How do you view socialism?

[Starwynd]

I’m personally had it up to here with them.

First of all, people ahve rights to their property. The BoR protects people agaisnt unreasonable search and seizures. But rights to one’s property, including their money, is an alien concept to them and they can not understand that in forcing people to give up their wealth they too are committing a crime against humanity.

I’ve also noticed that there are two types of Socialists, the guilty rich, but those are the minority, and the dirt poor. Whiole I can understand how the poor could feel hostile to the rich, the hypocrisy of the guilty rich saddens me.

They say that one can only live on just enough to help them survive, on what is a neccessity. Just enough to feed people and give them health care. But often times the guilty rich socialist will refuse to give up their own money and big houses and gold pens to feed and help the poor. That makes them hypocrites of a high order.

So they should lead by example, if they want people to live by the means and give by the emans, then they should give up their big houses and golden toilets and live in a two bedroom house. Yet they don’t.

They also can’t understand that in forcing people to give at gunpoint is nto charity, and is nothing more and theft and thuggery. But they don’t care.

People ahve a right to their property, and that inclueds their money. It is not their repsonsibility.

However, to put it in a Christian perspect, God does encourage us to be charitable, and those who give are highly cherished.

A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed.
Proverbs 11:24-25

In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
Acts 20:35

But these are not laws to be enforced at gunpoint. These are vitues.

And one of the greatest holidays of all time is based on the concpet of charity and giving. That is Christmass.

Chairty is the greatest of love, and it should be followed, and valued, but not at the end of a sword.

Often the argument will be “it’s for charity” or “for the common good”

But the greatest of crimes have been in the name of the common good. Slavery, wars of genocide, purging of governments to further one’s own power… so many things have been done in the name of the common good, and I personally have come to hate those words.

 

[ribozyme]

I’m personally had it up to here with them.

First of all, people ahve rights to their property. The BoR protects people agaisnt unreasonable search and seizures. But rights to one’s property, including their money, is an alien concept to them and they can not understand that in forcing people to give up their wealth they too are committing a crime against humanity.
.

But most people are not charitable. People, in general, will not give up a significant portion of their salary to help the poor(let’s say more than 25%)

So they should lead by example, if they want people to live by the means and give by the emans, then they should give up their big houses and golden toilets and live in a two bedroom house. Yet they don’t

No one will do that? How many people will do that?

 

[Starwynd]

But most people are not charitable. People, in general, will not give up a significant portion of their salary to help the poor(let’s say more than 25%)

Of course, but why should they be forced to through legislation or the point of a gun?

That is NOT charity. For it to be charity it must be voluntary.

 

[ribozyme]

Of course, but why should they be forced to through legislation or the point of a gun?

That is NOT charity. For it to be charity it must be voluntary.

Simply because most people are not charitable. It is naive to expect that most people have the capacity for significant charity.

One can justify it by invoking utilitarianism because they money would reduce more suffering in the hands of the poor.

 

[Starwynd]

Simply because most people are not charitable. It is naive to expect that most people have the capacity for significant charity.

That’s no reason to force people to live by their means, just because they are not charitable.

How much of your income are you willing to give up then? Are willing to give up a significant portion of your income to help the poor? Or are you going to fight to keep while lamenting on the rich have so much and must be forced to give it up through legislation and gunpoint?

 

[Mirdath]

Socialism basically would be nice if it had any hope of working for groups big enough to be measured in units greater than dozens. It’s still possible for a larger society to take a few pages from the little red book and do well, though – the trouble is determining how much socialism is just right! Take a bit too much, and you get the UK’s nanny-statism; too little, you get the US economy right now, where reward is privatized, risk is socialized, and just about everybody is screwed.

It’s important to remember that Red Scare or no Red Scare, mere capitalism and socialism are not polar opposites. Die-hard libertarianism – the real ‘up yours, I got mine’ politics – is the opposite of socialism (the opposite of capitalism would be, I’d guess, anarcho-communism, and no I did not make that up). The capitalist US government has many socialist traits: it collects taxes, runs aid programs, maintains infrastructure. Unless you run all the way to one extreme or the other, you’ll always have a bit of Marx in your Adam Smith.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I’m personally had it up to here with them.

