A Critique of ‘Five Reasons Socialism Is Not Christian’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
It is nothing new that those who are concerned about poverty, excessive wealth and the need for greater equality are routinely attacked as socialists by those on the right. Astonishingly, the reasons given by Christians of the political right for opposing socialism reflect more of the atheistic, anti-Christian thinking of the radical capitalist Ayn Rand than anything that has to do with Jesus.
This can be seen in a piece written several years ago that has lately been circulating again on social media, Five Reasons Socialism Is Not Christian . No doubt it is making the rounds again because a couple progressive political candidates have been doing well in the primary elections. Not only would no Christian who identifies with socialism accept her definition of what it is, her arguments fall far short of taking the biblical witness –and specifically Jesus’ model and message- seriously.
Tags
Who is online
134 visitors
First, she says, “To socialists. All that really exists is the material world.” She attempts to impose Karl Marx’s atheism on all socialists, ignoring the many faithful Christian leaders who for generations have embraced some form of socialism. In fact Christian writers were advocating versions of socialism before Karl Marx ever penned the first line of Das Kapital. Frederick Denison, Adin Ballou, Thomas Hughes, John Ruskin, and Frederick Dennison Maurice were among them. Many others followed, including Baptist minister and author of the Pledge of Allegiance Francis Bellamy.
In the research done by Harvard professor Dan McKanan , he concluded that as many as 25% of mainline ministers in the United States identified as socialists in the first decades of the 20th century. It can be argued that atheism is more of an aberration than an intrinsic trait of socialism. There are many Christians today who have views which some would label as socialist who would scoff at the notion that their convictions imply that “all that really exists is the material world.” Any attempt to paint socialism as fundamentally atheistic is ignorant and misguided.
Just because the material world is not all that exists does not mean we should not take the material world and its problems seriously. Inequality is a crucial concern that demands the attention of anyone who takes seriously the admonition, “Love your neighbor as you love yourself” (Mark 12:30-31). In fact a tremendous amount of suffering is the result of an unequal distribution of wealth and many troubling social issues are associated with gross economic inequality. This has been well documented .
The developed nations with the worst wealth inequality are also the ones with the highest infant mortality rate, highest murder rate, largest prison population, most substance abuse, and the lowest life expectancy, among other things. As the author of the above named article states, “The Bible says the cause of suffering is sin.” Yes. And gross inequality is an expression of sin. Repentance is needed, personally and corporately.
And as the Book says there was war in heaven, one has to ask if fundamentalists Christians expect more of the same competitiveness which is endlessly raging in the Earth to groan over them in the spiritual home/realm of their God. Capitalism, in its purest and flawless form, is not a system rooted in love of anybody.
Pretty sure that those with very low IQs and who watch Fox shouldn't be listened to.
Pretty sure that those with very low IQs and who watch The MSM shouldn’t be listened to.
Many studies have been done that show that those who watch fox are actually less informed about world events than those who watch no news at all.
Most religions, especially Christianity, are technically socialist.
Socialism: noun - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
The only difference is that Churches are a social organization that advocate the means of production, distribution, and exchange of salvation owned and regulated by their community Churches as a whole. Everyone is supposed to pay into the Church so it can dispense salvation to all and charity to the elderly, poor, widows and orphans.
So while many of their parishioners whine and complain about socialist programs the government suggests where everyone is supposed to pitch in for a program that helps the poor, they happily toss their cash into the collection plates to make an outward show of their supposed faith as well as supposedly securing some heavenly benefits. I guess just paying taxes that go to help the poor isn't visible enough for them so they feel they are getting cheated out of their self-aggrandizement.
Jeez, and here I was always told they were communist.
And here I always thought that religions were religious, and socialism was political.
Some of the local cops, firefighters and paramedics understand socialism.
Pretty sure that all religions are at the very least socialist.
Scientology?
Well, Jesus did say in Mark 12:17 to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God. And Jesus never directly condemned the wealthy. Jesus said that the wealthy have condemned themselves.
Christians denouncing socialism shouldn't be that surprising. Socialism is collective pursuit of wealth; the collective condemns itself according to the teachings of Jesus.
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." - Matthew 19:21
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19:24
Considering it says "Again I tell you", it appears that may have been a common theme in his teachings.
Not quite Robin Hood. Or Karl Marx.
