|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Christianity the same as socialism
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
One of my friends use to say that Marxism was just a secular form of Christianity. I wonder about this sometimes.
Christianity does emphasize charity and justice for the poor and dispossessed. It also emphasizes an economy based on stewardship and fairness IMHO.
By socialism, I mean any economic system where equality, and not growth is the main priority. Socialism doesn't only mean statist socialism, in which government planning is the principal means of economic growth.
So is Christianity and socialism the same thing?
[ 10. August 2007, 00:05: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
As both a Christian and a socialist, I must say the answer is 'no'.
There was apparently at one time an attempt by Marxist historians to show that 'Jesus' was simply a figure invented by very early socialists to give weight to their views. It was not very convincing.
There are definite points of connection between Christianity and socialism - holding things in common, helping the weak - but the same could be said of many religion/political-system pairings.
Besides which, Christianity is a spiritual as well as a practical thing. That sets it (and other religions) apart from political systems.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Christianity does emphasize charity and justice for the poor and dispossessed. It also emphasizes an economy based on stewardship and fairness IMHO.
Socialism is not the only political/economic viewpoint which values charity, justice, stewardship and fairness. Most Conservatives and Liberals would honestly claim to have the same values.
What you characterise as a the socialist position - that the best way to achieve charity, justice, stewardship and fairness is enforced economic equality - does not strike me as being one with which Christian must necessarily agree. To put it mildly.
I think that Christians should be in favour of some social provision for the poor - and not merely enough for subsistence but also to maintain human dignity and give the opportunity for a full life. I don't think there is any need to see economic equality as necessary to this or desireable as an end in itself.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
I think that where there's a resemblance, and as much in the OT as the NT, is in the idea of the community as paramount. "We are all members of the same body". Socialism is a secular version of this, in that it applies it to the overall community, not just believers.
I think it's far easier to argue socialism that any other political system from christianity, and that doesn't imply total equality.
I heard of a church in S. America where a rule of joining was that 50% of your net income went into a communal fund that was distributed equally to all church members. The reluctance that I would have to joining such a church is not something that I can see as coming from faith. Rather the reverse.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
As both a Christian and a socialist I, too, must say no. To steal a phrase from Herbert McCabe, I think that all Christians should be socialists, not because I am a Christian but because I am a socialist.
Christianity and socialism have in common the fact that they are both movements which have their own abolition as their end. There will be no Christian Church when the Kingdom comes in its fullness. Likewise there will be no socialist movement if there ever is a genuinely socialist society. There would, however, be a Church in a genuinely socialist society. That is because socialism is not the same as the Kingdom of God. If socialism belongs to human flourishing (as I believe it does) then it is, of course, contained within God's Kingdom, but is not co-extensive with it.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Incidentally, capitalism is a system of 'forced equality' - the equality in question being that between values. If socialism were a system of 'forced equality' it would merely be replacing the legally imposed norm that your £500 share options are to be both defended and honoured to the same extent as my £500 monthly housekeeping with the imposed norm that you are to be defended and honoured as much as me.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Anteater: the 50% thing. My income taxes alone are nearly 30% of my income, with other sales taxes, fees, property taxes, and incidental involuntary gifts making me an average citizen who pays just about half of his income to "the government" for the privilege of being part of the group of citizens.
Obviously I get a certain amount back in services such as Medicare (Canadian version, that actually covers everyone), roads and snowplowing, garbage collection, schools (guess where I was employed!) etc.
But it is still 50% payout for membership.
And I don't worship the Mammon of party politics or whatever.
After that the church would REALLY like to have another ten percent, partly on the grounds that they might offer some of the services that the government does, but are too often too busy building edifices to actually allow "people who aren't like us" in.
So there's 60% (except that I have an option on that last 10)
What was your point?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Just a few quick things for now:
--There is a correspondence of some of the practical ethics.
--Someone (Che Gueverra?) said that it was the teachings of Jesus that made him a Marxist.
--The Dalai Lama said that communism failed because it wasn't based on compassion.
--A good starting place for exploring Christianity and socialism is the Just Peace site, run by a Catholic Worker community in Oklahoma. One of my favorite sites ever.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
I see Marxism and Christianity as being as alike as chalk and cheese. Marxism is a theory that is rooted in materialism and is concerned with who owns the means of production. I see CHristianity as spiritual and Jesus tells people not to worry about "what shall we eat or what shall we drink or what shall we wear...But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness and all these things will be given you as well". THere is no basis of comparision between CHristianity and socialism let a lone saying that they are the same IMO.
