What is this thing called socialism?

[Stars of the Pharaohs]

.​

http://www.christianforums.com/t7675844/​

.​

 

[Leap]

Care to give us an example..?

Look up British post-war history, especially the Labour governments of the 70s. We had nationalised everything; telecommunications, television, energy, steel, cars, railways, health, education....and in many ways it was better when we did (at least until the Unions got greedy). The problem is that where Capitalism worships private profit, Socialism makes an idol of people's needs. BOTH forget to put God first.

Part of the problem on discussing this (especially with Americans) is that many believe "Liberal" and "Socialist" are the same thing when they are not. Liberalism is about the post-enlightenment attack on tradition, institution and faith by innovation, individualism and rationalism.

Our capitalist-oriented "Conservative" party is a poduct of Liberalism (I put conservative in quotes because they are anything but conservative in practice) but so too was our formerly socialist-oriented Labour party (it has since embraced a "mixed-market"). Both are equally opposed to the pre-modern, pre-enlightenment, (far more conservative, in the true meaning of the term) world of tradition, institution and faith. Both are equally part of the attack on the genuinely conservative and the drive away from the pre-modern to the modern, and now the post-modern, that Liberalism is.

Socialism is just a phase that the liberal agenda passes through on the way to the post-modern chaos of a faithless, rootless, insubstantial, de-institutionalised world populated by rationalised, neophilic, atomised individuals. It tries to keep a little of the old (institutions, community-mindedness) whilst stretching for the new (rationalisation, innovation), and in doing so plays its part in ripping up the old (which is a coherent and cohesive thing, not something to be mixed and matched in a pick and mix economy). Capitalism is similar, in that it tries to create a new institution (the oligarchy of the rich) whilst embracing also innovation, individualism and rationalism as it enshrines the "on the make" individual who seeks to be part of that oligarchy......the difference is that capitalism is just a little further along the path of the Liberal agenda.

Socialism, in that sense, is slightly more preferable than Capitalism because it has not "progressed" so far along the path of the Liberal agenda, but neither are healthy. Ironically, you'll also find that sexual perversion is more commonly accepted in Capitalist societies than in Socialist ones (illustrating part of how Socialism is not identical to Liberalism), but that tends to confuse people who've been brought to believe that Liberalism and Socialism are synonymous. Neither though is a solution to a world with a "God-shaped hole".

 

[S.ilvio]

So, Leap. Socialism based on the Christian message would be a wonderful improvement don't you think..?

 

[Leap]

So, Leap. Socialism based on the Christian message would be a wonderful improvement don't you think..?

You cannot have "Socialism based on the Christian message". Socialism is almost as opposed to the state that Christianity promotes as is Capitalism. Choosing a lesser evil is still choosing an evil. Socialism has not strayed as far as Capitalism has, but it has still strayed a long way and is no place to call home.

A Christian world has to be pre-modern. It has to be about institutions (such as marriage, family, community and most importantly Church, the body of Christ, for example). It has to be about tradition, rather than doubting what we are bequeathed and seeking something new. It has to be about faith, rather than seeking to doubt and rationalise, as if it is for us to measure God! Socialism provides for none of those thing, instead standing opposed to them. It replaces the natural institutions with the State. It replaces faith with rationalised plans. Finally it replaces tradition with a drive for innovation.

No, sorry, Socialism is too alien for Christianity to truly survive there.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

You cannot have "Socialism based on the Christian message". Socialism is almost as opposed to the state that Christianity promotes as is Capitalism. Choosing a lesser evil is still choosing an evil. Socialism has not strayed as far as Capitalism has, but it has still strayed a long way and is no place to call home.

A Christian world has to be pre-modern. It has to be about institutions (such as marriage, family, community and most importantly Church, the body of Christ, for example). It has to be about tradition, rather than doubting what we are bequeathed and seeking something new. It has to be about faith, rather than seeking to doubt and rationalise, as if it is for us to measure God! Socialism provides for none of those thing, instead standing opposed to them. It replaces the natural institutions with the State. It replaces faith with rationalised plans. Finally it replaces tradition with a drive for innovation.

No, sorry, Socialism is too alien for Christianity to truly survive there.

Why not have an influx of both?

 

[Leap]

Why not have an influx of both?

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean.

You can give out and/or expand benefits whilst still promoting a capitalistic economy.

 

[Leap]

You can give out and/or expand benefits whilst still promoting a capitalistic economy.

I still do not know how this relates to what I wrote. Could you unpack your point a little beyond a single sentence question please?

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

I still do not know how this relates to what I wrote. Could you unpack your point a little beyond a single sentence question please?

You said:

You cannot have "Socialism based on the Christian message". Socialism is almost as opposed to the state that Christianity promotes as is Capitalism.

So why not have both?

 

[Leap]

So why not have both?

Why not have both what? Could you try engaging in conversation rather than just firing off incomplete sentence questions please? It would save us both a lot of time and not fill the thread up with pointless/unhelpful posts. Unpack your point. Say what it is specifically you are asking and what your point is behind it.

