similar situation living under the brutality and concentrated power of the Roman Empire. Yet he taught respect for government.

The American debate on Medicare bemused many. Like many other more 'advanced' nations we have a state funded health system, which is very good in many ways. The arguments against Obama's proposal just did not register with people here. It was like hearing something from the past, a debate that resembled the opposition to slavery debate of earlier times. We recognised how fundamental different American culture is in many aspects from those with a continental European basis in their history. And we think there are areas where America has got some things wrong. Whatever, what must be rejected is that the American view is somehow 'more truly biblical' than what other countries hold to. That would be no more than cultural arrogance.

John
NZ

 

[dogs4thewin]

If you NEED help I will help you. I want you to have a good life and such, but in America the government makes people not want to work. In nations where they are paid two dollars a day the nation as a whole is poorer (usually third world). Whereas, people here do not work (not everyone who is on assistance) As for people who are sick, if you are bleeding if you have cancer they are FORCED to treat you. However, I am also angaist government health care and by the way you are talking to a young woman who has will be disabled for life AND has two prescription medications. Why do I not like the idea because I believe that you should not be FORCED to buy it. If I choose to not insure my health NOT ANYONE else's. Also I want people to have the OPTION if they CAN afford it to buy their own PRIVATE insurance. It is not fair but it is LIFE.

 

[TheReasoner]

If you NEED help I will help you. I want you to have a good life and such, but in America the government makes people not want to work. In nations where they are paid two dollars a day the nation as a whole is poorer (usually third world). Whereas, people here do not work (not everyone who is on assistance) As for people who are sick, if you are bleeding if you have cancer they are FORCED to treat you. However, I am also angaist government health care and by the way you are talking to a young who has will be disabled for life AND has two prescription medications. Why do I not like the idea because I believe that you should not be FORCED to buy it. If I choose to not insure my health NOT ANYONE else's. Also I want people to have the OPTION if they CAN afford it to buy their own PRIVATE insurance. It is not fair but it is LIFE.

You're in such a dire situation? If so, why would you be against public healthcare? The US is low on the list of healthcare quality (Number 38) - largely because it is so privatized. And the price - no-one is more expensive - is due to the same issue. The top nations on the list however all have public healthcare - and they pay far less per person. I am not aware of any nation refusing you to buy private insurance. My wife and I both are insured privately, in addition to the public safety net. Not that we need it, but it would help a little in the case that we got really sick. Most western countries (With US being the exception) provides a safety net. Why is that so bad? And why is it so terrible to have a society in which people of any social standing can get an education which fits their intellectual capacity?
Furthermore, if private aid helps and equalizes as well as many republicans say, why then is the US a 2/3rds society where a large (And growing!) portion of the people are poor, whereas other countries where social justice is on the agenda in a different way do not suffer from those problems, and have a more equal wealth distribution with various good things coming from that?

I invite you to consider this video wherein the effects of financial equality are discussed in a factual manner. You will get to see why it not only makes ethical and moral sense to support financial equality, but that it also makes sense in other ways:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

And yes, you are right in that you will get some leechers. You always will. Question is if you will let those few ruin it for the many who are not leechers. Would you help ten and have one of those ten not needing it, or would you let the nine in need rot because you don't want to 'enable' the one leecher to do what he does?

What is unfair and unjust can be changed. We have managed to do so many times through history. You can this time too, especially if you drop the fear based rhetoric wherein you yell that others are forced into this and that. Focus on facts, not emotions and recall: Do not fear!
This situation is no different than not littering or obeying traffic laws. It's about being responsible and doing your share. You could also say that you're against traffic laws because you don't like people being forced into stopping at red lights. Problem is, without those rules traffic would not work. It would be very dangerous. And the same is true at a larger scale. If you have a compassionless society wherein the very structure of society is built around a framework of not caring or helping out of some anarchic greed base... Well, it won't remain standing. You see, what about responsibility? Aren't we all responsible for lifting one another up and creating/maintaining a just and (as) good (as possible) society?