THe Marxist obsession is distribution of capital, I don't think Jesus would have got too excited about such things his focus was on GOd's kingdom. I also see the early church sharing everything in common as being a reaction to the belief that the end of the world was imminent rather than the basis of a long term economic system.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I see Marxism and Christianity as being as alike as chalk and cheese. Marxism is a theory that is rooted in materialism and is concerned with who owns the means of production. I see CHristianity as spiritual and Jesus tells people not to worry about "what shall we eat or what shall we drink or what shall we wear...But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness and all these things will be given you as well". THere is no basis of comparision between CHristianity and socialism let a lone saying that they are the same IMO.
THe Marxist obsession is distribution of capital, I don't think Jesus would have got too excited about such things his focus was on GOd's kingdom. I also see the early church sharing everything in common as being a reaction to the belief that the end of the world was imminent rather than the basis of a long term economic system.
Evangeline, first up don't confuse 'Marxism' with 'socialism'. All Marxists are socialists, but not all socialists are Marxists. Think 'Christian' and 'Catholic' for a comparison.
Second up, there is a lot of confusion about what the word 'materialism' means in a Marxist context. Such confusion has, before now, reached even the Vatican, so you can be forgiven. 'Materialism', for Marx, contrasts with the 'idealism' of Hegel's account of human society. The idea is that causal primacy in human social relations rests with changes in the material, embodied, relations between human beings (and non-human nature), rather than with abstract ideas (or the World-Spirit, or whatever). I see nothing objectionable for Christians in this idea. It might be wrong, but it is an idea Christians can hold. Engels subsequently developed a theory of 'dialectical materialism', which became Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy; this is a more thoroughgoing metaphysic and might present more problems for Christians. Although I know some people who claim to believe both.
As for Jesus not being too bothered about who gets the worlds resources. I guess we'll have to disagree.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Acts says that the early Christians held all things in common - so, ideally, yes, socialist.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I'm actually slightly averse to using Acts as a blueprint for socialism. First, the passage describes the internal discipline of the Christian community, not society as a whole. Second, I consider 'socialism' to be a modern possibility - a way of organising industrial society.
I consider the argument for socialism to be one to do with how we might live well in modern times. It is, if you like, a natural law argument. Not one which turns on historical revelation. Not one which can be read out of the pages of the Bible.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I think we can safely summarise the feeling of the meeting ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Is Christianity the same as socialism? Obviously not.
Can Christians be socialists? Obviously they can.
Ought Christians to be socialists? That is a genuine question.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Acts says that the early Christians held all things in common - so, ideally, yes, socialist.
Acts said that those who shared did so voluntarily - Peter made this point explicitly to those who lied about how much they sold their land for. The point holds more generally - Christianity is about chnageing the heart, so that people love God and each other. Socialism is entirely about forcing people to act as though they loved each other - more particularly, forcing them to act according to the Socialists' ideas as to how they would if they loved each other. Socialism is a replacing of God's law with man's, and with one of man's least enlightened schemes of laws at that. It is incompatible with Christianity.
quote:
If socialism were a system of 'forced equality' it would merely be replacing the legally imposed norm that your £500 share options are to be both defended and honoured to the same extent as my £500 monthly housekeeping with the imposed norm that you are to be defended and honoured as much as me.
"Do not show favour to the rich, or partiality the poor" as it says in the law of Moses somewhere. It is not up to the government to decide that $500 is worth more to one person that it is to another.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Should socialists be Christians?
Everyone should be Christian.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
Socialism is entirely about forcing people to act as though they loved each other -
No it isn't. I it isn't entirely about that. Its hardly about that at all.
Some socialists, including ones you might even have heard of such as Karl Marx, devoted lots of their time to showing why they thought that people acting in their own self interest would produce with socialism or communism.
Lots of socialist anarchists have similar ideas. Some of them have quite a big downer on altruism, they think it gets in the way.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
"Do not show favour to the rich, or partiality the poor" as it says in the law of Moses somewhere..
Don't eat shellfish, as it says elsewhere. Your point is what?
In any case, I fail to see how a sensible recommendation about judicial practice has anything whatsoever to do with the ownership of the means of production.
