Does atheism lead to socialism?

[Willamena]

"Oh, I'm full of it, father." ~George

 

[Valjean]

Other than Amerindians here, no one I know ever got
free tuition at state universities.

State Universities Began Charging Tuition in the 60's - Fact or Myth?
PolitiFact - Was college once free in United States, as Bernie Sanders says?
We're both old enough to remember when Reagan finally ended California's free, in-state tuition after the unrest he witnessed on the Berkeley campus.

Regulation of banks was less stringent in many ways, eg, red lining.

It was largely poorly regulated banking that caused the crash of '29. Roosevelt's first act of office was to shut down the entire US banking system. Under the New Deal banks were thereafter heavily regulated, and a long period of stability ensued. But the conservative, anti-regulation crowd have been chipping away at regulation ever since. We no longer even have Glass-Steagall. Banks, brokers and investors are, again, largely unregulated. Shenanigans like the '08 recession are inevitable.

I could go on. Suffice to say I don't see Republicans
being all that liberal back then....
Forced Christian prayer in public school, the draft,
persecution of gays, etc, etc.

????

Why do you think effective tax rates were higher back then?

A '91% upper tax rate and heavier regulation.
Why do you think companies were reïnvesting their profits back into their companies and paying decent wages back then, if not to reduce their tax brackets? -- and this was before modern strategies like payment in stocks or stock options; buybacks, and other modern tax avoidance schemes became legal and commonplace.

Nowadays, it's legal and profitable just to relocate to venues with virtually no regulation, who pay slave wages to desperate workers with no other options.

 

[1213]

Socialism is a state of society where private property (or, in Marxist terms, private control over the means of production - note that this does not include all personal possessions, only property that is used to produce economic value) is either abolished or under the control of the working class, be it communally (as in the case of communes like the Hutterites), a state controlled by the workers (such as a hypothetical or real communist government), or by some other method (such as trade unions controlling industrial production, or private companies being collectively owned by their employees)....

The problem with word socialism/communism is that there seems to be many definitions and more than that, it is often implemented in a way that is not necessary what the original idea was. If socialism is about a group of people owning collectively something, it is basically like limited liability company. When people own it and rule it freely, I think it is ok and in the line with “love your neighbor as yourself”. Unfortunately, usually some people want to be the rulers of all, form a government to tax the fruit that others produce, which then ruins the good idea.

So, perhaps “socialism” is not the problem, but that some people want to form a government and rule others is. All good things are possible without a government, but without them, we would not have wars, so perhaps they are the problem and people should be free and independent to live their own lives as they want.

It is almost funny how “socialism” and “capitalism” can lead to the same end result, collectivist oligarchy, where people work for a small owner group, basically like slaves or serfs. Because of that, maybe it is not good to use those words. I think it would be better to use words like free and not free society. I like countries that are free. Unfortunately no country seems to be free anymore.

 

[1213]

I thought it was capitalism that was legalized theft.
Don't socialists share, or at least make sure noöne is in poverty? Wasn't Jesus a socialist? Wasn't his band a commune, with a common purse and everything? Wasn't he an outright Hippie, with all his peace, love and equality preaching?...

How capitalism has legalized theft?

Jesus as not a socialist, because in socialism people are forced to give what they have to others, while in society of Jesus, people are free and give form their own, because they want to do so. Socialist takes from others and then gives some to others, disciple of Jesus (Christian) doesn’t steal but give for those who need, because loves/cares of them. There is a vast fundamental difference. The reason why “socialistic” countries like Finland have been successful is that the doing good was based really on the teachings of Jesus and came from love. Now that Christianity has been abandoned almost entirely, the situation becomes more and more difficult, because to get the same, people must be forced to give even more and more, while greedy socialists live on the expense of others.

Jesus said:
“the laborer is worthy of his wages”
Luke 10:7

Socialists in practice says:
“I should have half of the laborers wage so that I can pretend to be nice by giving something small to the poor”

But, in a way a “capitalist” and a socialist can be almost the same. It depends much on what is meant with the word capitalist. I think a real capitalist is a person who supports private ownership and property rights and freedom. And I think also Jesus supported those.

 

[1213]

...
People used to be more Christian because they were fearful.

If so, then they don’t seem to have known Jesus at all.

China's atheism has nothing to do with its repressive, police-surveillance state.

I don’t think it would be possible, if people would be for example Christian and have the values Jesus taught.

 

[1213]

...
Our country's greatest period of growth and prosperity was during a period of what would today be considered Big Government, left-wing policies.

Causality does not equal causation.

 

[1213]

Saudi Arabia and Iran are led by theistic regimes - in the case of Iran, even an explicitly theocratic one - and are at least as terrible a place to live in, if they aren't even worse than the PRC.

The theistic states of Early Modern Europe were not good places to live in for their majority population, either, and their theism produced some of the most destructive series of wars in European history (e.g. the Hussite Wars, the French Wars of Religion, the 30 Years War...)

Yes, it is possible that other religions don’t support the ideas of “love your enemy” and “love your neighbor”. But, what do you think, if person says he is a Christians, which in Bible means a disciple of Jesus, doesn’t actually believe Jesus and don’t live as Jesus taught? Maybe they had a theistic country, but they surely didn’t seem to believe God, when they didn’t live by God's word.