Again, socialism isn't just about providing healthcare to the people who need it so they can get back to work (and families can avoid losing their house or ruin their lives to pay for medical bills). It is also about you and I having rights, being worth something as human beings. About how we are not supposed to be tradable goods, but that we have intrinsic worth. Is that bad? Is it bad that we think it'd be a good idea to - oh - have a livable wage? Which many sweatshop workers in China do not have. Those two dollars you dismissed as 'enough for them' is usually not enough. It is certainly not enough to get up and build a future with. No matter how hard you work like that you'd barely put food on the table. Sometimes not even that would be doable with ease. And often when complaints are issued or workers try to organize (Not sure about this in China, but in Ecuador this happened often - and may still do) there would be house calls by impolite and very strong men sporting baseball-bats. Sometimes a kneecap would be shattered, sometimes possessions. Sometimes lives would be lost, such as at the Coca Cola plant in Colombia where two union men were gunned down and killed. While Coca Cola denied this being their doing.... Well, I doubt their word. To put it mildly.
Regardless, getting rights or livable wages is often impossible. In many of those situations workers will not be able to get a livable wage even if they were to work 24 hours a day. Impossible. Many factory and plantation owners go so far as to get them hooked on alcohol or have them get leases or special credit at company owned stores. Often the workers cannot even do simple math, and are lured into a debt so deep they and their children can never get out of it, regardless of how much they work. And why? Because we want cheap bananas and clothes here in the west.

Is that just? No. Should we let it be because 'it's life'? Of course not. We didn't end slavery with that mentality. We didn't topple the totalitarian monarchs like that. We would not have gotten anywhere with that mentality, and it is not what Jesus taught either. If we would follow Him we should seek to be like Him and to always always work for the benefit of the weak.


By the way, no need to yell. Typing in ALL CAPS is considered yelling and should be avoided.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Well I am just afraid that the "safety net" will turn into no private insurance whatsoever. One thing I would support is if the local government gave out assistance and not the state/federal government. This way they are more likely to know who needs it and you may get less abuse.

 

[gluadys]

Well I am just afraid that the "safety net" will turn into no private insurance whatsoever. One thing I would support is if the local government gave out assistance and not the state/federal government. This way they are more likely to know who needs it and you may get less abuse.

In other words, you want something like the Canadian system, where health care is provided by the province.

The federal government sets some national guidelines and provides some financial assistance to provinces which meet those guidelines, but the actual dispensing of public health care is tended to by each province and mostly at the expense of the province.

In my province, (Ontario) this is further localized by the province providing block funding to local regions who then distribute the funds according to local priorities. Such regional bodies decide how many hospitals are needed and what services they will provide, how much funding there will be for home care and out-patient services, what will be contracted out to private enterprises such as medical laboratories or laser-treatment clinics, and so forth. (You see, even in a socialized system there is still a place for a private company.)

The bottom line though is that as a patient, I have no financial worries about any medically necessary service included within the program. (The two big items which are not are drug prescriptions and dentistry: for those I need a private plan or a lot of money.)

I don't see any reason why there would be no private insurance at all. After all, despite having a nation-wide, government-funded, postal system, there are still plenty of private couriers. If a certain level of speed is worth the extra cost you can use them. But meanwhile, everyone can use the post office.

Similarly, the existence of public schools and libraries have not resulted in a lack of private schools or bookstores either. But they make accessible to everyone, the opportunities that used to exist only for the elite.

What's wrong with that?

 

[TheReasoner]

Well I am just afraid that the "safety net" will turn into no private insurance whatsoever.

Why? Consider my own country, Norway. We currently have a government consisting of three parties, SV - Socialistic Left wing party - yes, they are actual socialists. The Labour Party - left wing, far to the left of the Democrats in the US but right of SV. And the center party. To the right of those again. We have had strong left wing tendencies for many many decades. The Labour Party has usually been in government, and SV has been one of the larger parties. We have always - at least in modern times - had a policy even among the right wing parties that we should have a social safety net. This has been the policy in most of the west. Except the US. Yet no-one is against the possibility of supplementing public with private insurance.

