Religion and Socialism

[F1fan]

Not at all. Hitler had some values very differs from Marxism most notably it nationalism. However he had and used many socialist concepts also.

You seem to be playing to areas where various eco-political philosphies overlap. The USA has functioned with socialist ideas since it's inception, namely pooled resources for shared benefits.

Centralized government control over the economy, nationalized pension plans etc are all very much socialist.

Then the USA has been socialist for many decades. We haver a central bank that helps manage the economy, and we have social security to help support the elderly. No credible people have any interest in getting rid of these. Rand paul is one of these fringe folks, and his ideas are not taken seriously by anyone. I suspect much of his bluster is to just get attention.

Liz Cheney hates trump, but to argue that she never was a republican would be quite inaccurate. Yea we can easily see where she and the bulk of the party split off, but there is still much the same.

Luther had some serious issues with Catholics, but he was clearly very Christian.

And there are even diverse groups that have shared ideas. There are ideas that both republicans and democrats share, like supporting Ukraine. but if you try to define them both via that single idea you could easily say "See, McConnel supports Ukraine so he's a democrat." This is what you are doing with single ideas and trying to make them indicative of Nazis, or socialists, or whatever. More accurate assessments looks at numerous traits that togther indicate a socioeconomic philosophy. You are being lazy.

 

[Kenny]

The vast majority of them identify as Christians, and even those that don't for some strange reason still align themselves with evangelicals who push a theocratic agenda.

I don't see anyone pushing a theocratic agenda. (Not saying there aren't some)

 

[SomeRandom]

I don't see anyone pushing a theocratic agenda. (Not saying there aren't some)

I’ve seen it on the international news (Aljazeera) and on my own county’s news stations over the last year in particular.
Usually it’s met with, oh those are just extremists types.
But it’s getting more and more frequent all the same.

Little disconcerting to be completely honest with you.
Speaking of disconcerting, didn’t that Q conspiracist lady (Marjorie Taylor Green) get an official government seat?
That lady makes even Pauline Hanson look sane and yet she’s a US government politician?!! That’s at least worthy of a yikes! Regardless of one’s political views

 

[Truth in love]

Hitler demolished democracy and literally sent women back into the home. Neither of which are socialist ideals.
He also placed himself atop a complex and unquestionable hierarchy, in direct opposition to actual socialist ideals.

Now I’ll grant that he used government to control the citizenry and economy and all the rest. But that’s because he was a literal dictator. Right or left, all dictators do that. It’s basically in the job description. It’s not a socialist thing it’s a dictator thing.

Socialists want a centralised government to control the economy and what have you, sure. The idea is that the government is supposed to represent the people’s best interests and the state should divide profit evenly among the citizenry, and provide care and ensure everyone has equal rights.
You can call that naive if you like and despite being a filthy lefty myself, I would be inclined to agree with such a statement. To be honest. But Hitler still used the government in direct opposition to actual socialist ideals all the same. Using it to give himself power and keep it, subjugating the citizenry and “helping” his buddies (whilst hyper aware of their penchant for backstabbing.)
He wasn’t a socialist is my point.

Similarities are easy to find but they’re not necessarily an indicator of folks being the same thing.
Dictators such as Hitler use such government control for their own self interest and to keep their power. Occasionally giving crumbs to the people to appease them. (Although it’s debatable if he even did that much.)
As do most if not all politicians to some extent
But that doesn’t mean all politicians are necessarily dictators. I mean some might be inclined if given half a chance. But not all
(At least one would hope!)
Okay that might be a bit pessimistic of me. But still. That there might be a little bit of overlap doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things.
I’m sure Pauline Hanson and Anastacia Palazczuk could find things they both agree on. To say they belong to the same political party because of that is at best overly simplistic.
And truth be told would result in supporters of either of those ladies to laugh uproariously at such a notion. I’m just saying

Okay so the core point I’ve been making seems to be something we do agree on

 

[Truth in love]

Nationalism/patriotism is a right wing tactic. There's some cognitive dissonance going on in your arguments.

Not at all, Nationalism tends to be right Socialism tends be left (using the less than great system). The Nazis employed both.

 

[Truth in love]

Nationalism/patriotism is a right wing tactic. There's some cognitive dissonance going on in your arguments.

I find this notion much more useful in terms of political ideologies. People draw their ideal line in different places, but rather than splitting based on terms it’s about how much choice I have

 

[SomeRandom]

Okay so the core point I’ve been making seems to be something we do agree on

In that there is some overlap in political strategies (in extreme cases)?
I suppose so. Sure.
But Hitler was not a socialist in any meaningful sense of the word.
Unless every country in the world is socialist?

