K
Kaninchen
Guest
I think that’s actually ‘communism’!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Montalban
Guest
The phrase ‘each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ is from Marx. But the principle of wealth redistribution is also Socialist.I think that’s actually ‘communism’!
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers’ councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
K
Kaninchen
Guest
As was seen so clearly in the Workers’ Soviets (‘soviet’ = ‘council’) in Ancient Egypt with Pharaoh as the First Secretary of the Party.The phrase ‘each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ is from Marx. But the principle of wealth redistribution is also Socialist.
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers’ councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
M
Montalban
Guest
How has your absurdist invention undermined the evidence from Acts?As was seen so clearly in the Workers’ Soviets (‘soviet’ = ‘council’) in Ancient Egypt with Pharaoh as the First Secretary of the Party.
Acts 4:34
There were no needy persons among them…
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Err, I was commenting on another post where somebody had considered ancient Egypt a socialist society (something I had considered a somewhat questionable notion).How has your absurdist invention undermined the evidence from Acts?
As you might understand, my knowledge of Christian scriptures is hardly encyclopedic but are you saying that you’re all supposed to be establishing a society based on common ownership of the means of production and supply and distribution on the basis of need?Acts 4:34
There were no needy persons among them…
I have to say that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of evidence of much effort in that direction.
M
Montalban
Guest
Well you quoted me!Err, I was commenting on another post where somebody had considered ancient Egypt a socialist society (something I had considered a somewhat questionable notion).
No. The Bible’s not a political road-map. However we gain glimpses of what the Apostles did and that was socialistic - in regards distribution of wealth. How they ran other things, I can’t comment.As you might understand, my knowledge of Christian scriptures is hardly encyclopedic but are you saying that you’re all supposed to be establishing a society based on common ownership of the means of production and supply and distribution on the basis of need?
Only what Jesus said on the poor, and what it says in Acts and a few others such as 1 Timothy 6:3 ff with special regards to…I have to say that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of evidence of much effort in that direction.
1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Well, you’d gone to the trouble to provide a technical definition!Well you quoted me!
I’m sure that there are all sorts of examples of groups who have behaved in cooperative, mutually supportive ways throughout history and I expect that many of them inspired groups like the ‘Christian Socialists’ who were so important in the development of the British Labour Party (and Australian?).
We do run into the very definition that you provided, however. How far can they be described as ‘socialist’ if:
Of course, we’re not using the American definition of ‘socialist’ which has its surreal aspects.Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers’ councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.
M
Montalban
Guest
Indeed, because you said it was Communist. If anything it was closer to SocialistWell, you’d gone to the trouble to provide a technical definition!
Indeed, and that’s why some can be said to be proto-communistic or proto-socialistic; the Diggers, and the Levellers for exampleI’m sure that there are all sorts of examples of groups who have behaved in cooperative, mutually supportive ways throughout history and I expect that many of them inspired groups like the ‘Christian Socialists’ who were so important in the development of the British Labour Party (and Australian?).
Unfortunately the party here changed its name from Labour to Labor (as if it removed the ‘labour’ part of its basis, just like when a certain company changed “Fried” to “F” to become KFC - to hide away a component of its name).
The Australian Labor Party, which I joined when I was 16 (but no longer a member) once advocated for the democratic socialisation of labour.
I can’t speak for an American definition.Of course, we’re not using the American definition of ‘socialist’ which has its surreal aspects.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
The ‘abilities’/‘needs’ formula was what Marx described as the higher phase of Communism - the end game of the whole process, the end to contradiction, I guess.Indeed, because you said it was Communist. If anything it was closer to Socialist
While I’ve never been a socialist I think that rumors of the death of democratic socialism are a bit premature - I expect we need a few swings of the economic pendulum before anybody could be sure of that.
I think it’s a rather nebulous concept.I can’t speak for an American definition.