Not quite Milton Friedman.
I look at it the other way around: Milton Friedman was no Jesus!
Yup.
Yup.
Here are the lyrics:
Jesus Christ
Words and Music by Woody Guthrie
Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land
A hard-working man and brave
He said to the rich, "Give your money to the poor,"
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave
CHORUS:
Jesus was a man, a carpenter by hand
His followers true and brave
One dirty little coward called Judas Iscariot
Has laid Jesus Christ in His Grave
He went to the preacher, He went to the sheriff
He told them all the same
"Sell all of your jewelry and give it to the poor,"
And they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.
CHORUS
When Jesus come to town, all the working folks around
Believed what he did say
But the bankers and the preachers, they nailed Him on the cross,
And they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.
CHORUS
And the people held their breath when they heard about his death
Everybody wondered why
It was the big landlord and the soldiers that they hired
To nail Jesus Christ in the sky
CHORUS
This song was written in New York City
Of rich man, preacher, and slave
If Jesus was to preach what He preached in Galilee,
They would lay poor Jesus in His grave.
Great song and addition!
The problem being that jesus never existed.
Yes, he does!
That's nice. Prove it!
Why do you think he needs to prove it to you?
He made an affirmative claim, so that invites a challenge to the claim. I'm pretty sure this has been explained to you before.
So, STILL doing the exact same thing over and over and over and over, expecting different results, I see.
Sheer genius!
I don't expect different results. Addressing a challenge would require a degree of intellectual honesty, which is demonstrably lacking. But that doesn't mean an affirmative claim will go unchallenged.
Your many "That's nice. Prove it." comments tell a far different version of that story.
Why do you think Gordy has created his consistent retort? It is a pithy challenge in response to the endless stream of declarations of truth.
If there was a gnostic atheist on NT (I do not think there are any) and that person were to post 'God does not exist' as often as some gnostic theists here post the certain existence of the Christian God, I doubt that you would object to someone offering: "That's nice, prove it" in response to the utterances.
It's just a logical response to an affirmative claim. It's funny how you criticize me for repeating my challenge, but you say nothing to those repeatedly making the same claims. One making such a claim repeatedly, without any evidence or proof to back it up, but thinking it's factual or true seems to correspond to the definition of insanity.
I find it HIGHLY illogical to ask the same thing over and over and over, knowing what the answer will be. Doesn't sound at all sane to me, but that's just me, I suppose.
Doubt what you wish.
I can't control that, nor wish to.
I find it illogical to make the same claims, as fact, over and over without supporting evidence. Illogical and intellectually dishonest.
That is fantastic!
Well, Texan, one can ignore the endless stream of religious declarations of truth or one can challenge them.
Gordy chooses to challenge them. Seems reasonable to me. If the declarations were not made, there would be no need to issue the challenge.
Yes, the answer will be deflection / personal attack / strawman / .... pretty much everything other than a direct, thoughtful answer. Curious, right? Someone routinely makes declarations that one cannot possibly back up. And even when challenged, the declarations continue to be made.
Now, maybe it is just me, but if I cannot back something up I try to not make a claim. If I state something (especially if I am stating it as a certainty) I make sure that I have a supporting argument based on facts and reason. Very much like thinking a few moves ahead while playing Chess.
I am perpetually fascinated by minds that seem to not care about whether or not their claims are actually justifiably true.
Glad you think so.
I am perpetually fascinated by people who do the same things over and over and over, expecting different results.
Especially the "logical" ones who participate ion such nonsense.
And yet, you say nothing to those who perpetually make the same (or very similar) claims without evidence. It's fascinating how you seem to defend them or give them a free pass while criticizing those who challenge those claims.
No rebuttal.
Imagine a gnostic atheist posting ' God does not exist ' seeds and sprinkling that unsubstantiated declaration throughout comments.
I can see you not challenging this individual.
And it is right here where the deflection begins. . . . From here on Texan is "doing the exact same thing over and over and over. . . ." The deflection itself is now 'the thing' happening.
I can't help how YOU interpret my coments.
If "I am perpetually fascinated by people who do the same things over and over and over, expecting different results." means I am giving someone a pass, then that is merely YOUR perception of what I wrote.
Your proclamations are worthless IMO.
Declarations of certainty, especially those that are ridiculous, will be candidates for challenge. Better get used to it, because as the declarations continue, so will the challenges.