 

[Truth in love]

In that there is some overlap in political strategies (in extreme cases)?
I suppose so. Sure.
But Hitler was not a socialist in any meaningful sense of the word.
Unless every country in the world is socialist?

Nearly. It make it pretty darn scary seeing people push to turn America into such a place.

 

[SomeRandom]

Nearly. It make it pretty darn scary seeing people push to turn America into such a place.

On that we agree.
(Likely for different reasons.)
But still. Let us be glad to have that much at least

 

[Sand Dancer]

I find this notion much more useful in terms of political ideologies. People draw their ideal line in different places, but rather than splitting based on terms it’s about how much choice I have


View attachment 66443

Oh sorry, I read your comment wrong.

 

[idea]

I reject those conclusions.
I worked for years in my Churches charity systems. As a social worker I’ve also been a part of the government systems.
The government has deep pockets, but it’s systems are very inefficient and tend to promote long term dependence.

The church system helps people quickly. Is not bogged down in complex paper work and tries to help people rise above their situation.
Help with rent, food, medical care, transportation, job skills, mental health etc etc etc

I would add that I have observed a lot more love and acceptance between giver and receiver in the church system vs government.

Many welfare needs are not quick to resolve - long-term care for mentally disabled people for example, care for elderly etc.

A quick Google for US

In FY 2021 total US government spending on welfare — federal, state, and local — was “guesstimated” to be $2,397 billion, including $762 billion for Medicaid, and $1,635 billion in other welfare.

Google religious charity... its not 2,397 billion.

"

• About 10 million tithers in the US donate $50 billion yearly to church & non-profits.

Church And Religious Charitable Giving Statistics.

50/2397... and there are still mentally handicapped homeless people, still kids unable to attend college, still unmet medical needs... 50 doesn't cover much, religion has not taken care of their brothers and sisters.

 

[Ella S.]

Your are ascribing problems to capitalism that can be there, but that are not required.

They seem pretty inherent to capitalism to me.

Capitalism had done a far better job of putting food and medicine on the table than socialism.

The only way you can genuinely believe this is if you have never had to face severe health issues or poverty in a capitalist country, and also refuse to listen to the people who have. Or, perhaps you just don't really know very much about what it's like living in socialist countries?

In capitalism I work to better my situation and I choose to help others. In Socialism the choice is removed. No matter how much work or don’t I remain poor. This discourages work at best.

When the 1% in capitalist countries spend most of their money expanding their corporate interests and buying luxurious houses, cars, and clothes, I think assuming that capitalism leads to people choosing to help others has been sort of debunked. It incentivizes competition. That's actually the point of capitalism; it's about market competition, which is selfish, not cooperative.

The fact that you chastize socialism for not providing a selfish incentive to work actually demonstrates that point for me. Under capitalism, you can't even conceive of any prosocial or cooperative reasons to want to contribute to your community. And socialism is the evil one?

Communism and Socialism are the same core system. Just one has a nice paint job and pretends to not be the other.

Nope. Communism is a cashless, classless, and stateless society. Socialism is an economic system where the workers own the means of production.

Under socialism, there can still be classes, cash, and states, and every example of socialism in the real world has had these, as far as I know.

Marxist-Leninism, as a Communist praxis, talks about using a socialist dictatorship as necessary state between revolution and Communism. This is what you're arbitrarily conflating with both socialism and Communism, but that's not what these words refer to.

The recurring drum beat of Socialism in the US, Venezuela and many other nations is to project greed onto the rush person and claim that they need to be blame for others being poor. It’s greed in the harts of many that they are not satisfied with what they can work for and want a government monster to destroy the person doing better.

Again, you think it's greedy to want to have job stability and access to one's basic needs and healthcare? That actually sounds to me like you're the greedy one for justifying denying people those things.

You know that, under socialism, people still have to work, right? They just aren't 3 bad months away from going homeless like they are under capitalism.

 

[Truth in love]

Many welfare needs are not quick to resolve - long-term care for mentally disabled people for example, care for elderly etc.

A quick Google for US

In FY 2021 total US government spending on welfare — federal, state, and local — was “guesstimated” to be $2,397 billion, including $762 billion for Medicaid, and $1,635 billion in other welfare.

Google religious charity... its not 2,397 billion.

"

• About 10 million tithers in the US donate $50 billion yearly to church & non-profits.

Church And Religious Charitable Giving Statistics.

50/2397... and there are still mentally handicapped homeless people, still kids unable to attend college, still unmet medical needs... 50 doesn't cover much, religion has not taken care of their brothers and sisters.

