lukethethird
unknown member
Did you read the story, it's about ruling by fear and intimidation.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Short story about communism; Acts 4:32
- Thread starter lukethethird
- Start date
And I'd call that a tyranny, regardless of what economic system it claimed.
lukethethird
unknown member
Yes, it can apply to any system, and the tyranny is condoned by St. Peter and the early Christian church, according to the story.
Once we abandoned our hunter-gatherer lifestyle, we became disturbingly hierarchical. Actual democracy seems very difficult.
lukethethird
unknown member
Yes, a good theory in principle, difficult to maintain in practice.
In practice there seems to be always one "great" leader, for example if you look at China, or Soviet Union...
They're not Communist. They're not what Marx described in his Manifesto, or in Kapital. They're not what the American left is advocating.
A tyrant can call himself socialist or communist easily enough, many do, but mistaking a totalitarian state for a socialist democracy is a mistake.
Judge a government or economic system by its fruits, not its labels.
I think that is a good idea. Unfortunately, by what I see, the fruits of socialism are always in practice misery poverty for the people and one totalitarian ruling class. It can't make anyone prosper.
You miss my point. When most people hear "socialism," they think Soviet or Chinese tyranny and oppression. When a Socialist says socialism, they're thinking of Denmark -- or, perhaps, the post-war, pre-Reagan US.
I think that is wrong, because Denmark and other Nordic nations have been Christian nations. And the Christianity has affected so that people have wanted to help others freely. When the Christianity is removed, you get what was in Soviet Union or what is in China. The difference between a Christian and a socialist is, Christians thinks, "how can I help others", Socialist thinks, "how others should help him". Things work as long as about 50 % people think like Christian, but when it is removed and people think like socialist, the collapse of the society begins.
Despite their history of Christianity, Denmark, and western Europe in general, is much less religious today than the US and much of the rest of the world. Religiosity seems to track security.
I don't think Christians necessarily have any greater claim to civic coöperation or altruism than any other religious system.
No! This is exactly the opposite of what we mean by socialism. This sounds more like capitalism.
Socialism is about fairness, equity and caring for others; of sharing wealth produced fairly with those who produce it, of making sure everyone's needs are met. Socialism is family values writ large. It's a system of, by and for The People, as Lincoln said.
Historically, Christians have not been known for adhering to the values Christ preached. That would be the socialists.
The history of Christianity is one long narrative of war, rapine, repression, cruelty and tribalism.
Wasn't Jesus a socialist? Didn't he advocate all sorts of pro-social values? I heard he even advocated owning all things in common.
Socialists, unlike capitalists, do think like Christians -- or at least espouse the values Christ preached.
People are social animals. Society is a social arrangement. Socialism is pro-social.
Soviet and Chinese style "socialism" is hierarchic, exploitative, repressive and totalitarian -- exactly the opposite of "social."
Difficult to see any meaningful difference. But, I agree, Europe and I think also US is nowadays much less Christian than for example 1945. And I think all western countries are going towards self destruction because they have rejected the values.
It is interesting, where do you get those ideas?
It is almost funny how things get mixed up into formless mess. Pure capitalism is only that people have right to own. It is equal, because all people have that same right. It is fair, because all have that same right and are also free to prosper with their own work.
It is unfair, when someone comes and says, "you have to give half of what you just earned by your own work", as socialists that I know essentially do. System is not equal, if some don't have to work and others have to work for them like slaves, as in socialistic systems it is usually.
In practice socialism is legalized theft, because it gives right to take someones property. I think it is utterly evil ideology.
I don't think he was socialist, because he didn't force people to give what they have and he even said:
"the laborer is worthy of his wages"
Luke 10:7
In Finland where I live, socialists think that laborer must give vast amount of that to government that then gives small amount of it for the poor that the government made by its socialist policies.
Social is not same as socialism. And in any case people "live collectively in interacting populations", which means in social environment.
