Does atheism lead to socialism?

[Revoltingest]

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.

No, automation is changing things in a way not
previously seen. Beforehand, automation incresed
production, & lowering costs boosted demand. Labor
was needed for this. But now we're seeing low skill
labor being reduced.

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.

We still have anti-trust regulations. And we still
have small businesses.

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.

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

Free markets are still great. And useful regulation,
not the dysfunctional kind helps matters. Socialism
will only keep unskilled workers employed with make
work programs...very inefficient.
Overall regulation has greatly increased over the
decades. Check out the number of pages in the
CFR (Code Of Federal Regulations). You'll see
that the 50s had a fraction of business regulation.

Regulation isn't inherently good...it can be useful.
It can be the opposite. Just wanting more is a very
bad goal.

 

[Valjean]

....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.

But coöperation and collective ownership of the means of production is the essence of Socialism. Every individual is an owner. The profit from the "means" is shared, not skimmed.

 

[Revoltingest]

But coöperation and collective ownership of the means of production is the essence of Socialism. Every individual is an owner. The profit from the "means" is shared, not skimmed.

Cooperation & a combination of individual & collective (stockholders)
ownership is how capitalism works. But in socialism there's a big
difference, ie, the individual cannot start a business, cannot own
the means of production, & needs group approval to do anything
of economic consequence. It seems a small way to live...to have
no individual power other than to seek approval of the hive.
And it fails....no economy has done well by ditching capitalism.
Just look at China....it had to embrace capitalism to rise above
famine & despair.

 

[Valjean]

How capitalism has legalized theft?

Jesus as not a socialist, because in socialism people are forced to give what they have to others,

No! That's the opposite of Socialism. It sounds more like Capitalism, where whoever owns the worker's tools takes the lion's share of the profit, even though the owner generated none of it.
Socialism is family values writ large. Everything's shared.

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.

But most Fins are atheists, as are most people in the other "socialist" countries of this ilk.
It doesn't matter weather an economic system is based on the teachings of Jesus, or Marx, or Abbie Hoffman. The system does what it does.

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.

"Greedy Socialist" seems like an oxymoron. It's Capitalists who live at the expense of others. Socialists share everything, and believe in equality and a classless society

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”

Where did you get that quote? In Socialism labor and management are the same entity. You're describing Capitalism.

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.

Capitalism is the owner of the worker's tools -- the "means of production" -- taking most of the profit generated by the worker and giving back only enough to sustain them or, at least, keep them from revolting.
The Capitalist sits by his pool and reaps the lion's share of the profit generated by the workers -- just because he owns their tools.
That doesn't sound like Family values, or Christian values. But that seems to be what you're advocating.

 

[Valjean]

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

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

Didn't they try that during the Middle Ages? Aren't the fundamentalist Muslims trying that right now with their "Islamic States" and Sharia Law?

No. Laws should be based on reason, not on deontological Divine Command.

 

[Valjean]

Cooperation & a combination of individual & collective (stockholders)
ownership is how capitalism works. But in socialism there's a big
difference, ie, the individual cannot start a business, cannot own
the means of production, & needs group approval to do anything
of economic consequence. It seems a small way to live...to have
no individual power other than to seek approval of the hive.
And it fails....no economy has done well by ditching capitalism.
Just look at China....it had to embrace capitalism to rise above
famine & despair.

Why can an individual not start a business in a socialist economy? Don't so-called Socialist countries have better social mobility and opportunity for advancement than we currently have in the US?
We're no longer the land of opportunity. The "Socialist" countries seem to be on top.
Global Social Mobility Index - Wikipedia

An individual in a co-operative factory has a great deal more say in his life and work than any laborer in a Capitalist factory.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why can an individual not start a business in a socialist economy?

Because the hive owns the means of production.

Don't so-called Socialist countries have better social mobility and opportunity for advancement than we currently have in the US?

Upward mobility looks pretty dismal in countries
without capitalism. Where do you think it's so good?

