Before we figure out a way to better rein in the current overconsumption and exploitation that result from every single economic system we have tried ao far.
-
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!
What is wrong with Socialism, or Marxism?
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Before we figure out a way to better rein in the current overconsumption and exploitation that result from every single economic system we have tried ao far.
And religions that ban their use.
Uh huh.
You just said you want the State to mandate contraception and make it a crime if people refuse. You are not in favor of sexual freedom.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I agree. The irony is that Marx woudn't have been a Marxist.
Yup.
I call myself a socialist because that is the correct word for the political and social outcomes I desire. But I know when I say this there is a good chance someone is going to accuse me of supporting totalitarianism, murderous purges, and famines. This is the gift the Marxist-Leninists have left for us.
Still, I know what I want and it is a better world.
It already happens. The State here imposes contraception as a method to control unwanted pregnancies.
Because if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy and asks the State for abortion, she will have to undergo the psychological visit.
And the psychologist will berate her telling her: why didn't you use contraceptives?
and writing a medical file about the patient who didn't use the contraceptives and why.
I suspect you're less socialist than you think.
Why? That's the thing: I don't think I'm less socialist just because I oppose the forms of socialism that led to totalitarianism in the 20th century, nor do I think I'm less socialist just because I favor figuring out what works instead of pulling rigid policies out of a fixed playbook.
It seems similar to when a Christian says they're progressive or accepting of LGBT people and are then told they're "not a real Christian" both by some fellow Christians and by some non-Christians.
If you're in favor of private property (not personal property) and market economics, that's a pretty solid point against you being a socialist, by its most basic definition.
Socialism is obviously an umbrella term that has expanded. All socialists don't agree with each other. If you wanna call yourself a socialist, knock yourself out. The OP seems to be under the impression that European mixed markets are "Socialist States," which...no. They're not. That's what I was replying to initially in this thread.
It's more like someone saying they're a Christian, and when you ask them what they think of Jesus they're like, "He had some good ideas!"
One question: this is the first article of the French Constitution.
La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale.
Tell me please what that "république sociale" means to you. In your words.
Not all varieties of socialism oppose markets or private ownership. However, you would be hard-pressed to find any socialist schools of thought that believed that all or most utilities and means of production should be privatized.
I think we've already established that the OP doesn't speak for anyone but themselves. No, European markets are not socialist, but on a spectrum ranging from libertarianism to communism, they have more socialist elements than the US does, despite still retaining capitalism.
I don't think that analogy holds, since socialism isn't as narrowly defined or delineated as the collection of Jesus' teachings, nor does it have a "central figure of socialism" like Jesus is in Christianity. (Marx isn't a central figure for all socialists either, although he's certainly held up as such by many.)
Here's the rest in context (and English):
"France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be organised on a decentralized basis.
Statutes shall promote equal access by women and men to elective offices and posts as well as to position of professional and social responsibility."
France 1958 (rev. 2008) Constitution - Constitute
France's Constitution of 1958 with Amendments through 2008
I think the Article means France is a liberal democracy. What in the world do you think it means?
It seems you experience the same confusion I've found.
"Socialism" appears to me to be so many things, ranging
from everything or nothing, depending when & to whom
it's discussed. Is socialism an economic system, a dream
of a society, a stepping stone to something else.
Who knows, eh.
But I notice that when self identified socialists criticize
capitalism, it's a narrowly defined thing based on a worst
case scenario.
We live in a post dictionary age.
Thus my point.
Yes, and I said that from the start.
You brought up Christianity as the analogy, I just tried to improve it.
When a central tenet of an ideology (opposition to private enterprise) is opposed, you're on your way out of the label making sense. I get that there are shades of grey. As I said, if you want to label yourself a socialist, go for it.
Indeed, the same latitude is rarely extended to criticism of capitalism in broad strokes. Cest la vie.
I don't believe that most utilities and means of production should be privately owned, but how to achieve public ownership thereof is the question. I don't believe the state can be trusted to act "on behalf of the people" and seize private enterprise and property as in a Marxist-Leninist system, for example.
You brought up Christianity as the analogy, I just tried to improve it.
According to whom is opposition to private enterprise a central tenet of socialism (which, as you correctly pointed out, is an umbrella term)? It is a central tenet of Marxism-Leninism and some other socialist schools of thought, to be sure, but not all socialists are of that disposition.
I'm glad such discussions give everyone a chance to explain their positions and ask others questions, as we've both done here, instead of assuming the details of others' beliefs based on labels. For further info, this is broadly a part of what I support:
Market socialism - Wikipedia
I think it's largely because people get hung up on labels more than anything else. The desire to label, pigeonhole, and lambaste people as "evil" based upon that label seems to be the strongest motive behind it.
When I was kid, people didn't get all worked up about the term "socialist" like they do now. Back then, people got riled over "communism," not "socialism." But nowadays, there's been some revision along those lines. Now, "communism" and "socialism" are considered equally bad, and some people even incorrectly believe that Nazi Germany was socialist, but that's only been within the past 5-10 years that people have been pushing that particular form of revisionism.
I do make distinctions between the various types and degrees of capitalism, ranging from the ultra-libertarian varieties to social democracy and robust welfare states. I find some common ground with most of them, but of course my position has more in common with the latter than the former.
Oh, no...not the oxymoronic "libertarian socialism" again.
There is too little common ground for discussion based
upon using such terminology.
I have noticed a considerable resurgence of Cold War rhetoric following the rise of "communist" China (which now has some of the world's biggest corporations and private enterprises; go figure!) as a peer to the US and the relative popularity of Bernie Sanders and AOC among many voters, whose level of popularity might have been unthinkable a few decades ago. I expect this kind of rhetoric to intensify and help develop the current US-China tensions into a second full-blown Cold War.
I don't think the US will have a self-identified socialist president anytime soon, if ever, but it's clear from surveys and election results that the label currently doesn't immediately put off as many voters or potential voters (e.g., Millennials and Gen Z'ers) as it did decades ago.