But, maybe "capitalism" and "socialism" are not good words anymore, because they have become so vague and can mean almost anything. Therefore I say, I think people should be free. If person must pay taxes, he is not free but a slave. Often people who support that slavery call themselves socialists.
If they're going toward self destruction it's because they're repeating what happened in the '20s and '30s, when social and economic problems let to a political shift to the Right, most notably in Italy, Germany, Spain and.... Russia (yes, I said Russia).
When you abandon democracy for authoritarianism, you are moving toward self-destruction.
Reading books on economics, history, sociology, psychology, &c. Watching online lectures, &c.
Capitalism is more than a right to own.
People are not equal. There is not a level playing field. Prosperity through hard work is a popular meme, but it's a fantasy. Left unregulated, society will sort itself into an economic hierarchy.
Not sure what you're saying, here.
Those owning the tools: fields, machines and factories -- the means of production -- are in a position to exploit. The workers, who use these means, generate wealth, for the owner, who may - or may not -- share the wealth generated with those who produce it.
In a capitalist economy, the workers are just another tool. Successful capitalism involves minimizing the costs of production and maximizing profits for the owners and stockholders. The workers are costs of production.
The owner classes are dedicated to insuring their workers have no other options, so must accept whatever the owners demand.
Who is socialism stealing from? Socialism is sharing wealth among all who generate it. Socialism is shared ownership of both the means of production and the wealth generated. Where is the theft?
He advocated equality, co-operation and "family values." He lived in a communal band, sharing a common purse. He was a Hippie.
Who is "the government," and how did it 'make' the poor? Socialism, historically, reduces the poor, and creates an égalitarian middle class.
From the point of view of an American, Finland is a radically socialist country, with happy, prosperous people, and no tents lining the streets. Socialism seems to be working for you.
Socialism is the same as social. How not?
How are people to live together in a society -- which our population necessitates -- if everyone is completely individual; everyone concerned only with his own interests?
We are not bears. We are a social species, whose prosperity is generated by our co-operation.
How are we to prosper without making concessions to the needs of our neighbors?
Democracy itself doesn't make society good, or protect it from evil. It can be majority tyranny. And modern democracy is easily made to work for the benefit of elite, not for the people.
Economic hierarchy seems to be in all human societies, even in communistic. I think it is not equal when some people have to work for other people as in socialistic systems they have to work. I think it is slavery.
I think governments job should be to quarantine human rights and freedom. This means, all people should have possibility to found own job, factory and own own means of production. Obviously, they also should have freedom to choose to work for someone else, if they want. In all cases there is some owner, person who decides how the means are used. I think the best would be that people are free to own and work as they want.
But, I think it is funny how it is usually seen that limited company is capitalism. But, perhaps it is the purest form of communism, because in that people can really own the company collectively by shares of the company. There is no government in the middle to suck wealth from those who work in that itself.
I think minimizing the costs of production and maximizing profits is the benefit of everyone who works, if he is paid fairly for that. And I think it would be good to have that goal. I think goal should be that people work only that much as what is necessary.
I think governments job is to ensure that people are free. If workers have only one option, the government is the problem.
If all generate wealth, there is no need to share, because all generate wealth. But, "You see, in this world, there are two kinds of people, my friend: those with loaded guns and those who dig...." - Clint Eastwood. In practice, in socialism, there is two kinds of people, those who work, and those who benefit from the workers. This means, there is government, that steals what people earn and then share some leftovers of what they collected.
If you think socialism is something else, I don't think it exists in this world.
Unfortunately I have not seen that to happen.
If Finnish people are happy, it must be because of weird sense of humor, not because of socialism. Finland is not prosperous, it is heavily in debt and I expect it to collapse soon, if there is no radical change for better.