(Who is disciple of Jesus?)

 

[1213]

...
As for actual Christ, his teachings and examples would be considered socialism today.

Please show what teaching and why?

 

[1213]

...Out of curiosity, do you consider most European countries to be "communist"?

Yes, although collectivist oligarchy is probably more fitting term.

 

[1213]

You realize that the bible describes how Jesus and the disciples lived together, and it's identical to a commune? ...

The difference is that it was a free commune, where people voluntarily gave to others from their own, because they loved. Communists/socialists think they have right to demand others to give them what they want and after they get what they want, they may donate something to the poor. Essentially and eventually communists/socialists make everyone poor, except the leaders. And when they have exploited the country wholly, it usually collapses like Soviet Union did. This is why I think socialism/communism is like a cancer to a country. China is now about the same age as Soviet Union when it collapsed, interesting to see when Communist China collapses. Usually communist/socialistic countries seem to be countries with single tyrannical leader and when he dies, also the system collapses.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was largely poorly regulated banking that caused the crash of '29. Roosevelt's first act of office was to shut down the entire US banking system. Under the New Deal banks were thereafter heavily regulated, and a long period of stability ensued. But the conservative, anti-regulation crowd have been chipping away at regulation ever since. We no longer even have Glass-Steagall. Banks, brokers and investors are, again, largely unregulated. Shenanigans like the '08 recession are inevitable.

I'm in favor of regulation that is useful, with prevention
of banking system failure being one. Alas, these days,
even Democrats favor regulation that actually makes that
risk worse....
- Community Reinvestment Act, which requires riskier
lending
- Oversight of government created lenders (eg, Fannie Mae)
that encourage highly leveraged loans (up to 100% LTV).
- Income tax policy that encourages housing inflation, eg,
tax deductable interest & property taxes, tax deferred
capital gains.

The risk of lender failure is pretty high again. Another
9/11 would put them in da terlit just as before.

A '91% upper tax rate and heavier regulation.

I specifically addressed the "effective tax rates". 91% was
a rate that few paid because the tax dodge mechanisms
available were far more generous back them.

Why do you think companies were reïnvesting their profits back into their companies and paying decent wages back then, if not to reduce their tax brackets? -- and this was before modern strategies like payment in stocks or stock options; buybacks, and other modern tax avoidance schemes became legal and commonplace.

The tax avoidance schemes were actually far better back then,
eg, accelerated depreciation recapture at the lower capital gains
tax rate. No one had to pay that 91%.

Nowadays, it's legal and profitable just to relocate to venues with virtually no regulation, who pay slave wages to desperate workers with no other options.

Relocation was legal back then. It was just more profitable
to be here because of less regulation, & the overseas ability
to manufacture was far lower. Labor costs were lower too.
Labor overhead is higher now.
As for living wages, one factor was that people expected less
then...smaller houses, less medical care, fewer possessions.
Another is that low skill labor just isn't worth as much now.
But heavy taxation & regulation for its own sake won't raise
their wages. The UBI is the only way to address the rising
class of people who aren't worth as much as they need.

 

[Valjean]

Capitalism: everyone should be rich.
Communism: no one should be rich.
Socialism: anyone can be rich, but no one should be poor.

Capitalism depends on a large working class. The rich are rich because they rake off most of the wealth generated by the workers.

 

[Valjean]

Atheism & capitalism: Supremacy of the individual.
Religion & socialism: Supremacy of the higher power.

An individual is essentially powerless. We're social animals, not bears. Our prosperity is a product of coöperation.

The "higher power" in socialism is not a disengaged leader or group. It's the group, itself.
Socialism: supremacy of the coöp -- of which the individual is an equal member.

 

[Revoltingest]

Capitalism depends on a large working class. The rich are rich because they rake off most of the wealth generated by the workers.

Socialism & communism depend on a large working class.
The rich are rich because they are the party elite in government,
& have the ability to just take it from the powerless masses.

This is fun!

 

[Revoltingest]

An individual is essentially powerless. We're social animals, not bears. Our prosperity is a product of coöperation.

That's missing the point.

When I've started a business, I simply decided to do so.
I didn't need government's or anyone's permission.
(It helped that Mrs Revolt dint object.)
I enlisted other individuals, ie, associates & customers to
cooperate, but still it was all my idea & individual initiative
that got the ball rolling & kept it going.
If you believe you're powerless, then you will be indeed.

The "higher power" in socialism is not a disengaged leader or group. It's the group, itself.
Socialism: supremacy of the coöp -- of which the individual is an equal member.

The group is the higher power. Their permission is need
for everything, since the individual cannot own any of the
means of production. It's a hive mentality I detest.

 

[Valjean]

The difference is that it was a free commune, where people voluntarily gave to others from their own, because they loved. Communists/socialists think they have right to demand others to give them what they want and after they get what they want,

No! There are no "others." "They" are the others. Socialism is a co-op. The whole point it that noöne exploits anyone else.

Essentially and eventually communists/socialists make everyone poor, except the leaders.