We're no longer the land of opportunity. The "Socialist" countries seem to be on top.
Global Social Mobility Index - Wikipedia

Without perusing their criteria for mobility & working definition of socialism (which too often is capitalism with a social welfare
system), I'd like a summary in your own words.

An individual in a co-operative factory has a great deal more say in his life and work than any laborer in a Capitalist factory.

But that individual cannot ever start their own factory.
They advance only with approval of the hive. Here,
I need no approval except for my customers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

China is atheistic, by what I know, and it is the most tyrannical country in the world, with its surveillance state.

As I said: And that, by choice of the people, not "state enforced atheism" like we have seen in Soviet Russia

China's governmental rule isn't "secular". It's rather anti-theistic.

How China Attacks Religion: Muslims, Christians, Buddhists Vulnerable (businessinsider.com)

Western secular countries are close to that, but not yet as bad.

Not sure if joking or serious.

 

[Lars]

As I said: And that, by choice of the people, not "state enforced atheism" like we have seen in Soviet Russia

China's governmental rule isn't "secular". It's rather anti-theistic.

How China Attacks Religion: Muslims, Christians, Buddhists Vulnerable (businessinsider.com)



Not sure if joking or serious.

They probably are atheistic, but they value spiritual cultural impact interms of cultural roots. But unlike Japan, its tolerant of religions despite being atheistic mainly. Think that happend during the Meiji era of Japanese history

 

[metis]

Please show what teaching [Jesus on socialism] and why?

Please reread the Sermon On the Mount very carefully while keeping in mind how this would be applied during his time and ours.

Jewish Law mandated that the poor and dispossessed must be helped, and that role fell on the government and charity. But since Jews didn't control the government during Jesus' time, it then fell on the Great Sanhedrin, the Temple priests, and charity, neither of which Jesus negated. In the Parable of the Widow's Mite, Jesus actually doubles-down on it.

As far as we know, eretz Israel was the first "civilization" that mandated government was responsible to help all those in need-- not just some.

See: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

 

[Lars]

Please reread the Sermon On the Mount very carefully while keeping in mind how this would be applied during his time and ours.

Jewish Law mandated that the poor and dispossessed must be helped, and that role fell on the government and charity. But since Jews didn't control the government during Jesus' time, it then fell on the Great Sanhedrin, the Temple priests, and charity, neither of which Jesus negated. In the Parable of the Widow's Mite, Jesus actually doubles-down on it.

As far as we know, eretz Israel was the first "civilization" that mandated government was responsible to help all those in need-- not just some.

See: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

But there is also the quote "he who doesnt work doesnt eat"
2 Thessalonians 3:10
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
Bible Gateway passage: 2 Thessalonians 3:10 - New International Version


Social democracy seems to overall be the most realistic model. While socialism can be authoritarian for all the wrong reasons.

 

[metis]

But there is also the quote "he who doesnt work doesnt eat"
2 Thessalonians 3:10
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
Bible Gateway passage: 2 Thessalonians 3:10 - New International Version

That does not go against socialism but was a serious problem with Marxism.

Social democracy seems to overall be the most realistic model. While socialism can be authoritarian for all the wrong reasons.

I do agree with the general approach of "social democracy" but that in theory and application is not uniform. However, neither should it be, imo, since conditions and culture are not the same in every society.

IOW, I don't believe in a one-size-fits-all approach.

 

[Lars]

That does not go against socialism but was a serious problem with Marxism.
I do agree with the general approach of "social democracy" but that in theory and application is not uniform. However, neither should it be, imo, since conditions and culture are not the same in every society.

IOW, I don't believe in a one-size-fits-all approach.

Think main problem with USA political system is the voting system only rewards two party system. I think if they made more political parties it would fit a more fair democratic process

 

[1213]

...But most Fins are atheists,...

Today, but not always.

Where did you get that quote?

It is what they say by their actions. (“I should have half of the laborers wage so that I can pretend to be nice by giving something small to the poor”).

...That doesn't sound like Family values, or Christian values. ...

That sounds like a straw man.

 

[1213]

...just to list a few.