[deleted]
No rebuttal, no surprise. Just continued complaining.
You know, I should change my god/s probably not existing article to "God/s do not exist!" Then see what happens. LOL
Funny how you dont say anything to those who make the same affirmative claim over & over again. Instead, you focus on me.
I imagine a grown adult with the intellectual honest and fortitude to support their claims or address a challenge to them by providing evidence, rather than simply dodging them.
Go for it!
I will assume you can prove what you claim--like you expect others to do, right?
It's fair. Require some believers to hone their biblical explanatory skills at the least. It can only help them. Besides, it's not good enough to fire off a "novice" level reply and abruptly speed away going nan-nan-nan-nan-nan.
Already dressed that issue with you. Once again, asking the same thing over and over when you know what the answer is.
Illogical.
Nah. I already wrote an article dealing with the idea of no god/s. Making a declaration of certainty in that regard is logically indefensible.
But, of course, that is not what is taking place. You continue to ignore that we are talking about declarations of certainty. That is profoundly different from expressing a belief.
You also seem to always forget that this ultimately ties back to critical thinking and the propagation of nonsense based on faith alone. Prime example is the systemic attempt to deem evolution pseudoscience, deem all dating methods to be bullshit, etc. and instead indoctrinate young minds with idiotic notions of dinosaurs coexisting with human beings, immunization being bad, Earth is 6,000 years old, ignore AGW concerns because God has our back, etc.
Then that makes this comment rather inane:
Always the brilliant argument: 'nuh uh'.
No, you didnt. I didn't see you call anyone out for making repeated claims of certainty. If you did, point our where because I must have missed it. All you've done is ignore that while focusing on my challenge to claims, repeatedly. Illogical indeed.
More like facetious.
I would love to see a non-believer actually learn tolerance towards people who believe, I would also love to see people quit trying to "recruit" people to a religion.
I accept your non-belief just as easily as I accept others' beliefs.
If someone believes something, then that is just what they believe, and endless attempts to change their minds is pointless and rather childish.
While some seem to enjoy it, I do not.
Be honest now Texan. If Gordy was a gnostic atheist (and he most definitely is not because he is rational) who routinely proclaimed 'God does not exist!' would you support me in challenging that assertion? That assertion is a claim of certainty and thus bears the burden of proof (or at least solid evidence).
If repeated as often as we see the gnostic theistic declarations would you stay silent or challenge?
Rhetorical question.
Yes, I did. But I can't understand it for you.
I resent your fucking implication.
Gordy is free to make whatever claim he wants. I am not here to convince anyone of the existence of God. Nor do I particularly CARE whether one believes or not. I find it rather pretentious of people who badger others for their beliefs. Why would I try to convince someone who doesn't believe in a God that there is a God? Or convince a believer that there is no God?
You did? Perhaps you can cite your post so I can review it?
Texan, virtually everyone of my friends and family are Christian or Jewish. There are no issues. I understand their beliefs and largely why. I also never challenge them. The most I will do is provide information that they may not know. Catholics, for example, are notoriously ignorant of the Bible. But this must be done gently with family and friends. Also, my father-in-law is a life-long believer. His faith brings him comfort. I would never, under any circumstance, say anything to him that might upset the comfort he has.
But that is real life. Now turn to social forums.
On NT, we have a social forum. This is the proper venue to engage in (ideally) thoughtful debate. Unlike with my friends and family, there are individuals on social forums who make sometimes absurd claims of certainty. This forum is the perfect place to debate those claims.
Social forums are not venues where we are supposed to be ultra politically correct and bite out tongues. These are precisely where we shed all that dishonesty and directly, candidly engage others (ideally not getting personal and not playing slimy games). Only on venues such as NT is it even possible to have such debates. Same with politics by the way.
Those who participate in forums such as NT should already know the nature of the beast. If one puts a comment out for public scrutiny it is unrealistic to expect everyone to stay silent so as to not ruffle feathers.
So challenging a claim is badgering now? If people are so sensitive about tear beliefs or claims, then perhaps it's best if they don't put it out there, as a declaration of certainty, for it to be challenged.
Yes---for the second time. How many times do you need to read it?
Perhaps you can go back and read all of the posts?
What does tolerance have to do with anything? Challenging a belief/claim made in a discussion forum is intolerant?
