Then you should watch this. It is actually a very sympathetic view of Republican voters during the 2008 presidential election. This is part 4 of 5.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm fascinated at the idea that there IS some Southern Strategy or that there would be a need for such a thing. That expression was popular a half-century ago when the traditionally Democratic Deep South started voting Republican.
But today--in fact, ever since then--it's a foregone conclusion that the South will vote Republican, such that the idea of a "Southern Strategy" being worked would make no more sense than talking about the Democrat Party strategizing on some sly way to appeal to the voters of New England!
Why? We were talking about socialism not Republicans and Fox News. The quote( which is unsourced so I have no way of knowing about its authenticity) has nothing to do with socialism. If it is actually is a quote from Atwater about a Southern Strategy it does not address anything about socialism but is about a strategy for winning elections.
Then you should watch this. It is actually a very sympathetic view of Republican voters during the 2008 presidential election. This is part 4 of 5.
Here is the actual interview:
It is applicable if the term socialism is being used as code as specified by Lee Atwater, Republican strategist and Reagan adviser.
Because the term socialism, as used by almost 1/2 the USA, is used to describe essentially any government program which will benefit the poor (regardless of whether it helps the rich or middle class). It is used exactly the way Atwater said, as code to mean "They're stealing my money!"
It is human nature to cooperate much more than it is to compete. That's why we moved from being isolated hunter-gatherers to forming vast civilisations.The problem with true socialism is just that it is completely unworkable in the context of human nature. Read up on small groups that have tried to own everything on a community level, the failure rate is just massive. And these are people intentionally going in with very similar ideals and values, with a very small group. Now try to apply that on a societal level, especially to a country as diverse and large as America. All hell would break loose.
True socialism relies on the people participating to be very moral, i.e. "I have a moral duty to provide for myself and other people to the best of my abilities" Most people just are not up to that, personally if I get exactly the same thing from staying home with my kids as I do from going to work, I will stay home. Working for a living sucks. I am not sure the "good of society" would motivate me enough to do it ( honestly I can say it wouldn't)
Even with the current system, the morality is pretty much a one way street "You have a moral duty to provide for the less fortunate!" they scream but if I ask "What then are the moral duties of the less fortunate to society?" I get crickets.....
It is human nature to cooperate much more than it is to compete. That's why we moved from being isolated hunter-gatherers to forming vast civilizations.
It's why 65 million Americans volunteer in one way or another every year. It's why individuals gave over $4bn to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, whilst corporations gave $400m.
I wonder if your motivation to go out to work might be different if you owned an equal share of the company you worked for, if you had an equal say in how it was run, and if you received an equal share of the rewards of success.
It is human nature to cooperate much more than it is to compete. That's why we moved from being isolated hunter-gatherers to forming vast civilisations.
It's why 65 million Americans volunteer in one way or another every year. It's why individuals gave over $4bn to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, whilst corporations gave $400m.
I wonder if your motivation to go out to work might be different if you owned an equal share of the company you worked for, if you had an equal say in how it was run, and if you received an equal share of the rewards of success.
Ah... But for the lust for mammon all might be good with the world.If it is human nature to cooperate more than compete we ought not need governments at all. Why would we need to use coercive force to impose a socialist system upon society? We could all just each cooperate with each other and avoid a government's threat of incarceration meant to force us to do things against our will.
Ah... But for the lust for mammon all might be good with the world.
The lust for money is the end game. Power, using violence and exploitation, is only a means to that end.Can every bad thing that happens be traced to greed or lust for money? Personally I think lust for power over others is the true font of all evil. Money, violence, and sexual exploitation are only means to that end.
Somewhat chicken and egg. Money being pretty much a construct of what is valuable to that particular culture, if a person has money but cannot buy anything it is pretty pointless. If there are ten people left on the face of the planet , no one is probably gathering up all the money just laying around but you can bet someone is jimmying for leadership. Again, human nature.The lust for money is the end game. Power, using violence and exploitation, is only a means to that end.
There isn't something wrong with socialism if it is among an assembly of willing Christian believers, this is in fact an ideal displayed under Christ's apostles in the church in Acts 2 and 4. It is not a stable arrangement generally otherwise, for a really long-term arrangement, with people generally having a selfish nature and resistant to it, and there will be tendency to overcome it, with what is contrary to wills being seen as repressive.
But socialism shown as an ideal for a Christian community will work where the work that believers are doing is secure for them, this being with the provision that there is Christian compassion and caring for one another among them.
Albion said:Then it isn't socialism.
If the wealth-sharing is voluntary and done for a religious reason, it is not socialism--by definition.
grasping the after wind said:Even then it doesn't work as witnessed by the fact it was abandoned very early by the Christian communities of the first century and failed miserably( to the point of near extinction of the colony) in a latter attempt by the Pilgrims in colonial America.
grasping the after wind said:Christians are not special creatures with special powers of selflessness they are as human as everyone else with the same flaws and the same basic human nature. In a true socialist set up some will rebels against what they see as themselves being taken advantage of by those that are unwilling to contribute to the same degree as they are, some will see they can contribute less and reap the same reward as those contributing more and others will see they can use the inclinations of both of those groups to gain political power over them and thereby gain greater reward from the system than either of the others. Humans are creatures with a built in desire for inequality of status much like other pack animals they want to find their niche in the community and are most secure when they can be sure of exactly how highly regarded they are in comparison to others. Humans are natural competitors and do not fit well into a system that denies that such a trait exists.
grasping the after wind said:It is tangential and does not address the question of what is wrong with socialism.
Anyone who "sees" it that way does not understand the meaning of "Socialist."Even if Christian believers living communally in such an arrangement would not have traditionally been called socialist, there are those enough that would see this arrangement as socialist.
No, there probably isn't. But that still doesn't make it "Socialism." It would be better if another word--such as "Communal" or "Communalist" -- were used instead so that there were not this misunderstanding.I had said with agreeing that for socialist arrangements close to that among people who are not basically Christian believers it would not be so stable for such reasons, though there might be committed practitioners of socialism there that can have it still continue for a long time.
For reason of these points that are mentioned here, there isn't something wrong with it for a true community of real Christian believers who are willing.
No, they wouldn't. At least, we can say that it would be wrong to think that.If there are non Christian people organized in that way as believers were in the first church, which is in Acts, however much like them other than with that belief, they would still be seen as socialist.
Albion said:No, they wouldn't. At least, we can say that it would be wrong to think that.
Socialism is a system of government in which all members of society are coerced by the police power. And the purpose is to effect a redistribution of the wealth by force.
A Christian community, by contrast, is a voluntary association of limited size, and its purpose is to adhere to or promote some religious or moral concept.
All of that is fundamental.
buzuxi02 said:The original Christian community of Jerusalem was a bit different in that culturally a specific community organizing themselves in such a manner was a type of norm. The Essenes were doing it and minority groups tended to congregate in their own quarters running their own affairs with a degree of autonomy from the greater society. Under the Ottomon Turks religious communities were organized under the millet system whose leader was referee to as an ethnarc. Extremely similar to that original set up. Monasteries and even the semi-autonomous republic of Mt. Athos operate communally, but it's not called socialism it's called a theocracy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?