So my question to you is; Why are you afraid of it? In countries which have had social-democratic governments - or close to it - since WW2 there's no talk or indication of ending private insurance. So why would you think that in the US there would be any danger of that? After all, what would be the right wing here would be considered far left in the US. And the far left here is not opposed to private insurance. So... Are you sure your fears are justified?

One thing I would support is if the local government gave out assistance and not the state/federal government. This way they are more likely to know who needs it and you may get less abuse.

There are problems unique to the US. Yes. Given it's size, cultural identity etc. But there is nothing that is really stopping you from letting states take the role of organizing their own social safety net. That's not saying it should be avoided though. Others have benefited greatly from it. And I hate to see my in-laws and American friends and family not getting the same rights, freedoms and opportunities we consider a natural part of civilized society here. I really wish you could enjoy what we have.

 

[dogs4thewin]

In other words, you want something like the Canadian system, where health care is provided by the province.

The federal government sets some national guidelines and provides some financial assistance to provinces which meet those guidelines, but the actual dispensing of public health care is tended to by each province and mostly at the expense of the province.

In my province, (Ontario) this is further localized by the province providing block funding to local regions who then distribute the funds according to local priorities. Such regional bodies decide how many hospitals are needed and what services they will provide, how much funding there will be for home care and out-patient services, what will be contracted out to private enterprises such as medical laboratories or laser-treatment clinics, and so forth. (You see, even in a socialized system there is still a place for a private company.)

The bottom line though is that as a patient, I have no financial worries about any medically necessary service included within the program. (The two big items which are not are drug prescriptions and dentistry: for those I need a private plan or a lot of money.)

I don't see any reason why there would be no private insurance at all. After all, despite having a nation-wide, government-funded, postal system, there are still plenty of private couriers. If a certain level of speed is worth the extra cost you can use them. But meanwhile, everyone can use the post office.

Similarly, the existence of public schools and libraries have not resulted in a lack of private schools or bookstores either. But they make accessible to everyone, the opportunities that used to exist only for the elite.

What's wrong with that?

Well prescription is my main issue. In terms, of fatal conditions cancer, heart attach, stroke ECT they have to treat you even if you do not have a dime to your name, When I said I would support that I meant for public assistance as well food stamps ECT.

 

[Christ is Love]

No, you're really really wrong on some issues here. Socialism is not that narrowly defined. And it is not intrinsically anti-religious. Leninism, Stalinism or Maoism do not define the full spectrum. There are plenty of christian socialists and christian social democrats out there. Martin Luther King and Desmond Tutu are but two. Of course they are not Leninists or Stalinists, but they are/were (R.I.P. MLK!) very far left compared to the average american.

There are numerous verses cited there that are in strong support of christian socialism. Not the artificial construct often used by people who mistakenly associate the totalitarian communists in russia, china and cambodia with any and all socialism - but another form of socialism. Read it. Maybe you'll broaden your horizon a little

I disagree that the Bible supports a conception of Christian Socialism. I understand your argument that MLK and friends were not Marxist-Leninists, and that's true. But let's talk about what Socialism actually entails.

Regardless of who you talk to, there are some basic fundamentals of Socialism that most Socialists could probably agree on. The first is the common ownership of the means of production. This would require a radical re-adjustment of property rights; for example, factories would need to be seized by the government in order to bring it under communal ownership. This is a big problem from a Christian perspective.

After all, doesn't the Bible say that we shouldn't steal? How do you reconcile the need for a Socialist government to take (by force) the property of others with the Biblical commandment against theft? Redefining ownership doesn't make theft any more palatable.

Once a Socialist government is actually established, order must be kept. Socialist countries tend to adopt authoritarian policies because Socialism cannot work without authoritarianism. There must always be a massive government entity to make sure that everyone is playing by the rules. That sort of oppression is fairly offensive IMO.