'Be honest now' is a cliche. I have noticed a number of members have grown a hair trigger over the past few weeks. Still hypothesizing as to why.
Strawman. I did not ask that. I asked if you would challenge an incessant series of claims that God does not exist:
Routinely, direct questions are not answered and instead negative (even angry) responses appear in deflection.
Yes--if you do it repeatedly and already know the answer.
I did. Still dot see it. Perhaps you can cite the specific post?
Bull.
yet more bull--and there you have fallen to your usual position that anyone who would dare to disagree with you is presenting "strawman" arguments. Phfft.
I didn't CLAIM you stated it, so why are you acting as though I did?
Yes, I can see that is true in many of your posts.
We're done here.
No, it's not. A challenge is simply the logical response to a claim of certainty. It doesn't matter how often the claim is made.
Please stop asking the same thing over and over when it is readily available if you simply choose to look.
We're done here.
And you yet again resort to anger-ridden commentary while refusing to actually answer the question:
I suspect most everyone can see why you would be uncomfortable answering my question. If you actually did provide a direct honest answer (which of course would be 'yes') you would concede my point. Cannot have that, eh?
Thank God.
And now the deflection ends. . . . Everybody all caught up. LOL!
You said I didn't understand. That's why I asked you to point out the specific post. Why is that so difficult?
So you're deflecting then. So noted.
any questions?
thieves get shot
any questions?
Yes-- do you have a link for that?
Sure--took all of two seconds.
Google "Man shot while breaking in".
https://wreg.com/news/man-shot-while-trying-to-break-into-apartment-on-spottswood
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2020/01/03/man-shot-while...
https://www.newsbreak.com/.../man-shot-while-allegedly-trying-to-break-into-brea-home
https://www.pjstar.com/news/20190424/police-man...
Is socialism in any way, Christian or Christ-like? Yes. No. Maybe.
any more questions?
So many words. . . . Thank you. Moving on.
truth requires few words. bs requires more than that.
Not so fast. Is socialism in any way, Christian or Christ-like? Yes. No. Maybe.
Do you guys have the same definition for 'socialism'?
That is a fair question. And I understand the need to ask it perfectly. I phrased the question with a qualifier, "in any way (in any part or portion) Christlike or Christian?" What comes back is deflection - nothing to build a proper context sentence on.
I doubt you will get a definition; just pointing out the futility of the exchange.
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
policy: a political and economic system of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
I already answered your question and I don't jump thru hoops for anyone.
You have a superficial view of socialism. But I am not going to try to explain this in a post given I have an entire article on this very confusion.
For the local purposes, you then define socialism as forced redistribution of wealth.
Okay, CB, that is what he apparently means by 'socialism'.
define socialism or we have nothing to talk about.
all the top dictionaries agree with me so, im good either way.
Churches in totality, especially mega-churches, are non-profits and do not pay taxes to the state. Are non-profits a type of socialism or capitalism?
I'll leave your force factor for others to cover.
first, define what socialism is to you.
and then I will answer your question
This is between you and CB. As I stated, I defined socialism in detail in my article (and you participated). If you want to discuss this with me you can always post to my article and have rich context.
Good grief, dictionary level understanding. Yeah, I am most definitely talking about a more nuanced definition than what one can find in a dictionary. See my article.
link please.
that along with ample study of history and what socialism has done
so, if your version of socialism does not match the dictionary overview or historical facts and you try to redefine it as some benign and/or benevolent system worthy of praise? [Deleted]
capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system. period.
every version of socialism is theft. prove me wrong, bring the link.
I do not have a version of socialism. My article discusses theoretical socialism distinct from systems merely labeled as socialism which do not even match the dictionary definition much less the body of work that is socialism (based on the critical analysis of capitalism by Marx). A dictionary is simply a starting point for understanding such topics.
Is there something in the water? There are a number of conservatives on NT who seem (to me) to be walking around with a hair trigger lately. Anyway, from your comment it looks like you would point to the former USSR as an example of socialism. Right? Venezuela too? Red China? Is this what you think is socialism? Or are you thinking that socialism is the social democracy in place across Europe? Or do you think that socialism is statism and that public services are examples of socialism? Or maybe socialism to you is forced redistribution of wealth? Something else maybe such as a purely egalitarian society?
Since you cannot locate the article on your own: What is Socialism?