But the "leaders" are the co-op members, themselves. There is no leadership class. Socialism is Of, By and For the workers.

And when they have exploited the country wholly, it usually collapses like Soviet Union did.

There is no 'they!' Everyone is an equal member. There are no exploiter/exploited classes. That would be Capitalism.

The Soviet Union? -- neither Communist nor Socialist. It had rich people and an exploiter class. It was an autocracy, not a co-op.
You'll have to do better than the USSR, Red China or N.Korea to find an example of Socialism.

[This is why I think socialism/communism is like a cancer to a country. China is now about the same age as Soviet Union when it collapsed, interesting to see when Communist China collapses. Usually communist/socialistic countries seem to be countries with single tyrannical leader and when he dies, also the system collapses.

Again, anyone can call themselves Communist or a People's Republic, but your examples clearly are not. They have none of the features of a co-op; they're not even democratic. The People are not in charge of their lives.

 

[Revoltingest]

No! There are no "others." "They" are the others. Socialism is a co-op. The whole point it that noöne exploits anyone else.
But the "leaders" are the co-op members, themselves. There is no leadership class. Socialism is Of, By and For the workers.
There is no 'they!' Everyone is an equal member. There are no exploiter/exploited classes. That would be Capitalism.

The Soviet Union? -- neither Communist nor Socialist. It had rich people and an exploiter class. It was an autocracy, not a co-op.
You'll have to do better than the USSR, Red China or N.Korea to find an example of Socialism.

Again, anyone can call themselves Communist or a People's Republic, but your examples clearly are not. They have none of the features of a co-op; they're not even democratic. The People are not in charge of their lives.

You're redefining "socialism" to be your personal vision...not
what it is in any dictionary, which is the people owning the
means of production. That's it.
I could define capitalism as rugged individuals cooperating
voluntarily for mutual benefit, resulting in liberty & prosperity
for workers & owners. But this wouldn't be the dictionary
definition...just my personal vision.

In the real world both socialism & capitalism have been tried.
Capitalism has had some wonderful successes. Socialism
hasn't. It's always resulted in oppressive authoritarianism &
economic malaise at best, & famine at worst.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes, although collectivist oligarchy is probably more fitting term.

So in other words you simply use the term to refer to anything that you either don't like nor understand, so in the future we know to just roll our eyes whenever you use it.

 

[Valjean]

I'm in favor of regulation that is useful, with prevention
of banking system failure being one. Alas, these days,
even Democrats favor regulation that actually makes that
risk worse....
- Community Reinvestment Act, which requires riskier
lending
- Oversight of government created lenders (eg, Fannie Mae)
that encourage highly leveraged loans (up to 100% LTV).
- Income tax policy that encourages housing inflation, eg,
tax deductable interest & property taxes, tax deferred
capital gains.

The risk of lender failure is pretty high again. Another
9/11 would put them in da terlit just as before.

No argument, here.

UBI? Not the only way. We could just turn back the clock, eliminate the loopholes and begin enforcing the regulations and anti-trust legislation we had previously.

I specifically addressed the "effective tax rates". 91% was
a rate that few paid because the tax dodge mechanisms
available were far more generous back them.
The tax avoidance schemes were actually far better back then,
eg, accelerated depreciation recapture at the lower capital gains

Agreed. The usual "dodge," back then, was to reïnvest in the company and pay a living wage, which is what fueled the economic boom and meteoric expansion of the middle class.
Back then there were still anti-trust regulations. Small business still had a chance.

I specifically addressed the "effective tax rates". 91% was
a rate that few paid because the tax dodge mechanisms
available were far more generous back them.

The tax avoidance schemes were actually far better back then,
eg, accelerated depreciation recapture at the lower capital gains
tax rate. No one had to pay that 91%.
Relocation was legal back then. It was just more profitable
to be here because of less regulation, & the overseas ability
to manufacture was far lower. Labor costs were lower too.
Labor overhead is higher now.
As for living wages, one factor was that people expected less
then...smaller houses, less medical care, fewer possessions.
Another is that low skill labor just isn't worth as much now.
But heavy taxation & regulation for its own sake won't raise
their wages. The UBI is the only way to address the rising
class of people who aren't worth as much as they need.

Your average worker used to be able to afford a house, support a family, take a yearly vacation, buy a new car every few years, and put his kids through college -- all on a single, working class income. Yes, average house size has increased, as people seek status markers, but general prosperity and security has not. It now often takes two incomes to maintain a middle-class status; and forget the new cars, vacations, college or pensions.

UBI? Bead and circuses? I thought you were against a nanny state.
Why not just turn back the clock. Eliminate the free-market, Neoloberal loopholes and trickle down economics. Resume the regulation and anti-trust laws that gave our previous prosperity?

Free markets and deregulation simply don't work, and the regulatory agencies that remain are either defunded or captured -- often both.
Out of Control: A Brief History of Neoliberal Deregulation in the USA
Neoliberalism: Political Success, Economic Failure

 

[Father Heathen]

Please show what teaching and why?

Matthew 6:24
Luke 12:15
Matthew 19:21
Mark 12:17
Matthew 19:24

...just to list a few.