And, to return to my earlier point, why is it up to the government (as it most certainly is in capitalist states) to decide that such-and-such a piece of paper is worth $500 to everyone? There is nothing written into the laws of the universe which said it should be. If social power should stay out of the question of the mutual worth of human beings, why on earth should it concern itself with the mutual worth of objects?
There are perfectly respectable answers, of course. But they tend to make reference to human beings. In other words, capitalism has a certain account of human right and/ or good. I reject it. That's fine. That's an ethical disagreement. But don't pretend you're defending something more basic, or natural.
[ 28. April 2007, 16:07: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
True. I don't believe that Richard "right" to be a super-rich is more important than George's right to eat. As a matter of fact, I don't believe that anyone has a right to be super-rich. Full stop. No matter how hard they have worked. Their money is usually made of the back of other people, anyway.
But this is an arguement I have had 1000 times with different shipmates, and will doubtless have yet again.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I'm actually slightly averse to using Acts as a blueprint for socialism. First, the passage describes the internal discipline of the Christian community, not society as a whole. Second, I consider 'socialism' to be a modern possibility - a way of organising industrial society.
I consider the argument for socialism to be one to do with how we might live well in modern times. It is, if you like, a natural law argument. Not one which turns on historical revelation. Not one which can be read out of the pages of the Bible.
Internal discipline possibly - but Christians are supposed to embody, as a sort of sacrament, the best way for all humankind to live. Socialism and communism grew oiut of industrial society but the seeds go back to the Old Testament, especially the law of the Jubilee where the gap between rich and poor is neutralised every 50 years.
The prophecies that are quoted in Handel's messiah are very political e.g. Isaiah 40;1-4
their slavery is over, every valley would be levelled and every mountain would become a plain; Micah 4;1-3 swords would become mattocks and spears pruning hooks; Isaiah 11;6-9 the wolf would live with the sheep and wild animals would be led by a little child; Isaiah 35;1-6
blind men's eyes will be opened and deaf ears will be unstopped, the lame will leap like a deer and the dumb will shout and sing, the desert will become ferttile; Isaiah 25;6
foretells a feast of rich fare.
If Christians are part of the messianic community, they should be working to make these things come about. I have done this for most of my life as a member of the Labour Party (until it dropped Caluse 4 and ceased to be sociality.)
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
No, socialism and christianity are not the same but they do share some common aims. Socialism aims to reduce poverty and suffering through control of the state. Christians believe that these can be reduced through peoples hearts changing and becoming more generous. Christianity however has clear spiritual goals which would be neglected in socialism. Erich Fromm saw the possibility of common ground between the two and whilst he had a point, it would surely mean blurring where the state ends and the individual begins which is the main problem with socialism and could certainly be harmful to the spiritual goals of christians.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
Socialism aims to reduce poverty and suffering through control of the state.
There are plenty of non-statist socialisms.
quote:
Christians believe that these can be reduced through peoples hearts changing and becoming more generous.
But non-Pelagian Christians don't underestimate what it will take to change peoples' hearts. Nothing less than God walking the earth and, tragically, being tortured and killed. Christianity and socialism have this in common against liberalism: changing the world is not easy.
quote:
Christianity however has clear spiritual goals which would be neglected in socialism.
Why need they be?
quote:
Erich Fromm saw the possibility of common ground between the two and whilst he had a point, it would surely mean blurring where the state ends and the individual begins which is the main problem with socialism and could certainly be harmful to the spiritual goals of christians.
See point above about non-statist socialisms. In any case, until you flesh out satisfactorily what you mean by 'the spiritual goals of Christians' you don't have an argument. What are they? Why would they be affected by this alleged blurring of boundaries?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
Socialism is entirely about forcing people to act as though they loved each other -
No it isn't. I it isn't entirely about that. Its hardly about that at all.
Some socialists, including ones you might even have heard of such as Karl Marx, devoted lots of their time to showing why they thought that people acting in their own self interest would produce with socialism or communism.
Lots of socialist anarchists have similar ideas. Some of them have quite a big downer on altruism, they think it gets in the way.
Sure they devoted lots of time to showing why they thought that people acting in their own self interest would produce with socialism or sommunism. They were trying to sell their hyper-idealistic ideas and had to find some way of trying to justify forcing people to give up their money or services for the common good. It's the proven problem with communism and to a much lesser degree with socialism, yet still applicable.