1. If people were taxed less they would have more to give.

2. if we had a healthier society we would have a lot less disability. Much of our problems are the result of Childhood trauma. https://osg.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/266/2020/12/Cost-of-ACEs_CA_OSG-Report_12092020.pdf

 

[Truth in love]

They seem pretty inherent to capitalism to me.



The only way you can genuinely believe this is if you have never had to face severe health issues or poverty in a capitalist country, and also refuse to listen to the people who have. Or, perhaps you just don't really know very much about what it's like living in socialist countries?



When the 1% in capitalist countries spend most of their money expanding their corporate interests and buying luxurious houses, cars, and clothes, I think assuming that capitalism leads to people choosing to help others has been sort of debunked. It incentivizes competition. That's actually the point of capitalism; it's about market competition, which is selfish, not cooperative.

The fact that you chastize socialism for not providing a selfish incentive to work actually demonstrates that point for me. Under capitalism, you can't even conceive of any prosocial or cooperative reasons to want to contribute to your community. And socialism is the evil one?



Nope. Communism is a cashless, classless, and stateless society. Socialism is an economic system where the workers own the means of production.

Under socialism, there can still be classes, cash, and states, and every example of socialism in the real world has had these, as far as I know.

Marxist-Leninism, as a Communist praxis, talks about using a socialist dictatorship as necessary state between revolution and Communism. This is what you're arbitrarily conflating with both socialism and Communism, but that's not what these words refer to.



Again, you think it's greedy to want to have job stability and access to one's basic needs and healthcare? That actually sounds to me like you're the greedy one for justifying denying people those things.

You know that, under socialism, people still have to work, right? They just aren't 3 bad months away from going homeless like they are under capitalism.

Actually my family faced serious health issues and the state system condemned my child. The “evil capitalist” gave money so they could get the care they needed.

They seem pretty inherent to capitalism to me.



The only way you can genuinely believe this is if you have never had to face severe health issues or poverty in a capitalist country, and also refuse to listen to the people who have. Or, perhaps you just don't really know very much about what it's like living in socialist countries?



When the 1% in capitalist countries spend most of their money expanding their corporate interests and buying luxurious houses, cars, and clothes, I think assuming that capitalism leads to people choosing to help others has been sort of debunked. It incentivizes competition. That's actually the point of capitalism; it's about market competition, which is selfish, not cooperative.

The fact that you chastize socialism for not providing a selfish incentive to work actually demonstrates that point for me. Under capitalism, you can't even conceive of any prosocial or cooperative reasons to want to contribute to your community. And socialism is the evil one?



Nope. Communism is a cashless, classless, and stateless society. Socialism is an economic system where the workers own the means of production.

Under socialism, there can still be classes, cash, and states, and every example of socialism in the real world has had these, as far as I know.

Marxist-Leninism, as a Communist praxis, talks about using a socialist dictatorship as necessary state between revolution and Communism. This is what you're arbitrarily conflating with both socialism and Communism, but that's not what these words refer to.



Again, you think it's greedy to want to have job stability and access to one's basic needs and healthcare? That actually sounds to me like you're the greedy one for justifying denying people those things.

You know that, under socialism, people still have to work, right? They just aren't 3 bad months away from going homeless like they are under capitalism.

"The only way you can genuinely believe this is if you have never had to face severe health issues or poverty in a capitalist country,"

I'm going to give you an aware for making one of the most poorly informed statement I've ever seen posted in my life (Which is really saying something).

I live in the US. I've been in poverty, my family has faced serious medical issues while on medicaid, I've also worked in jobs that were more or less 100% medicaid funded. I was not nearly as opposed to such systems back in the day. I have watched time after time as the system of "help" condemned people to suffer and die. So back up that assumption train. I've seen the failures, the tears etc. that that system imposes.

Capitalism is imperfect and can be greedy, but it can also be kind. A few years back I watched people with lots and little bits of money rally around a small child medicaid condemned to a life of disability and suffering. Capitalism without a spiritual or religious guide would be a problem. On the other hand with it we get some great results. And I'll take that over going North Korea, Venezuela, NAzi etc. any day of the week.


"can't even conceive of any prosocial or cooperative reasons to want to contribute to your community. And socialism is the evil one?" Once again no. I've studied systems and people can be giving, but if people are so inclined why do the socialist system force it? I'm all for the caring for others giving mindset. I'd love to see more. But just as surely as rape is not the start of a healthy relationship. Socialism will not promote charity.

 

[metis]

I think they work in conjunction. I believe there is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism... someone called it capitalism with a heart - which is compatible with what Jesus shared.