But, perhaps it is wrong to call Finland socialistic. I think we have here all bad sides of both "socialism" and "capitalism". For example we have "free public healthcare". If you are adult and use it, you have to pay. But, maybe that would not be a problem on itself. In addition to that, we have also healthcare system for workers (occupational health care), arranged in "capitalistic" way. Most use the occupational health care system, because it is better. And no, that is not all, in addition to that, one can have separate health insurance. So, person can have three systems going on for him. I would say it is not reasonable. It would be better to choose one and not pay 3 times for same service.
I'm not clear what you mean by "modern democracy."
Democracy, at least, provides a bulwark against exploitation.
For example, the US today is not a democracy, as the Princeton study illustrates. Government has been captured by Corporate interests.
Name some communistic human societies.
I think you're misrepresenting communism.
In socialist systems people do not work for other people. That's capitalism.
Are the communist Hutterites slaves?
In socialism people work co-operatively, make business decisions co-operatively, and share any wealth generated co-operatively. The means of production is owned co-operatively, so cannot benefit any single group or individual. Socialism is economic democracy.
But the "socialists" that so disturb the capitalists are not even advocating advocating pure socialism. We happy with a mixed economy, with a socialized commons, and capitalist businesses.
All well and good, but government's job should also be to curb the abuses and exploitation free trade is prone to. Left unchecked, businesses eat each other, monopolize, and you get the wealth trickling up to the oligarchs, a shrinking middle class and stagnant wages.
Government should be We the People. It should be "of, for, and by" The People. Dedicated to the prosperity of The People. It should protect the interests of The People from the exploitation of the "Economic Royalists."
The workers are a cost of production, so is workplace safety, toxic waste disposal, product safety, &c. This is a recipe for low pay and stagnant wages; for market consolidation and oligarchy
Free in what way?
Isn't it also The People's (government's) job to manage the commons, ensure access to utilities, police protection, fire protection, Safe food, water and pharmaceuticals; education, healthcare, clean air and water? Isn't it government's job to guard against exploitation, ensure fair wages, workplace safety, prevent monopoly, regulate banks, and, basically,
"promote the general welfare?"
It's not just generating wealth, it's who the wealth goes to. In Capitalism, most of the wealth goes to the owner class, and, as you said, the owners seek to minimize the cost of production, ie: wages, workplace safety, pollution regulations, &c.
It exists mostly in small groups and companies, with a few larger corporations like Mondragon.
But, as I said, what we're advocating isn't pure socialism, it's socialization of natural monopolies and the commons, and private ownership of non-essential enterprises
I mean with "modern democracy" the system where rich people sponsor politicians who then work for the benefit of those sponsors. Even if there would be honest election system, which I don't believe, the rich can quite well set the nominees and then we can pretend that people chose democratically.
But, in the case of US, maybe it should be noticed that it is a republic, not a democracy.
I think only acceptable job for government is to protect freedom and human rights. I think that goes also against exploitation, if it limits persons freedom, meaning, if person is for example kept as a slave. If person has made a deal that the both parties were happy to sign, it is not exploitation, even if some outsider would think it was not the best deal.
Riders
Well-Known Member
I think the word commune is the root word of communism. Everything belonging to the group no one owning anything is communistic.
I think this is the ideal. Politics, imo, tends to screw everything up.
No disagreement here.
It's a constitutionally limited, representational, democratic republic -- in theory. In fact, it's an oligarchy.
But if a government's only job is to protect freedom -- whatever that entails -- it also frees exploiters to exploit, polluters to pollute, and corporations free to consolidate into a single entity, eliminating competition and individual enterprise; controlling all commerce.
There's more than one way to organize slavery.
If people are free, they can always found a new, a better company, and reject the evil enterprise. Also, if people are free, they can stop buying stuff from the evil company. If someone controls all, the system is not free. If people are free, they can walk away from exploiters.
Pollution is perhaps more difficult question, because tyrants of our time can define normal breathing as pollution. But, also in this case, I think best way is that people are free and if they think someone produces stuff in a bad way, they just don't buy it. That is very democratic way to decide what is good, when people vote with their own money.