For purposes of this discussion, I am willing to go along with the descriptions and statements on Tig's link (when he shares it with you) as a definition of socialism. I do so, because I am not wanting to get into a full-blown socialism versus capitalism discussion here.
That is not what we are doing here. This article asks questions about socialism as it relates to the Christian faith. For this question we have to discern if the Gospel is more about sharing and caring, or is it about self-interest and greed.
You wrote: @ 6.2.1
Which led me to ask:
@ 6.2.4 Is socialism in any way , Christian or Christ-like?
In the New Testame nt: Acts 2.
That is a portion of what the Bible says about the people of 'the Way.' People who later became known as Christians. They shared; they were of one mind; they were being "added" to by other newly minted believers.
A caveat. Does that make capitalism bad? Of course not! However, one could say being of "one mind" is a good thing too. All things being equal.
NOTE: I don't want this frame of thought, above, to get lost in a 'search' for pure socialism or pure capitalism.
we call that pseudointellectual bs. or simply mental masturbation.
im not interested in either.
My article is not a simple definition, it was intended to distinguish theoretical socialism from all the contradicting systems that have been labeled as 'socialism' over history. The article takes the dictionary definitions down to the next level.
I would suggest this for you two here. Most people think socialism is:
The various perceptions of socialism seem to draw from the above ... and they are contradictory.
Which of these define socialism for you? Magic 8 could do likewise (pick those which define socialism for him). None of these are defining characteristics of theoretical socialism, but I see no chance that you two will discuss at that level here.
Given @6.2.18 I think I was correct when I suggested this is an act of futility.
Exactly the kind of response I expected from you. That viewpoint, no doubt, is why your understanding of socialism seems to be stuck at the dictionary and slogan level.
might be a while.... LOL
like you, tig has declined to define socialism
seems im the only one around here willing and capable of defining socialism.
hint: use a reputable dictionary
when you define socialism you can discuss it with me.
sorry, I don't do abstract bs.
this is the real world. and we use a real dictionary to define things
if you can not define socialism how can you compare it to anything else?
I would encourage you to go beyond a mere dictionary when trying to understand concepts like socialism. The dictionary is just the beginning of the process.
Fascinating. I even gave you a link to my article (did you read @ 6.2.16 ?) and you still make such declarations.
what is fascinating is you claim to have some high degree of understanding of socialism but you can not define it in a conversation as I did. you keep saying what it is not but are unable or unwilling to simply say what socialism is
I know what socialism is and I know what socialism is not. I don't need you to tell me.
im not interested in your theory...
I am only interested in what actual socialism does to a country in the real world.
see venezuala for a most recent example of socialism -
the bottom line is simple. every dictionary out there is more credible than you
prove me wrong, define socialism without saying what it is not or comparing it to something else
in practical, not theoretical terms - what is socialism?
What is fascinating is that I routinely offer a definition for socialism on NT. Unless you really have not paid attention you would have seen it multiple times. As I told you, I do not intend to debate socialism here but rather encourage you two to get synched on what you mean by socialism before talking about it.
Socialism, going beyond the dictionary into a summary of its intent can be defined as follows: a socio-economic system wherein the people democratically control the productive resources of the economy. By 'the people' this does not mean 'the state'. It means that control over the productive resources of the economy is decentralized and in the hands of the citizens. Critically this means that there is no minority control over the productive resources of the economy.
As I figured. Venezuela is an example of state capitalism. Venezuela expropriated private industry and tried to run it by force of government. It also tried to control the economy (command economy) rather than employ market forces (market economy). Critically, the Venezuelan people themselves never had any control over the productive resources of the economy. The state irresponsibly redistributed wealth and effectively destroyed the economy.
And you somehow think this is socialism and that it matches even the dictionary definition. Compare Venezuela with what you offered @6.2.8:
If you think the Venezuelan people (the community as a whole) owned/regulated the MoP/D/E then you have not been paying attention.
BS put all your "theory" aside and stay in the real world.
Venezuela has a dominant-party system , dominated by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela
the big question: how does a decentralized populace control anything?
btw, as a capitalist, I have maintained complete control over my production my entire life and am unwilling to share that burden with "the citizens"
I am a builder, if I needed more money I built a house and sold it. (currently retired)
You are going by mere labels . Exactly as I noted. If a dictator labels his system as ' socialism ' you simply adopt that without a thought?