All "socialistic" societies in today's world use a mixture of both.

 

[Ella S.]

Actually my family faced serious health issues and the state system condemned my child. The “evil capitalist” gave money so they could get the care they needed.

"The only way you can genuinely believe this is if you have never had to face severe health issues or poverty in a capitalist country,"

I'm going to give you an aware for making one of the most poorly informed statement I've ever seen posted in my life (Which is really saying something).

I live in the US. I've been in poverty, my family has faced serious medical issues while on medicaid, I've also worked in jobs that were more or less 100% medicaid funded. I was not nearly as opposed to such systems back in the day. I have watched time after time as the system of "help" condemned people to suffer and die. So back up that assumption train. I've seen the failures, the tears etc. that that system imposes.

You're right, I shouldn't have assumed that you were a kind person who genuinely wanted what's best for other people. I should have given more thought to the idea that you have had to deal with hardship, and you simply don't care about other people who deal with it.

I'm sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Truth in love]

They seem pretty inherent to capitalism to me.



The only way you can genuinely believe this is if you have never had to face severe health issues or poverty in a capitalist country, and also refuse to listen to the people who have. Or, perhaps you just don't really know very much about what it's like living in socialist countries?



When the 1% in capitalist countries spend most of their money expanding their corporate interests and buying luxurious houses, cars, and clothes, I think assuming that capitalism leads to people choosing to help others has been sort of debunked. It incentivizes competition. That's actually the point of capitalism; it's about market competition, which is selfish, not cooperative.

The fact that you chastize socialism for not providing a selfish incentive to work actually demonstrates that point for me. Under capitalism, you can't even conceive of any prosocial or cooperative reasons to want to contribute to your community. And socialism is the evil one?



Nope. Communism is a cashless, classless, and stateless society. Socialism is an economic system where the workers own the means of production.

Under socialism, there can still be classes, cash, and states, and every example of socialism in the real world has had these, as far as I know.

Marxist-Leninism, as a Communist praxis, talks about using a socialist dictatorship as necessary state between revolution and Communism. This is what you're arbitrarily conflating with both socialism and Communism, but that's not what these words refer to.



Again, you think it's greedy to want to have job stability and access to one's basic needs and healthcare? That actually sounds to me like you're the greedy one for justifying denying people those things.

You know that, under socialism, people still have to work, right? They just aren't 3 bad months away from going homeless like they are under capitalism.

Actually my family faced serious health issues and the state system condemned my child. The “evil cap

You're right, I shouldn't have assumed that you were a kind person who genuinely wanted what's best for other people. I should have given more thought to the idea that you have had to deal with hardship, and you simply don't care about other people who deal with it.

I'm sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt.[/QUOTE


Wow it seems that adult conversation is beyond you. You can keep your falsehoods to yourself.

 

[Kenny]

Where did this happen? I ask since the USA doesn't have socialized medicine, so where and when was this that happened to you?

US does have a socialized medicine program called Medicare as well as Obamacare.

This happened last week in Fl.

My comment was both judgmental and true.

No, it is your viewpoint. Maybe true for you but not a categorical "true".

My criticism has two parts: 1. that Christianity as a religion does not have a consistent, moral message that pressures believers to a consistent moral behavior, and 2. that conservatives have evolved into an extremist group that not only avoids helping the needy and global concerns, but they are actively hostile to them. Republicans are hostile to women's reproductive rights, to helping the poor, to healthcare access, to helping immigrants resolve their desire for a better life, to denying climate change, to denying voting access, to over-reliance on far right Christian beliefs as we see on the Supreme Court and republican politicans.

Christian conservatism is an utter moral failure that not only doesn't hel solve problems humans face, but it is making life worse. Fortunately republicans who have been exploiting extreme Christian ideas, like banning abortion, book banning, denying racism (because Baptists were very much slave owners in the Confederate South), etc. are seeing a backlash in many places as we approach the midterm elections. Americans want freedom and liberty, not forced to live under Christian extremism.

Definitely your opinion. Too many "wrong" to address all .

Just to take one. We love helping immigrants. We just want it legal and controlled to where we can actually help immigrants and certainly vet them to make sure we aren't letting in people with ulterior motives.

Your position is so skewed as to show blindness in your viewpoints.

 

[metis]

US does have a socialized medicine program called Medicare as well as Obamacare.

... and defense spending, national highway system, lifetime healthcare for most federal elected officials, federal agencies, etc. etc, etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... and defense spending, national highway system, lifetime healthcare for most federal elected officials, federal agencies, etc. etc, etc.

Historically it is claimed that states and taxation was to have better armies.