M
Montalban
Guest
I already noted Marx with respect to that line in a previous postThe ‘abilities’/‘needs’ formula was what Marx described as the higher phase of Communism - the end game of the whole process, the end to contradiction, I guess.
My own problem with socialists is that as far as morals go they’re too ‘liberal’.While I’ve never been a socialist I think that rumors of the death of democratic socialism are a bit premature - I expect we need a few swings of the economic pendulum before anybody could be sure of that.
Although I’m half-American, I don’t feel knowledgable on this to comment.I think it’s a rather nebulous concept.
G
Greg27
Guest
I would agree with these arguments, up to a point. I would agree a lot of the terrorist violence we are seeing from Islam has its roots in having to confront the West, but it is also helpful to remember a lot of the violence we have seen in the Islamic world in the past 30 years has also been by Muslim against Muslim. In Iraq, the majority of violent deaths are now being caused by Muslims from one sect killing those from another sect.As a Jew living in Europe, when thinking of Islamic countries (or Islam in general for that matter) I believe that we really need to shift ourselves back to mindsets in ‘our world’ that existed in the 19th and 20th Centuries.
Judaism’s internal crisis with the ‘Modern’ produced new movements and even more reasons to row with one another but we were too small a group to affect anybody else. The experience of Christian societies in the face of the ‘Modern’ shattered old ‘certainties’ and generated a search for substitute ‘certainties’ – violent nationalism, imperialism, communism, revolution and fascist/authoritarian reaction that devastated Europe – and created in the aftermath of the Second World War something of a dread of ‘certainty’ and an aversion to people who believe in it.
I’d suggest that what we see in the Muslim world is very much a product of its inability to deal with the ‘Modern’ – they want the toys but not the world that created them. It’s as if they can’t create an ‘agenda’ for the future so they’re driven back onto old certainties like ‘honor’ and being continuously/continually affronted by anything that could possibly be considered as an affront.
In other words, what we’re seeing are societies (with odd, small exceptions) in a kind of existential crisis – not something to be appeased but not something to be surprised about. We’ve all ‘been there’ and suffered consequences - industrially, in the Jewish case.
Violence has always been used as a political tool for gaining power, and this seems to occur in all religions. Each religion in way makes a total claim on reality as a whole as well as laying out a system of how humans are supposed to act. The problem of course, is when people completely disagree with you to the point you have no ground in common.
To me the current violence in the Islamic world is similar to the violence which occured in Europe during and after the Reformation. Islam is in a way having its own ‘Reformation’ as sects are fighting against other sects, each claiming to have the only real truth and path to salvation. I think the situation has not fully unwound itself yet and I think as was the case in the West, we will start to see a combination of pragmatic leadership and sober thinking start to realise the value of peace over endless warfare and sectarian violence. However, it may well be decades and even centuries before this process comes to an end.
M
Montalban
Guest
Terror has been with Islam since it’s earliest daysI would agree with these arguments, up to a point.
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
P
Peregrino
Guest
Most Americans on this board will refuse to acknowledge the differences you have given between socialism and communism. Most of the Americans on this board consider socialism and communism to be the same as totalitarianism and any other despicable historical dictatorship they can come up with…Of course, we’re not using the American definition of ‘socialist’ which has its surreal aspects.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Having lived in America, I’m not entirely ignorant of the wondrous range of things that Americans are capable of labeling ‘socialist’.Most Americans on this board will refuse to acknowledge the differences you have given between socialism and communism. Most of the Americans on this board consider socialism and communism to be the same as totalitarianism and any other despicable historical dictatorship they can come up with…
It seems to have the same sort of magical implications that the word ‘America’ has amongst radical Muslims.
P
Peregrino
Guest
lol. I have never thought about it before but you are absolutely right. At this moment I will refrain from commenting on the similarities between the two sets of “extremism”.Having lived in America, I’m not entirely ignorant of the wondrous range of things that Americans are capable of labeling ‘socialist’.
It seems to have the same sort of magical implications that the word ‘America’ has amongst radical Muslims.