Read my article (as if ...
). Better yet, do some serious reading on this topic from third party sources. Get beyond the slogans, understand the critical analysis of capitalism by Marx and then read up on theoretical systems of socialism that have been proposed.
Note, there has never been an actual system that implemented socialism. And if you understood the critical analysis of Marx you would realize why. All that has been implemented is the label for various contradictory systems. I f you think the Venezuelan people (the community as a whole) owned/regulated the MoP/D/E (even per your simple definition) then you have not been paying attention.
LOL your smarter than the whole world and all of recorded history huh?
seriously, anyone who claims socialism has never been implemented, can not be taken seriously
just move along and go play in your theory world. you have no credibility left.
Again, so many words. . . . I think we are done here. Not much beneath the surface. Moving on.
It takes no effort, really, for someone to look at how 'the whole world' defines socialism and realize that the definitions are contradictory and all over the map. Again, dictators claim 'socialism' as a label and then implement a system that never had the intent of economically empowering the people. You simply buy their bullshit and accept whatever they produced as 'socialism'. And when these empirical definitions contradict each other (and often even the dictionary definitions), does that even raise a question in your mind?
Clearly there is zero interest in thoughtful discussion.
like I said above.
truth requires few words and is easily defined.
BS takes more words than that - including whole diatribes and even theoretical articles.
these are facts
like all facts they only require a few words.
trying to contradict any of those facts will take more words than that,
about facts? yes, theory? not so much.
saying socialism has never been implemented? not thoughtful discussion
move along now, go impress yourself with your theory somewhere else.
I do not intend to have that debate with The Magic Eight Ball (MEB) either (as you can see - it can't even get kick-started anyway). This article, "A Critique of Five Reasons Socialism is not Christian," is not about socialism, per se. (I read it.) It is about Christianity and socialist concepts—more or less.
This is what I am asking MEB to get onboard and respond to. To be more direct: MEB is talking about sharing as a means of theft and Jesus resisting sharing (on a large-scale). He has not written in this manner, nevertheless, as he appears to be on more of a 'war' footing than topic.
forced sharing is also known as theft
if socialists think we will just share our labor with the collective without being forced to do so? simply laughable not to mention unconstitutional. this country was built on individual ownership and individual rights which is not compatible with socialisms "collective ownership" agenda
even if we elect a socialist as president, the federal government can only regulate interstate commerce. they not regulate intrastate commerce. meaning many states will tell the feds to fuk off like they did with obamacare, and eventually, those plans will die at the supreme court.
socialists can expect nothing but disappointment. it is not happening here without much bloodshed first
saying socialism is christlike? complete bs
Clearly you have nothing to offer.
That's close-minded. Granted it will take you time and effort to sound out something new and other to your attitudes and way of looking at this world. That is no reason for not doing so, however. It's okay to feel and be vulnerable. In some fashion, you are among friends here.
We can handle those slings and arrows and we can accept sweet hot rolls and butter—all in the form of discussion. All intending to grow us, thereby. Allow a member you cross paths with to grow you and vice-versa.
as usual, ya have that backwards....
just move along now. like the flat earth theory, your socialism theory does not interest me one bit.
Buy a vowel man. This is pathetic.
So now you think socialism is social democracy? You are all over the map.
no, that's fact.
if people want to build a new economic system? I suggest they drop the word socialism. the world has tried that form of theft many times. getting past the historical facts, the millions dead, and other damages caused by and attached to the word socialism will be impossible.
got something new? get a new name for it.
See now this is exactly what I was getting at earlier. You are drifting off-topic. It is easy to do, however. Because of passion. The seed for this article strives with itself as it makes references to socialist concepts, Jesus, and politicians in the current election cycle. However, when you condense it down its direction and targeted statements are about the Christian worldview relating to sharing on a societal scale.
socialism is theft.
prove me wrong - still waiting.
give an example of your version of socialism and how it does not require force to implement? or just move along
You're hacking down a tree in a forest that we're not working on today. (Smile.) Well, time for a "reset." Breathe. . . .
stop deflecting...
give an example of your version of socialism and how it does not require force to implement? and therefore christlike?
or just move along
take your time. be back in a few hrs or so.
cheers
RESET :
last chance....
give an example of your version of socialism and how it does not require force to implement?
and therefore christlike?
how to end a socialist conversation?
make them define socialism first... LOL
Now you're being self-indulgent.
or pointing out the obvious.
if one can not define socialism in a small paragraph they are not qualified to talk about it.
this is not the first time I have watched a conversation end just by asking them to define socialism.
and my bet is = it won't be the last.