Some people will act for the common good, and some won't. Mostly the latter, in my experience, and as proven by the Soviet Union et al. The only way for communism or socialism to work is to have enough of the former to force the latter to give up their hard work and money.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
Early Mormonism lived by the "united order." It practiced "the law of consecration" within that social order. Under it, the individual voluntarily turned over all of his worldly assets to the bishop, who put the surplus into the bishop's storehouse, and bequeathed by legal agreement the residue back to the original owner as his "stewardship." This was sufficient to maintain an equal living standard to that of the community. Each year after that, the individual paid tithing out of his surplus.
The united order collapsed around the end of the 19th century. All such efforts to establish separate communities under it failed on the irascible stinginess and laziness of too many within the community.
When Joseph Smith first set up the united order, some misguided (mischievous) individuals thought it meant that they could waltz into anybody's house and take what they needed at the moment; because "in common" meant to them that everything belonged to everybody.
Human nature, when not compelled to it by law, will too often try and get something for nothing, or more than others get for less work. I am sure this is why the primitive church's attempts at the same (everything held in common) also failed.
Some comments above object to anyone getting "filthy rich." This attitude is inimical to any sort of Christianity-based socialism. Here's why: it is the comparing of ourselves with others which is antithetical to socialism, not the actual amount of what a person owns. There are people who are perfectly happy as long as they get what they want: and that is precious little, compared to others, or, a lot compared to others. The justice in allowing one person to get rich is in their taking good care of what they have (being a good steward).
Comparatively, there are people who are never happy, no matter how much they get of what they want.
I like to illustrate this with Citizen Kane. The way the character is portrayed in the film, Kane is antithetical in every way to the idea of socialism: in fact, a showcase study of the evils of being too rich. He ends up friendless, alone, and miserably sad, and dies that way.
If we could change Kane's personality: and make him instead into a gregarious, humane, charitable person: we would see "Xanadu" (his palatial house) turned into a museum and vacationing spot, where Kane enjoyed entertaining visitors with his fine art collectibles and his huge acreage of woodlands, ponds and gardens, opening up his stewarship to the enjoyment of others. If Kane had been this sort of person, would his enormous wealth have been too much for one man to have?
Stewardship is the key to socialism: not some legal system which restricts how much a person can own. A person who is satisfied with the food they eat, the house they have and the places they visit, etc., is going to be just as happy as the steward of "Xanadu" who shares everything he has with the world.
As long as there is plenty and to spare for everyone, only those who compare how much they have to others will be unhappy, no matter how much they get. And this is what Christ meant by, "What good is it for a man to gain the entire world and yet lose his soul?"
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
As a matter of fact, I don't believe that anyone has a right to be super-rich. Full stop. No matter how hard they have worked. Their money is usually made of the back of other people, anyway.
But this is an arguement I have had 1000 times with different shipmates, and will doubtless have yet again.
I don't want to argue but would like to ask some questions.
I know this humble guy whose business interests (which he built from scratch) gross right at 30 million US annually. He works very diligently keeping it all together; not very many could or would for while it's financially rewarding it's also arguably relentless pressure.
He provides employment for dozens of people (primarily blue collar types as his business has to do with down and dirty construction projects) and I've had the opportunity to meet several of them. Without exception, they are grateful for their opportunity to share in his success. He insists they work competently and in return he treats them well, pays them well, and they speak well of him.
However, by some definitions he would be considered 'super-rich'. You seem to be suggesting the state should further limit (they get their fair share at least via taxes) how much money he makes:
can you explain who is capable of fairly doing that and what criteria they should use? Do you anticipate any downside to the state acquiring more control over him and his money?
Or maybe I've misunderstood you and he's not super-rich: if so, please disregard.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
He provides employment for dozens of people (primarily blue collar types as his business has to do with down and dirty construction projects) and I've had the opportunity to meet several of them. Without exception, they are grateful for their opportunity to share in his success.
Or, to look at it a different way, they provide profits for him, and they are subject to the ideological delusion that he is doing them a favour.
There's always another way of telling it.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
There's always another way of telling it.
I hear you: it's just none of them have ever mentioned being exploited.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Erich Fromm saw the possibility of common ground between the two and whilst he had a point, it would surely mean blurring where the state ends and the individual begins which is the main problem with socialism and could certainly be harmful to the spiritual goals of christians.
