Does Socialism and Christianity follow the same economic principals?

[sayak83]

I loved this statement by a OP, and thought it might be a nice thread.


I tend to disaggree.

1. Democracy is the practice where the people collectively ellect their leaders and allow these leaders to distribute the taxes to where the country needs it for their bennefit.
2. Sociliasts deceive everyone in believing that their policy of distributing the wealth to everyone will be the answer to get rid of inequality concerning the estates of the people.

Now the outcome will be.

1. Democracy will allow the rich to get richer, thereby allowing anyone in the country to reach their full potential. Obviously the able and hardworking will achieve great rewards, and the not so intelligent and hard working person will at least have employment.
2. The socialist will tax the people they call "Rich" and give to those they call "Poor". However, they will be the guys who will collect the money, and who decide who is rivch and poor. Eventually the "Rich" sitizen's money will run out, and the government will sit with a "poor" economy where the capital of the country was misusedon political promises such as Equal Pay, free Medical, Free education, free water and free electricity. Once this happens, the country is bancrupt, because the "Rich businussmen" just dont have any recources to continue. In this case the socialists make draconical laws and eventually ban all other political parties who do not want to continue with socilaism.

And Bang goes the country.
If you think the police in the USA is somewhat heavy handed, fck, go to Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mosambique, Venezuela, Quba, North Corea, China!
I grew up with people who fled from Poland, Romenia, Russia, East Germany who were under communist rule.
Do not even try to tell me that Communism does not adhere to socialism. Socialism is the economic constitution of Communism.

Furthermore, The Christians also paid taxes, but when it came to social reform, they were charitable. The Government never took the rich persons' capital and gave to to who they thought needed it. Socialism and Christianity is incompatable.


What do you say, where am I wrong?

Jesus told to sell all ones possessions in order to follow him. How does that gel with the notion of inviolable right to property that is the ground of Capitalism?

 

[Tambourine]

This is a different scenario though. With the area I am talking about in my country, the gangsters are well known by the community and police, as they should in daylight and they are people's neighbours. It is just that the police don't do anything or are corrupt. The criminals are known and therefore should be shot, because they are serial murderers and rapists. They can be easily caught in the act. To let them continue is to let the criminals thrive and the innocent suffer.

Being corrupt is a crime, too, isn't it? Do these cops deserve to be killed for their corruption, or only the gang members?

I think an important question that needs to be answered up front is, who gets to decide which criminal gets to live and which one is to die?

Regarding these gang groups, well known in the community, yes. If someone has been proven as being a rapist then yes too. Or at least castrated.

In this case, I agree with you that the law is probably insufficient, though not for the same reasons.. The impression I have of the kind of macho vigilante culture that tends to exert brutal violence on would-be criminals or suspects, is that they really enjoy to exact revenge on those who "defile" "decent" women, but often see few problems with violence against women they deem of lesser decency (usually sex workers and so on), or women who are otherwise deemed "untrustworthy" and thus unworthy to be believed (often the poor or marginalized). That is, at least, my opinion on the subject. In either the lawful or the vigilante system, the decision which woman to protect remains in the hand of unaccountable men who tend to judge arbitrarily and partially.

I don't view people as inherently evil. My points are to prevent further suffering by the innocent through eliminating the guilty. There is a chance that they could reform but I care about the here and now as opposed to a future possibility.

It seems very much that you believe certain groups of criminals, by virtue of membership in gang organisations, deserve death, while other criminals deserve to live. It is this arbitrary judgement that I am so uncomfortable with.
Why do rapist gangers deserve to get killed without trial, but not rapist cops or rapist millionaires?

Is it because they are a greater threat, or is it because they are at the bottom of the social order, and therefore disposable to a degree that cops or millionaires are not?

As for Rule of Law, and peoples whims, I am not talking about going around and killing people in random areas based on rumours.

This is the scenario:

I hear gunshots every night in the next door neighbourhood. People in the community know who are gangsters since the gangsters openly admit they are such and the people see them walking around as gang members. They see them shooting others. So these aren't mere rumours. Someone can just go undercover and confirm such things. Simple.

The current situation is that sticking to the rule of law in this situation hasn't been conducive to establishing just social order.

It seems to me as if you think a functioning justice system is irrelevant to a just social order. Do you think there is no use in following proper legal procedures when the criminals belong to these specific social groups? If so, why?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Being corrupt is a crime, too, isn't it? Do these cops deserve to be killed for their corruption, or only the gang members?

To be clear, my criteria regards rape and serial murder. So yes, cops would be included. And, considering the position of trust that they have and that they are representing the law, their criminal actions should be held more severely and should suffer harsher punishment than gang members.

I think an important question that needs to be answered up front is, who gets to decide which criminal gets to live and which one is to die?

That is the important question. But also, it isn't necessarily that the law is wrong, but that those making the decisions aren't executing them right, because they themselves are corrupt. Also, if the rule of law fails to make prosecution difficult, and allows criminals to be set free, then it should be revised, because its stagnancy is making it useless.