You make this demonstrably false claim after I provided you @ 6.2.16 with my article: What is Socialism? which contains definitional and descriptive content more than what can be properly contained in a comment. You refused to read it and complained about a definition. I then directly gave you this:
And I provided much more content on this topic. In result, you have been provided far more than you ask and yet you come back and claim that you have not been provided even a definition.
Your claim is a proven falsehood. What prompted you to make such an obviously false claim?
CB observed your responses to my serious comments and probably decided that engaging you would be pointless. If so, I agree with him and you just demonstrated why.
[deleted]
Brilliant
And your comment @ 6.2.48 is proven to be a deliberate falsehood.
Amazing. I just quoted my definition and you blindly follow with this nonsense.
[deleted]
we covered that...
decentralized citizens can not control anything.
btw employee owned business is a product of capitalism and is done every day in the usa
socialism is not a few people pooling their money and resources to start a business
socialism is an economic system that requires govt backing and force.
Good then you admit that I did indeed provide a definition and that your allegation was false.
Claims are useless; you need to make an argument with facts and reason. If you want to actually discuss socialism theory you should go to my article where a proper context is established. This is waaaay off-topic here.
Correct in that it has been implemented within capitalist economies. Do you think anyone has claimed otherwise? It is also a characteristic of socialist theory. It is not a defining characteristic, but modern theories all include it.
Correct. Who suggested it was?
False. See my article. Unless you define 'force' as law, but then you would have to say that capitalism requires force.
explain exactly how decentralized citizens can control the productive resources of an economy without force of govt?
because like you said... claims are useless.
That is why I linked you to my article back @ 6.2.16 . What is Socialism?
Basically it is akin to how citizens can control who represents them or if they will allow a dump in their proximity without force of government. But I am not going to get into a deep discussion as part of another article. I told you that upfront.
as in who represents them... in govt?
or who they vote for to control the resources for them? (like federal, state, and local govt does now)
take your time... back in a few hrs
A clueless false claim. Explaining a concept is not ipso facto defense. Buy a vowel.
You seem to be defining socialism as that exemplified by the former USSR. Is that it or do you have some other definition? Be clear, so that I know what you are talking about. Based on your characteristic of 'evil' it is clear you are not talking about socialism as I defined it here. If you are talking about authoritarian, single-party rule based on a command economy then you are trying to engage me with a naive slogan level understanding of this concept. The former USSR was a brutal, oppressive regime and its system was terrible; the polar opposite of enabling the people (aka workers) democratic control over the productive resources of the economy (Marx' objective). If you deem that as socialism then that illustrates you have no understanding of this subject matter.
Bizarre grammar aside, to get people to think about what they mean by 'socialism' and to avoid crying 'socialism' at every turn. To get people to at least realize that the various superficial definitions of socialism tossed about are contradictory. To encourage the use of better, more accurate terms such as statism, redistribution of wealth, expropriation, command vs market economy, social democracy, etc.
That refusal to even put forth an attempt to learn is why I make these challenges and engage in these discussions.
Pretty funny that you of all people would make such a claim.
You have my article. If you demonstrate serious intent to discuss this in my article I will respond accordingly.
which is long on words, short on details, and also not the topic.
all ya gotta do prove socialism does not require force of govt and is therefore christlike. (which btw is not covered by your article)
so, stop deflecting... I asked a simple question.
you said...
as in who represents them... in govt?
or who they vote for to control the resources for them? (like federal, state, and local govt does now)
can you even answer a simple question?
That is as far as I am going in this thread. As I have told you, I am not going to open this thread into an even more detailed discussion of socialism. If you seriously want to get into this then take it to my article. If not, I know you are just playing games. (As if there is any doubt ...)
Given I have been answering questions all along, this is just juvenile taunting; as if anyone needed evidence that you are not serious.
seems you cant prove socialism does not require force of govt and is therefore christlike. (which btw is not covered by your article)
so, go ahead, move along.
Flat out false. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
so ya say... LOL
"claims are useless"
cheers