M
manualman
Guest
I fail to see how the example of the apostles in Acts can be labeled as ‘socialism.’ Those earliest christians erroneously expected Christ to return at any moment. They did not cooperatively operate the means of production, they liquidated all assets and expected to be able to live off the proceeds until Jesus’ return. Those are two very different things!
Since we’ve just defined that the definition of socialism must involve the cooperative ownership of the means of production, this rules the apostles out, no?
Since we’ve just defined that the definition of socialism must involve the cooperative ownership of the means of production, this rules the apostles out, no?
E
estesbob
Guest
How about wwhere Paul says that those who do not work should not be fed?How about in the Book of Acts where all the believers gave money to the Apostles to hand out on a needs basis back to the community -each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
B
Booklover
Guest
Were the Early Christians Communists?
It Was Not Obligatory to Hand Over One’s Possessions to the Apostles
“In reality, the community of goods in the primitive Church coexisted perfectly with private property: The supposed ‘communism’ of the first Christians is a historical error. It suffices to attentively read the texts of Saint Luke (in the Acts of the Apostles) in order to be convinced of this as is seen in this commentary:
“The community of goods resided fundamentally in the disposition of each one of the faithful in looking at everything that belonged to him as belonging to all. In practice, the rich, to the degree necessary, would sell some of their properties, hand over the sum to the Apostles, and thus, under the direction of the heads of the Church, help to establish a common fund of goods destined to provide for the needs of the poor. In this way, indigence did not exist among the first faithful. But, as one sees, all this leads to the supposition that private property existed alongside this sentiment of extraordinary generosity, and was even necessary so that the common fund of resources could be unceasingly replenished to meet the needs of the Church that arose."
Vickie
It Was Not Obligatory to Hand Over One’s Possessions to the Apostles
“In reality, the community of goods in the primitive Church coexisted perfectly with private property: The supposed ‘communism’ of the first Christians is a historical error. It suffices to attentively read the texts of Saint Luke (in the Acts of the Apostles) in order to be convinced of this as is seen in this commentary:
“The community of goods resided fundamentally in the disposition of each one of the faithful in looking at everything that belonged to him as belonging to all. In practice, the rich, to the degree necessary, would sell some of their properties, hand over the sum to the Apostles, and thus, under the direction of the heads of the Church, help to establish a common fund of goods destined to provide for the needs of the poor. In this way, indigence did not exist among the first faithful. But, as one sees, all this leads to the supposition that private property existed alongside this sentiment of extraordinary generosity, and was even necessary so that the common fund of resources could be unceasingly replenished to meet the needs of the Church that arose."
Vickie
M
Montalban
Guest
Where’s it say that?How about wwhere Paul says that those who do not work should not be fed?
Forced labour, perhaps?
M
Montalban
Guest
Then they must have been socialist - if they allowed for private property.Were the Early Christians Communists?
It Was Not Obligatory to Hand Over One’s Possessions to the Apostles
“In reality, the community of goods in the primitive Church coexisted perfectly with private property: The supposed ‘communism’ of the first Christians is a historical error. It suffices to attentively read the texts of Saint Luke (in the Acts of the Apostles) in order to be convinced of this as is seen in this commentary:
“The community of goods resided fundamentally in the disposition of each one of the faithful in looking at everything that belonged to him as belonging to all. In practice, the rich, to the degree necessary, would sell some of their properties, hand over the sum to the Apostles, and thus, under the direction of the heads of the Church, help to establish a common fund of goods destined to provide for the needs of the poor. In this way, indigence did not exist among the first faithful. But, as one sees, all this leads to the supposition that private property existed alongside this sentiment of extraordinary generosity, and was even necessary so that the common fund of resources could be unceasingly replenished to meet the needs of the Church that arose."
Vickie
Actually communism when it started in Russia still allowed for private property. Later (under Stalin) they did exterminate the land-holding peasants (Kulaks) but that wasn’t at the beginning (under Lennin)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.