In this case, I agree with you that the law is probably insufficient, though not for the same reasons.. The impression I have of the kind of macho vigilante culture that tends to exert brutal violence on would-be criminals or suspects, is that they really enjoy to exact revenge on those who "defile" "decent" women, but often see few problems with violence against women they deem of lesser decency (usually sex workers and so on), or women who are otherwise deemed "untrustworthy" and thus unworthy to be believed (often the poor or marginalized). That is, at least, my opinion on the subject. In either the lawful or the vigilante system, the decision which woman to protect remains in the hand of unaccountable men who tend to judge arbitrarily and partially.

Yeah, that distinction is definitely arbitrary and seems to me to be the result of religious or traditional upbringing. I myself have no issues with sex workers as people. I also think that those who wish to degrade sex workers are probably hypocrites because they themselves benefit from their products and services. Also the process shouldn't be about revenge but about preventing these acts from happening in the future.

It seems very much that you believe certain groups of criminals, by virtue of membership in gang organisations, deserve death, while other criminals deserve to live. It is this arbitrary judgement that I am so uncomfortable with.
Why do rapist gangers deserve to get killed without trial, but not rapist cops or rapist millionaires?
Is it because they are a greater threat, or is it because they are at the bottom of the social order, and therefore disposable to a degree that cops or millionaires are not?

Where did you get that idea from? I class rapist gangsters, cops and millionaires in the same category. A rapist is a rapist. So either they get equal punishment.

It seems to me as if you think a functioning justice system is irrelevant to a just social order. Do you think there is no use in following proper legal procedures when the criminals belong to these specific social groups? If so, why?

I think an incompetent justice system is irrelevent to a just social order. And the reason IMO is because of the people who enforce it. If though, the justice system itself is delaying or preventing justice to be done, then it must be revised, because it is useless in accomplishing its mission.

I am pro order. I don't like anarchy. So I believe that the current state is more anarchy than necessary and more order should be established to solve that. But, there are problems with that. More order can lead to state indoctrination. So there is a fine line.

 

[Stevicus]

By "shot" I do not necessarily mean deadly force. Rubber bullets would suffice. By this I mean that those who attack property people should be incapacitated. I would want to prevent them from moving further for a few minutes as opposed to taking them out for good so that they can be arrested.

Whether someone is the legal owner or not is relevent to your comparison that you made.

Okay, fair enough. Mind you, I'm not in any way defending the kind of destruction which has gone on. By destroying shops and small businesses in their own communities, the people are only really hurting themselves and their neighbors. People should take their grievances to the government, not to their neighbors.

But it's also important to note that a lot of these questions and examples generally depend on whose ox is gored.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Okay, fair enough. Mind you, I'm not in any way defending the kind of destruction which has gone on. By destroying shops and small businesses in their own communities, the people are only really hurting themselves and their neighbors. People should take their grievances to the government, not to their neighbors.

But it's also important to note that a lot of these questions and examples generally depend on whose ox is gored.

I get what you mean. I myself am very suspicious proponents of both sides of the argument, mainly because I do not know whether they have an agenda or not. There are those who say that those who condemn the property destruction care more about property than people's lives, and this seems to be the popular thing to say so they seem indoctrinated. Then there are those who focus on the property damage, condemning the whole protest because of it and saying that the protesters are violent, but they come across as logical but when one examines what they are saying, they themselves are throwing a Red Herring for whatever reason. This whole discussion seems to be becoming a black and white issue (pun intended?) which is a problem.

I also think that people are assuming peoples intentions behind their opinions regarding the matter and this is clouding people's view of what others are truly saying.

So, I agree with your above statement.

 

[Tambourine]

By "shot" I do not necessarily mean deadly force. Rubber bullets would suffice. By this I mean that those who attack property people should be incapacitated. I would want to prevent them from moving further for a few minutes as opposed to taking them out for good so that they can be arrested.

Whether someone is the legal owner or not is relevent to your comparison that you made.

Did you know that in the current BLM protests, at least two independent journalists have been harmed by rubber bullets, with one of them permanently losing sight in one eye?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Did you know that in the current BLM protests, at least two independent journalists have been harmed by rubber bullets, with one of them permanently losing sight in one eye?

I have heard about this. For some reason, reporters were being arrested and targeted were they not? Arresting reporters is suspicious.

I checked and there are two people who were hit in the eye. One lost sight and the other lost the whole eye.

 

[Tambourine]

I have heard about this. For some reason, reporters were being arrested and targeted were they not? Arresting reporters is suspicious.

It's not just suspicious, but surprising. Usually reporters are fairly content to report the police's side of any protest to begin with.

I checked and there are two people who were hit in the eye. One lost sight and the other lost the whole eye.

I've read that two journalists were shot, I didn't know that both of them were hit in the eye.

 

[Samael_Khan]

It's not just suspicious, but surprising. Usually reporters are fairly content to report the police's side of any protest to begin with.

Very true.

Apparently dozens of reporters were targeted. I dunno what for.

This makes me suspect because one possible reason is that the police, either of their own volition or being commanded by someone higher, are trying to suppress the press, which could be an attempt at information control, which is not good.

Meanwhile in other places the police joined the peaceful protesters so it isn't a whole police wide problem.