 

[CorruptedSoul]

Look up British post-war history, especially the Labour governments of the 70s. We had nationalised everything; telecommunications, television, energy, steel, cars, railways, health, education....and in many ways it was better when we did (at least until the Unions got greedy). The problem is that where Capitalism worships private profit, Socialism makes an idol of people's needs. BOTH forget to put God first.

Socialism, in that sense, is slightly more preferable than Capitalism because it has not "progressed" so far along the path of the Liberal agenda, but neither are healthy. Ironically, you'll also find that sexual perversion is more commonly accepted in Capitalist societies than in Socialist ones (illustrating part of how Socialism is not identical to Liberalism), but that tends to confuse people who've been brought to believe that Liberalism and Socialism are synonymous. Neither though is a solution to a world with a "God-shaped hole".

Socialism does not work well because it cannot really expand wealth but it can lose wealth. Capitalism works but there will always be some without wealth so its imperfect but us humans are imperfect we do not have solutions to everything.

God wants people to work to solve own problems so this could be said it is capitalism but he also wants us to help each other and be kind those values are not against capitalism.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Why not have both what? Could you try engaging in conversation rather than just firing off incomplete sentence questions please?

Guy, what's so hard to understand? Why can't a society have both a socialist and capitalistic system?

If someone brings up China, do you also give a befuddled, dumb look because you can't grasp a communist regime with an economy that is purely capitalistic?

 

[Leap]

Socialism does not work well because it cannot really expand wealth but it can lose wealth. Capitalism works but there will always be some without wealth so its imperfect but us humans are imperfect we do not have solutions to everything.

From a materialist perspective, you are correct, but from a Christian one Capitalism (and Socialism) can never be acceptable.

 

[Stars of the Pharaohs]

.






Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

.​

 

[Leap]

Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is preferable to either Socialism or Capitalism but still problematic if it promotes consumerism rather than custodianship.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Which is preferable to either Socialism or Capitalism but still problematic if it promotes consumerism rather than custodianship.

No; 'Distributism' promotes self-ownership. One being self-sufficient and own, where possible a bit of land to provide one's own food and needs. For example, if I live in rural area or in suburbia, I could farm or garden using what little I have. Also, it would also involve guilds where possible (similar to unions, but the workers are part owners of a business, similar to credit unions' shareholders and help to voluntary coordinate and manage). However, guilds entailed training and producing a quality product; teaching a trade well with the utmost care and learning.

 

[Leap]

No; 'Distributism' promotes self-ownership. One being self-sufficient and own, where possible a bit of land to provide one's own food and needs. For example, if I live in rural area or in suburbia, I could farm or garden using what little I have. Also, it would also involve guilds where possible (similar to unions, but the workers are part owners of a business, similar to credit unions' shareholders and help to voluntary coordinate and manage). However, guilds entailed training and producing a quality product; teaching a trade well with the utmost care and learning.

If Distributism is used to promote a continued consumerist market (ie, one based on the principle of discard/procure/use/discard/procure) it remains unhelpful. Thus distributism alone is not itself a solution - it requires a change in our society from a consumer based stance to a custodian based stance. One where we swap discard/procure/use/discard/procure for inherit/hold-in-trust/bequeath. Without that change in principle, Distributism suffers the same problems as Capitalism and Socialism (specifically, that it would remain in opposition to the pre-modern, and thus just another stooge of the Liberal agenda).

 

[Virgil the Roman]

A potential list of Books that help inform one regarding Distributism are:

Amazon.com: Beyond Capitalism & Socialism: A New Statement of an Old Ideal (9781932528107): Tobias J. Lanz, John Sharpe, Kirkpatrick Sale: Books

Amazon.com: Toward a Truly Free Market: A Distributist Perspective on the Role of Government, Taxes, Health Care, Deficits, and More (Culture of Enterprise) (9781610170277): John C. Medaille: Books

Three Works on Distributism: G. K. Chesterton: 9781449511227: Amazon.com: Books

Amazon.com: Distributist Perspectives: Volume I (9780971828674): J. Forrest Sharpe, D. Liam O'Huallachain, Thomas Naylor, Fr. Lawrence Smith: Books

The Outline of Sanity: G. K. Chesterton: 9780971489400: Amazon.com: Books

The Hound of Distributism: William Fahey,G.K. Chesterton,Joseph Pearce,Phillip Blond,Dale Ahlquist,Thomas Storck,John Médaille,Race Mathews,Peter Chojnowski,Richard Aleman: Amazon.com: Books

Amazon.com: The servile state: Hilaire Belloc: Books

Amazon.com: Distributist Perspectives: Volume II: Essays on the Economics of Justice and Charity (Distributist Perspectives series) (9781932528121): D. Liam O'Huallachain, John Sharpe, Allan C. Carlson PhD: Books

Amazon.com: Economics for Helen (9781932528039): Hilaire Belloc, Dr. Edward A. McPhail: Books

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Isn't distributism essentially what Ayn Rand's whole schtik was?

 

[MikeK]

Isn't distributism essentially what Ayn Rand's whole schtik was?

No, that's objectivism.