I think that a more Christian system would encourage strong social bonds and freely-given charity. If the government mandates, at the threat of jail time, that you give all your money to the poor... is that as morally praiseworthy as giving money by your own free will? I think that the latter should be encouraged, but not the former. I don't believe that it's possible or desirable to force someone to be good.

 

[Johnnz]

I disagree that the Bible supports a conception of Christian Socialism. I understand your argument that MLK and friends were not Marxist-Leninists, and that's true. But let's talk about what Socialism actually entails.

Regardless of who you talk to, there are some basic fundamentals of Socialism that most Socialists could probably agree on. The first is the common ownership of the means of production. This would require a radical re-adjustment of property rights; for example, factories would need to be seized by the government in order to bring it under communal ownership. This is a big problem from a Christian perspective.

After all, doesn't the Bible say that we shouldn't steal? How do you reconcile the need for a Socialist government to take (by force) the property of others with the Biblical commandment against theft? Redefining ownership doesn't make theft any more palatable.

Once a Socialist government is actually established, order must be kept. Socialist countries tend to adopt authoritarian policies because Socialism cannot work without authoritarianism. There must always be a massive government entity to make sure that everyone is playing by the rules. That sort of oppression is fairly offensive IMO.

I think that a more Christian system would encourage strong social bonds and freely-given charity. If the government mandates, at the threat of jail time, that you give all your money to the poor... is that as morally praiseworthy as giving money by your own free will? I think that the latter should be encouraged, but not the former. I don't believe that it's possible or desirable to force someone to be good.

Common ownership of the means of production is a red herring argument. Generally left leaning governments in Western countries hold to a free enterprise philosophy. There can be degrees of state involvement, generally for public utilities and assets, and sometimes using taxation to help equalise incomes and pay for State funded operations. At times a socialist government can be all but indistinguishable from a centrist party allegedly to the Right of socialist beliefs. The assertion you made seems to have come from a person without a great deal of knowledge about the political scene in many other developed nations. The great majority have a mixed economy of both capitalism and state funded institutions, the latter concentrated on national services such as police, health, education, conservation, defence, taxation and services for government.

Maybe it's the greed, selfishness and raw power of many large businesses of today that is stealing from the less fortunate, and in a great deal too, by way of poor wages and working conditions, thereby denying access to many goods and services and basic lifestyle that they take for granted. The OT prophets thought so: "Woe to you that add house to house..."

Here is NZ we have had centre-left and centre right governments for over a century. The most authoritarian have been the more right leaning ones! But there has been none of the extremes you see as inevitable. We were the first country in the old British Empire to allow women to vote, and have practised universal education and health care for almost a century.

You seem to be debating straw men, not the political scene in most modern Western democracies.

Many, including some Christians, are strongly criticising the laissez faire economic policies that have arisen in America and lie behind the notion of globalisation, which have found their home in many American corporations and Republican party members. The answer may not be socialism, but ther stance is imposing great harm and therefore great evil upon millions of people. I see that the debate is no longer one between left and right, socialism and capitalism, but between greed and power on one hand and true social justice on the other. That's where Christian should be pitching their debate. Jesus had some strong words on both greed and power.

John
NZ

 

[TheReasoner]

I disagree that the Bible supports a conception of Christian Socialism. I understand your argument that MLK and friends were not Marxist-Leninists, and that's true. But let's talk about what Socialism actually entails.

Regardless of who you talk to, there are some basic fundamentals of Socialism that most Socialists could probably agree on. The first is the common ownership of the means of production. This would require a radical re-adjustment of property rights; for example, factories would need to be seized by the government in order to bring it under communal ownership. This is a big problem from a Christian perspective.

After all, doesn't the Bible say that we shouldn't steal? How do you reconcile the need for a Socialist government to take (by force) the property of others with the Biblical commandment against theft? Redefining ownership doesn't make theft any more palatable.

Once a Socialist government is actually established, order must be kept. Socialist countries tend to adopt authoritarian policies because Socialism cannot work without authoritarianism. There must always be a massive government entity to make sure that everyone is playing by the rules. That sort of oppression is fairly offensive IMO.