See point above about non-statist socialisms. In any case, until you flesh out satisfactorily what you mean by 'the spiritual goals of Christians' you don't have an argument. What are they? Why would they be affected by this alleged blurring of boundaries? [/QB][/QUOTE]
By 'spiritual goals' I would include the freedom to assemble, pray and worship together and the freedom to pursue particular moral agendas. The labour governments Tax aid scheme is such a good thing because it allows individuals to be re-imbursed when they follow particular moral goals, and if they don't then the government will use the money to fund works of a collective benefit.
Also, please define what you mean by non-statist socialism.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I mean collective ownership of the means of production which is not State ownership.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The only way for communism or socialism to work is to have enough of the former to force the latter to give up their hard work and money.
Theirs?
Or, to put it another way, what Divine Outlaw-Dwarf said.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
By socialism, I mean any economic system where equality, and not growth is the main priority.
By that definition Karl Marx was certainly not a socialist, for saying "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
That said, the French managed to put up seven left-to-far-left candidates for the Presidential elections, and none of them to my knowledge said a great deal about the first half of Marx's aphorism...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I mean collective ownership of the means of production which is not State ownership.
Well, if you mean collective ownership, it would either be freely chosen because people were generous or it would have to be enforced by someone (i.e the state). I think that the primary solution is a spiritual one, because people won't choose selflessness freely without changing their hearts through Christ. Indeed without true altruism I don't think such a collective would respect the importance of individuality.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
We disagree then.
[ 28. April 2007, 18:54: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
I hear you: it's just none of them have ever mentioned being exploited.
I would guess they are, strictly speaking, being exploited but to a barely perceptible degree.
i.e. By working they are creating a certain amount of wealth for the company. Some of that comes back to them through their salaries, some of it goes to maintain the conditions that are necessary for them to have jobs in the first place (raw materials, equipment, etc) and a fragment ultimately goes to Hiram J. Megabucks (or whatever his name is). Mr Megabucks almost certainly does work harder than them but if you divide his pay-packet by the amount of effort he puts in, and perform the same calculation for his workers, I imagine you would find he is being paid far more per drop of sweat than them.
Ergo, the percentage they are giving him is too great - even if reducing it to a more accurate quantity would make very little difference to their paychecks.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
It is worth noting that the Marxian critique of capitalism doesn't turn on the worker not receiving the monetary equivalent of their labour power back in wages (although that certainly is the case). The idea put over in the 1844 Manuscripts is that of people not being in control of their own creative powers, of people being set in competition against one another and of people not being able to determine their conditions of existence; alienation.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Ergo, the percentage they are giving him is too great - even if reducing it to a more accurate quantity would make very little difference to their paychecks.
Of course, he's taking risks with the capital he's built up and that's worth something. And 'managing' dozens of employees is, IME having done both, at least as difficult as being one of them: I've never understood why some don't consider it intensely difficult work.
Plus there's nothing stopping them from doing what he's done. He literally started out as day labor digging ditches and worked his way up.
I know so little about socialism: does it provide opportunity and incentive to advance the way capitalism does? Does it result in as much overall 'prosperity'? (Assuming of course those are good things.)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
I know so little about socialism: does it provide opportunity and incentive to advance the way capitalism does?
You'd have to ask an economist, but off the top of my head: Low-cost access to further education allows children from poor backgrounds to enter the more lucrative graduate jobs. (OK there are well-paid non-graduate jobs, but on average graduates are paid more.)
Incentives: if you help those down on their luck, then when you're down on your luck people will help you.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I think many of us would argue that the notion of 'opportunity and incentive to advance' is so situated within a capitalist framework that it is nigh-on meaningless to ask it of socialism. It is, so to speak, to load the dice in capitalism's favour. Would socialism give people space to realise their creative projects, to grow as people? I certainly hope so. Would people have plenty of opportunities to compete with each other, and to secure favour for themselves to the exclusion of others? I hope not.
One of the curious things about capitalism is that it makes us think that competitiveness and the desire to do better than others are virtues. Which would suprise classical ethicists.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
One of the curious things about capitalism is that it makes us think that competitiveness and the desire to do better than others are virtues. Which would suprise classical ethicists.
As you mentioned there are different ways of saying things.