First of all, people ahve rights to their property.

I guess thats why the American people are happy to live on a grave yard of native Americans? What happened to their rights?

Nobody has a right to anything but God.

forcing people to give up their wealth they too are committing a crime against humanity.

Wealth and capitalism at the expense of the poor, is also a crime. When you tax hard-working people who have nothing, people who literally spend their whole lives ballancing and worrying on the edge of survival, just so somebody can get their billion dollar bonus this year, this is a crime of emense proportions; regardless of whether or not we ought to pay tax at the demand of the king. I can certainly understand why the Reds want to “rob from the rich and give to the poor”, so to speak. To the poor, the Reds are hero’s; to you, they are criminals. Before i believed in God, i was very intereted in joining a socailist organisation. If i stopped believing in God now, i would probably head in that direction again. For the athesist, Socailism is like a circulor salvation lead by workers power. Its selling point, is that we can have heaven right now in the here and now if we unite and fight back! Peoples power!. They succeed in gaining an influence on the poor becuase they appear to be providing a practical solution which appeals to the senses, whereas the Church is talking about things people cannot see, touch or feel.

I don’t know much about the economical errors of socailism, but In respect of God, the Reds methods for creating a better world seems to be wrong, becuase they suppose that the distrubution of wealth is the key to perfection or paradise; but that doesn’t really deal with the root cause of evil, and it doesn’t mean that the filthy rich are right either. However; I believe that Charitable Love in the form of Jesus Christ and teaching people to care and love eachother in this world is a fundemental neccesity and is the only way to a better world; a world beyond this one. Besides that, the love of Jesus Christ ought to inspire us to ease wordly suffering by sharing our possesions, instead of keeping it all to ourselves. All wealth is stolen if it is not used for the bennefit of everyone. I hate it when the Exploiters and Warmongers hide behind the Church and twist Christian concepts in order to hide their greed. Perhaps thats why the reds wanted to destroy the Church? They seem to have this sneeking suspiscion that the Catholic church is protecting the rich and ignoring the poor. I don’t know.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m personally had it up to here with them.

First of all, people ahve rights to their property. The BoR protects people agaisnt unreasonable search and seizures. But rights to one’s property, including their money, is an alien concept to them and they can not understand that in forcing people to give up their wealth they too are committing a crime against humanity.

I’ve also noticed that there are two types of Socialists, the guilty rich, but those are the minority, and the dirt poor. Whiole I can understand how the poor could feel hostile to the rich, the hypocrisy of the guilty rich saddens me.

They say that one can only live on just enough to help them survive, on what is a neccessity. Just enough to feed people and give them health care. But often times the guilty rich socialist will refuse to give up their own money and big houses and gold pens to feed and help the poor. That makes them hypocrites of a high order.

So they should lead by example, if they want people to live by the means and give by the emans, then they should give up their big houses and golden toilets and live in a two bedroom house. Yet they don’t.

They also can’t understand that in forcing people to give at gunpoint is nto charity, and is nothing more and theft and thuggery. But they don’t care.

People ahve a right to their property, and that inclueds their money. It is not their repsonsibility.

However, to put it in a Christian perspect, God does encourage us to be charitable, and those who give are highly cherished.

But these are not laws to be enforced at gunpoint. These are vitues.

And one of the greatest holidays of all time is based on the concpet of charity and giving. That is Christmass.

Chairty is the greatest of love, and it should be followed, and valued, but not at the end of a sword.

Often the argument will be “it’s for charity” or “for the common good”

But the greatest of crimes have been in the name of the common good. Slavery, wars of genocide, purging of governments to further one’s own power… so many things have been done in the name of the common good, and I personally have come to hate those words.

Better Socialism than Capitalism.​

“Property is theft” - Proudhon (or St. Basil of Caesarea; or both) Property rights are founded on sin, & in an ideal human society there would not be any rights, nor any property - we would be like the Church in the first chapters of Acts.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…
And one of the greatest holidays of all time is based on the concpet of charity and giving. That is Christmass…

LOL. Cashmas is one of the main feasts of that great god the Almighty Dollar/Pound/Euro. There’s plenty of giving: to filthy rich multinationals & other fabulously wealthy emporia. For what ? So that squillions of brats who are already spoiled rotten can have some obscenely expensive toy which will be scrapped within the month.​

That is what Cashmas is really about - charity is just an excuse, a word.