Thanks, and sorry, I don’t think these would be considered socialism today.

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon.
Matthew 6:24

He said to them, "Beware! Keep yourselves from covetousness, for a man's life doesn't consist of the abundance of the things which he possesses."
Luke 12:15

Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
Matthew 19:21

Jesus answered them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." They marveled greatly at him.
Mark 12:17

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."
Matthew 19:24

 

[1213]

... There are no exploiter/exploited classes. That would be Capitalism.
...

You seem to have very odd definition to socialism and capitalism. Why do you think capitalism has exploiter/exploited classes? And why do you think socialism doesn’t have exploiter/exploited classes?

Capitalism means basically that private people can own things. If people exploit others, it is not because of the capitalism, but because people choose to do so. In socialism people don’t own things, “community” owns them and exploits everyone who is more efficient than someone else, which is why in socialism, people seem to do only the minimum to avoid the exploitation.

 

[1213]

...
Jewish Law mandated that the poor and dispossessed must be helped...

I think the difference to Jesus is in that things should be based on love and that person is righteous. If person is righteous, he loves his neighbor as himself, and helps, if he can, not because he must, but because he understands it is good and freely wants to do so. I think it is problematic to force people to do good to others. And in a way, if it is not voluntary, it is not very good, person is just doing what he is forced to do.

And for me, the problem with socialism in practice is that there is a group that forces people to give money to them so that they then can give small amount of that to someone who needs. Maybe the original idea of socialism is good, but it is in practice always system that is not based on freedom and love, but a system where elite takes money from others (makes more poor people) and then gives little help for those who are already poor. It is a system to transfer wealth to a different group. I hate it, especially because it really doesn’t help poor people. Real help would be to make so that the poor could become prosperous. Socialism doesn’t offer anything that would improve anyone’s situation, except the leaders of the system. That is why I like more of free capitalist system, where people can with their own work prosper.

 

[Valjean]

Think main problem with USA political system is the voting system only rewards two party system. I think if they made more political parties it would fit a more fair democratic process

We have plenty of parties already -- List of political parties in the United States - Wikipedia , they're just not proportionately represented.

What's your take on a proportionally represented, parliamentary style system; or on a ranked choice voting that would at least allow you to vote for the candidate you prefer, without wasting your vote?

 

[Valjean]

Today, but not always.

True. Now they're prosperous they don't need to appeal to invisible gods for their salvation. They've saved themselves.

It is what they say by their actions. (“I should have half of the laborers wage so that I can pretend to be nice by giving something small to the poor”).

You're talking about capitalism, again.
If all the profit went to the laborers, who's the "I" skimming half the wages? And who would these poor be?

That sounds like a straw man.

How so? Aren't peace, love, equality and love of neighbor both Christian, Humanist, Hippie and progressive values?
Aren't "greed is good," dog-eat-dog competition, every man for himself, and Devil take the hindmost not free-market, capitalist values?

 

[Valjean]

You seem to have very odd definition to socialism and capitalism. Why do you think capitalism has exploiter/exploited classes? And why do you think socialism doesn’t have exploiter/exploited classes?

Capitalism means basically that private people can own things. If people exploit others, it is not because of the capitalism, but because people choose to do so. In socialism people don’t own things, “community” owns them and exploits everyone who is more efficient than someone else, which is why in socialism, people seem to do only the minimum to avoid the exploitation.

I think it's you who have a distorted view of capitalism. Capitalism is a system where the means of production and profits therefrom are privately owned and accumulated. In capitalism there's a small owner class and a large class of wage laborers. Capitalism is about accumulation of wealth -- mainly by those owning the means of production, who dictate production, working conditions, wages, &c.
Accumulation is facilitated by laissez-faire regulation and low overhead -- and labor is overhead. Profits are facilitated by a large, impoverished class who will accept low wages and poor working conditions.

There will always be exploiters, but regulated working conditions, shared profits and a say in business decisions can go a long way to promoting prosperity and equality.

From Wiki:
"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by owners of wealth, property, or production ability in capital and financial markets—whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[7]"