vaguelyhumanoid
Active Member
Wow, "modern socialism" strikes me as an oxymoron. Strange, eh?
You must not have heard that a socialist, borderline anarchist territory (Rojava) is currently a major player in the Syrian Civil War...
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Wow, "modern socialism" strikes me as an oxymoron. Strange, eh?
Depends on how old, er "mature", one is.Wow, "modern socialism" strikes me as an oxymoron. Strange, eh?
Having lived through 2 overtly socialist governments I quickly learned that most of their hopes, wishes and dreams are simply hot air.
Which makes me ask why it is that so few ever got "socialism" right? The Scandehoovian's, to a degree, I suppose, but anywhere with a lot of people or are you going to pretend that much of what we now enjoy would not have come about without socialism?Depends on how old, er "mature", one is.
BTW, the Wiki site does go through the various forms of "socialism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism , and you've lived through a lot more than two of them even though probably the ones you're referring to bastardized the original paradigm of socialism.
Socialism developed out of the mess that unbridled capitalism created. In a free-market economy, there will always be those who simply either cannot find a job or can only find poorly paying jobs, and yet capitalism didn't deal with the many problems this created. All one has to do is to open up pretty much any serious history book and look at coverage of what life was like in western Europe and the States back in the 1800's and very early 1900's. Charities alone simply could not and did not meet the needs of people left behind.Which makes me ask why it is that so few ever got "socialism" right? The Scandehoovian's, to a degree, I suppose, but anywhere with a lot of people or are you going to pretend that much of what we now enjoy would not have come about without socialism?
Indeed. Conservatism with a heart meets Socialism with a brain.Because of these problems, socialism was developed to handle the ills of capitalism, and pretty much all countries today are what we call "mixed economies", namely a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Therefore, when someone says "socialism doesn't work", they have no clue what they're talking about.
Except that socialism was and is much more difficult to set up than capitalism, therefore much more "brainy" ,and capitalism historically was not classified as being "conservative"-- it was way too radical for that. "Conservatism" centuries ago was what state control & ownership was.Indeed. Conservatism with a heart meets Socialism with a brain.
And the Sermon On the Mount is a classic narrative on socialism if there ever was one. Jesus would have be fully aware of the work of the Sanhedrin and Temple priesthood in following Jewish Law on taking care of the poor and widows, and yet he took it a step further by saying that one should even be willing to largely empty even their their own personal "pockets". But so many of today's "health & wealth" evangelicals don't seem to be willing to follow him on this.The Book of Acts is very socialist in nature, sprinkled with a smattering of magic and superstition.
And the Sermon On the Mount is a classic narrative on socialism if there ever was one. Jesus would have be fully aware of the work of the Sanhedrin and Temple priesthood in following Jewish Law on taking care of the poor and widows, and yet he took it a step further by saying that one should even be willing to largely empty even their their own personal "pockets". But so many of today's "health & wealth" evangelicals don't seem to be willing to follow him on this.
BTW, ever see the house of Joel Osteen? You might consider googling that as just one example.
While reading the Bible, I noticed hints of Socialism in the New Testament and even the Old Testament. Jesus says 'Feed the Hungry, Clothe the Naked, Shelter the Homeless'. In Luke 3:11, it says "And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”. It is possible that, despite association with Conservatives, it is entirely possible that Christianity is a Socialist faith.
While reading the Bible, I noticed hints of Socialism in the New Testament and even the Old Testament. Jesus says 'Feed the Hungry, Clothe the Naked, Shelter the Homeless'. In Luke 3:11, it says "And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”. It is possible that, despite association with Conservatives, it is entirely possible that Christianity is a Socialist faith.
It's a shame you can't get beyond stereotypes and get into reality of what socialism really is, plus it's probably even more a shame that you don't seem to understand Jesus basic message of compassion and justice for everyone and how this fits into the Jewish paradigm of the day. Instead of checking things out by doing research, all you do is spout the same nonsense over and over again that could easily be corrected if you spent even several minutes on each.Those are not just conservative messages, but what conservatives actually practice, particularly through church.
The Bible does not promote handing over wealth to politicians, which is invariably the exact opposite. aka socialism.
Kim Jong Un is one of the richest men on Earth.
The French socialist president recently said that Trump's excesses make people sick.
This is where he lives
entirely on the taxpayers dime of course, who generally live in buggy old apartments. this is socialism
and precisely the greed and corruption Jesus died fighting against
The Bible does not promote handing over wealth to politicians, which is invariably the exact opposite. aka socialism.
Not likely possible because anarchy always tends to lead towards more authoritarian systems that try and regain control of a society in chaos. However, there is a way to shift more control to both the individual and local governments through a type of Marxism.I'm a socialist and I want to abolish the state... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm a socialist and I want to abolish the state... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If "socialism" doesn't work, then why are most countries in the world successfully using it in conjunction with capitalism?I hear that from many an intelligent & well meaning person. and yet in practice socialism invariably = vastly expanding the state.
There seems to be a very flexible definition, but it always comes down to each new socialist dictator wanting to see their new improved version of socialism imposed on humanity 'for their own good'
which in practice requires the same oppressive state to ram it down everyone elses throats... I guess it's this paradox that accounts for the disastrous consequences of socialism we have seen time and again
I hear that from many an intelligent & well meaning person. and yet in practice socialism invariably = vastly expanding the state.
And of course Classic Marxism is way closer to Anarchy than it is Leninism.You're thinking of Leninism. I'm an anarchist. I've never heard of anarchism vastly expanding the state.
A man who told people to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor and that a rich man cannot get into Heaven certainly wasn't teaching Capitalism or acquiring and hording material items.