 

[steveandersen]

I’m personally had it up to here with them.

who?

First of all, people have rights to their property.

yes

The BoR protects people against unreasonable search and seizures.

that only applies to about 5% of the world’s populations

But rights to one’s property, including their money, is an alien concept to them and they can not understand that in forcing people to give up their wealth they too are committing a crime against humanity.

Paying taxes established by proper authority is not a crime. It is an obligation.
I seem to recall Someone saying something about giving to Caesar.

………But the greatest of crimes have been in the name of the common good. Slavery, wars of genocide, purging of governments to further one’s own power… so many things have been done in the name of the common good, and I personally have come to hate those words.

Many horrible things have been done in the name of all sorts of “-isms”

Please define your terms; are you suggesting that any social spending is socialism?
Where would you put the traditions of Christina Democracy and Catholic Social Teaching?

One the core functions of government is risk sharing to promote the general welfare and domestic tranquility.
Does that mean that sometimes you have to pay taxes? Yeah.

Is it possible for you not to agree with every spending decision your government makes? Yeah.

Does that make it a crime? Nope.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Paying taxes established by proper authority is not a crime. It is an obligation…

fair taxation as in giving according to what you have got in order to support the “communal whole”, is not in dispute.

I seem to recall Someone saying something about giving to Caesar…

Although Jesus never rebuked Ceasers taxation, He never justified Ceaser. The people were not complaining about nothing, as if to say that Ceaser was being fair, and the Jewish people were being greedy. He said give to Ceaser what is Ceasers, and give to God what is God. When seen in the proper context, that seems to me more a condemnation of Ceaser then a support. Its the same as saying, let him have this dying world; for i have built you a new one. Gods will was more important then the political problems of that age. There were Jewish factions at that time who were looking to Jesus as a possible revolutionary who would physically overthrow the Roman system. Jesus, however, wanted the people of that time to focus more on Eternal Salvation and the building of Gods Church rather then the political climate.

 

[tobias]

The right to personal properly is fundamental to Catholic social teaching, therefore socialism is contrary to Catholic teaching.

The New Testament example sharing all things is an example of communal living and in no way does the New Testament portend to advocate that society as a whole should be modeled after communal living. The opposite is true, we are not to share all things in common with unbelievers.

Taxation is supposed to be for the common good. Taxation to redistribute wealth is unjust. Taxation not for the ‘common’ good is unjust.

 

[steveandersen]

fair taxation as in giving according to what you have got in order to support the “communal whole”, is not in dispute.

You’re not saying from each according to their ability are you?

Although Jesus never rebuked Ceasers taxation, He never justified Ceaser.

He had a wonderful habit of not answering yes or no questions.
Imagine how today’s press would respond to Him?

The people were not complaining about nothing, as if to say that Ceaser was being fair, and the Jewish people were being greedy.

The Pythons delved deeply into the eternal question of “What have the Romans ever done for us?”

He said give to Ceaser what is Ceasers, and give to God what is God. When seen in the proper context, that seems to me more a condemnation of Ceaser then a support. Its the same as saying, let him have this dying world; for i have built you a new one.

True
(That is not an invitation to roll over and ignore evil in this world)

Gods will was more important then the political problems of that age.

or of any age

There were Jewish factions at that time who were looking to Jesus as a possible revolutionary who would physically overthrow the Roman system. Jesus, however, wanted the people of that time to focus more on Eternal Salvation and the building of Gods Church rather then the political climate.

Isn’t that a lesson for the OP?

 

[ribozyme]

Well, if you were Dorothy Day, I’d probably respect your rants against socialism, but I personally doubt you are that charitable.

 

[Oakleaf]

IMHO it is a mistake to confuse politics with spirituality. Politics is of this world. Spirituality is our human relation another Kingdom.

Harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Does that mean stealing from the rich man is a good act? No, because anyone doing that would assume their own moral and spiritual burden.

Yet in the human world, we cannot avoid acting on matters of politics, property, and other people. Even retreating to a cloister is a social act. Tricky, isn’t it?