I don't see capitalism as necessarily promoting individuals' desire to do 'better' than others. I'd say it promotes the desire, or perhaps motivation, for everyone to do as well as they can.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
But has a particular story to tell about what it is for someone to 'live well'.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Sorry: I have no idea what point you're making.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
You say that capitalism encourages people to 'do as well as they can'. It does so within the framework of a certain understanding of what 'doing well' is.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
I am biased in thinking opportunity, incentive to advance and prosperity are, generally speaking, good.
Of course, like anything else, they can be taken to extremes.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
I am biased in thinking opportunity, incentive to advance and prosperity are, generally speaking, good.
Of course, like anything else, they can be taken to extremes.
So have most socialists been. The opposite point of view is sometimes met with among Greens. But on the whole socialists have been all in favour of prosperity.
And, obviously, it depends what you mean by "advance".
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
He provides employment for dozens of people (primarily blue collar types as his business has to do with down and dirty construction projects) and I've had the opportunity to meet several of them. Without exception, they are grateful for their opportunity to share in his success.
Or, to look at it a different way, they provide profits for him, and they are subject to the ideological delusion that he is doing them a favour.
There's always another way of telling it.
Yes, and it's a crap way of telling it.
He IS doing them a favor. It's his idea, his business. If they want to come up with their own idea and their own business no one is stopping them.
If it were up to me, everyone would own their own business and that way no one would listen to Marxists. They'd all have their "Fair Wage" and could charge what they like. But then humans are not all enterprising. Some would prefer to work at the going rate. If they don't like that rate, they can go somewhere else or start their own business. This is all reasonable and fair.
To "take" people's money and give it to someone else, no matter how high-minded and noble, is still a TAKE.
The problem with the socialist scenario is that it has to assume that all businesses, as evidenced by various posts here, have to be assumed to be assholes in order to justify the "take". Problem is, there are many many business people that pay a fair wage, pay their own reasonable salary, and barely make it. And the socialist philosphy assumes that it is still "Right" to screw them and do the "take" anyway. I mean they are businesspeople, fuck 'em.
IMO, In order for a socialist to be "Christian" they have to let go of the idea that businesspeople deserve to be judged. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that. It's between the gods and the businessperson as to whether they did well by their fellow humans, not socialists. Not that I think that will stop socialists from making blanket assumptions about the rich or businesspeople mind you.
The funny thing is, the Rich will always be with us too. They have the brains and/or talent and/or both, to take over the socialism and turn it towards their favor. They did it with communism, they'll do it with socialism. Or they will leave and go to more business-friendly evironments and let the socilialistas feel the pain of what it's like when no business people provide you with the jobs you DEMAND. We businesspeople don't have to deal with people that think we are assholes, you know? No one deserves to be treated like a dick for coming up with brilliant ideas and turning them into jobs.
Your right, I make money off the backs of other people. They give me their backs to use.
True socialists have a bad habit of forgetting that if they run the businesses out of town, they have no one to steal from for their socilaist programs.
[ 29. April 2007, 03:30: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
And, obviously, it depends what you mean by "advance".
Sure it does but getting into those kinds of details has proven difficult in this thread.
I know they weren't addressed to you but would you be willing to answer my earlier questions?
quote:
However, by some definitions he would be considered 'super-rich'. You seem to be suggesting the state should further limit (they get their fair share at least via taxes) how much money he makes:
can you explain who is capable of fairly doing that and what criteria they should use? Do you anticipate any downside to the state acquiring more control over him and his money?
And do socialists generally think individuals should be limited by the state as to how much money they make?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
IMO, In order for a socialist to be "Christian" they have to let go of the idea that businesspeople deserve to be judged. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that.
So these texts don't apply?:
Mat 19:23 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Luk 1:53 he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away.
Luk 6:24 "But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Luk 12:21 So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."
1Ti 6:9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.
Jam 1:11 For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits.
Jam 2:5 Listen, my beloved brethren. Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him?
Jam 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court?
Jam 5:1 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Show me anywhere where it says that you get to judge the rich in those texts. In other words, I do not see a text in there that says, you are the god, judge the rich man, and you have Jesus permission to take his money.
Its between the "rich" man and his gods. Not the socialists and theirs.
And oh btw, I am fairly sure the people sitting at their keyboards here are "rich" by ANY standard Jesus had at the time. I am sure he couldn't even imagine the wealth we control every day. You ready to give up ALL your wealth and follow him?
Didn't think so. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 29. April 2007, 15:43: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