I think that a more Christian system would encourage strong social bonds and freely-given charity. If the government mandates, at the threat of jail time, that you give all your money to the poor... is that as morally praiseworthy as giving money by your own free will? I think that the latter should be encouraged, but not the former. I don't believe that it's possible or desirable to force someone to be good.

Fundamentally flawed. Taxation is not theft, so that premise is invalid. Furthermore, the bible DOES support taxation and repeatedly states as commands to rulers and people alike to lift one another up. Now that we are the government how do you suggest we violate the core of the bible through the arena of life which is politics? I mean, why do you think it is a 'big problem' from a christian perspective to do good to one another through the public arena - should we not try to be Christlike in all of life's arenas? Why are politics excluded? Does the bible say for us to be charitable, loving, compassionate, forgiving and good - but only in a private setting? Dis Jesus say to adopt selfishness, greed, vengeance and elitism once an official's robe was donned? No. He did not.

Furthermore, can you list any LESS authoritarian countries than the Scandinavian ones? No. No countries exhibit more freedom and individual rights than those countries despite the fact that you would call them socialistic! But don't take my word for that, check it. And, as is the case in Johnnz's NZ the most authoritative parties tend to be right wing. To be fair there is some authoritarian tendencies in a left wing party here too, but it's still palpably less than in the right wing ones.

In addition, there is nothing saying that one cannot both be giving in private AND in public. Besides, socialism is not about charity, which has already been stated so that premise is also flawed.
Even so, to support a heartless society because it gives people the potential to be good cannot in itself be called good. Indeed, it would give people more incentive to be charitable but that is like saying we should starve people so they could appreciate food properly. It makes very little sense. Besides, your premise also fails to take into account that through the democratic system we can push for the nation as a whole to spend it's resources in a way we want. So if we push for a compassionate social structure this is not employed without our will, but in perfect accordance with it, in fact because that was our will. So it is not 'against our will' either.
Finally, one could ask oneself if a society wherein support and the values we have discussed here are strong would be less or more charitable privately. You seem to think it makes it less charitable. I thought so too, after all that's what I was told by Americans who say they are so charitable - while we Norwegians say we are greedy, selfish and self-centered. So it ought to be right, right? I thought so, until I checked.
One could however, without the bias induced by listening to what people say about themselves suggest a relationship here that is rather biblical; Faithful in small things, faithful in big. Giving in one arena, giving in another. And that appears to be mirrored in reality.
You see, in 2002 Americans gave publicly 13 dollars per person per day. Of which most was tied in to American businesses and military aid. Even so, that may seem like a fair amount, and summing it up, it's a large number. Privately the US gave about 5 dollars a day per person. Norwegians who have the public system set down should - according to you be more giving publicly but much less privately, am I right?
Well, in 2002 Norway gave 102 dollars a person per day. Privately Norwegians gave 24 dollars a person per day. So it is much more charitable, though I honestly think it's stingy. The same is the case in almost all of the west. Well exemplified in this graph, which shows public charity as % of GDP (PPP).

My question to you, after this, is why do you say the US is so charitable when people a country wherein it's people - privately - give almost five times as much per person as you do - and topping it off pushes for a more humane, charitable policy often calls itself stingy - something which is especially true of it's Christians? Why do Christians here want to give more and Christians in the states want to give less - despite the aforementioned numbers?

In addition, please tell me why you keep telling us left-leaning Europeans that we're stingy and authorative and praise yourselves for being charitable. Because as shown that is simply not true.

 

[UnamSanctam]

SNIP

This.
Soo much this.

Common ownership of the means of production is a red herring argument. Generally left leaning governments in Western countries hold to a free enterprise philosophy.

That's because they're not really socialist, regardless of what they call themselves.

I see that the debate is no longer one between left and right, socialism and capitalism, but between greed and power on one hand and true social justice on the other. That's where Christian should be pitching their debate. Jesus had some strong words on both greed and power.

True. Greed and lust for power is just as rampant, if not more so, in socialism/communism as in "capitalism".