Our Ignorance of Socialism is Dangerous

[Jimbo]

The Republicans can’t seem to do it, the Democrats cant do it. Americans, and I love America, should forget about nationalism, the crazy right and left fringe groups in control and look at those happy countries where things seem to make a little bit more sense and say to themselves, “we can do better.”

I really think the parties have worked hard to divide us and appeal to our worst natures. The dangers of faction are showed well by the current Rep’s and Dems.

I can’t vote for any of them. In my state the Reps are reprehensible; undercutting regulation, gutting legitimate public sector areas, and screwing around with electoral districts. Their social policies are both unwise and divisive. So no vote from me.

On the other side the Dems are so enamored with 'progressive’ness, abortion, and regulating their own version of morality that I cannot vote for them. How do you vote for a party which dehumanizes and entire group (the unborn) so they can be killed?

No one would think of saying ‘Oh yeah, Senator Smith has a great tax policy and is wonderful in terms of his support of public works, so we’re just going to avoid his pro-segregation stance…’

but they tell me all the time to ignore a politician who supports abortion.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Twenty-five percent of millennials who know who Vladimir Lenin was view him favorably.

I think it’s hard not to respect Lenin, and the Bolsheviks generally.

Now that I have your attention, a lot of the general discourse surrounding the issue of “socialism” bothers me, especially that which normally comes from Americans. A lot of countries are often brought up, and the economic and political similarities between the nations normally aren’t clear, besides the use of the term “socialism.” It seems odd to criticize Democratic Party “democratic socialists” because the USSR was repressive, for example. What’s the connection, besides that both identified with the term “socialism?”

 

[RCIAGraduate]

@JimG, how would you respond to those who might be appealed to socialistic systems due to the fact that they or even others they know face economic insecurity or are in precarious financial situations. For example, what if a student is burdened with crippling student loan debt, or a worker who loses their life savings due to trying to pay off expensive health bills or those who are failed imperfect safety nets such as lacking help or support they need. If not socialism, or socialistic programs (social democracy), what options are there for them?

 

[cathapolo]

A good site in this regard is in the following: https://thejosias.com/

 

[JimG]

If I could solve the economic problems of the world, I might try to do it, but then I might also end up being as tyrannical as any despot who thought he knew how to solve everything. I thought the article by Walter Williams was thought provoking and deserved to be considered. In the article he also references Prof. Bradley Birzer from Hillsdale College and links to his article. Here is a quote from the Birzer article:

“Almost all historians ignore the most salient fact of the 20th century: that governments murdered more than 200 million innocents, the largest massacre in the history of the world. Terror reigned in the killing fields, the Holocaust camps, and the gulags.” Source

It has always seemed strange to me that from the 1920’s onward, so many people were so enamored of governmental systems that killed, oppressed, and starved so many of their own people while promising to better their lives.

As for me, my favorite U.S. President was Calvin Coolidge, who actually reduced the national debt.

(It was mentioned by a previous poster that the current U.S. debt is approaching $20 trillion, and that it will be a burden on future generations. Of course it will be. I heard someone say the other day that the U.S. will of course default on the debt, either honestly or dishonestly.)

 

[RCIAGraduate]

It has always seemed strange to me that from the 1920’s onward, so many people were so enamored of governmental systems that killed, oppressed, and starved so many of their own people while promising to better their lives.

Perhaps they may see government, not necessarily as the perfect avenue but possibly the only way? For example, World War II was ended through the help of arms force that was supplied by government.

But today, other countries seem to be providing a relatively adequate safety net for their people (i.e basic health care for all and accessible education to work) while in our country, it seems like our people struggle and right now they’re not modern killing fields (though granted from Latin America to Asia, many countries had their own tough histories)? Why does it have to be that way, particularly for those who are dealt with a difficult hand or misfortune such as the working poor and the working class? How would you respond to those who are leaning towards “socialism” or basically socializing basic needs perhaps due to reasons like poor opportunity, rising living costs, stagnant or mediocre wages and perhaps even a lack of hope? Hypothetically, how would you respond to people who are frustrated and may be struggling to make ends meet or don’t see a bright future or are scared?

 

[JimG]

As for social safety nets, the U.S. does have many of them. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, school lunches for children, SNAP, SSI. See for example HERE.

The trouble is that we are billing future generations for them by borrowing the money. Although the government does not borrow money every single day, the average borrowing comes out to between 3 to 4 billion dollars per day.

 

[PJH_74]

Thank you.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Although the government does not borrow money every single day, the average borrowing comes out to between 3 to 4 billion dollars per day.

They have to borrow about a billion a day, to pay for the interest on their existing debt. Is this how you fund capitalism and greed?

 

[DENNYINMI]

It seems odd to criticize Democratic Party “democratic socialists” because the USSR was repressive, for example. What’s the connection, besides that both identified with the term “socialism?”

Not much. Many in our country also have an aversion to the term “social justice” itself. For example, we can have the Catholic Conference of U.S. Bishops and the Pope himself speak on the benefits of universal health care and many Catholics will give you one million and one excuses why it would not be beneficial. Watching exorbitant costs of life saving medications and health care in general is darn near sin (Big pharma greed) especially knowing it is available in other countries at half the cost. Perhaps one day the news for a young mother given the diagnosis of a catastrophic illness won’t force her and her husband to choose between their home vs their fight for life with costly medical necessity. One catastrophe can wipe out a life long savings. Why?

Another example that always hits home for me in the confusion regarding this topic is the beauty of Saint John Paul the Great on his aversion to “true” socialism as I call it. Yet he fought for solidarity and the right of workers to organize. It indeed was a workers “union” but mention union in the states and you will readily find good people standing opposed. Did they not bring us favorable working conditions, (foundry temperatures were in excess of 100 according to my grandfather), pension, health care (which was hallmark standard of a good job), and pay without delay? Does the worker not deserve his due? Biblically, by all means.

Our country is reactive not proactive with regulations, many of which were set in place to protect us and the environment. Many view regulation as anti-business, but our laws and regs. were put into place not because someone might do wrong with the potential of hazards, but rather because they did. Hence, we are reactive. Yet even today all in favor of the mighty grandeur of unfettered capitalism will fight to roll back even safety regulations.

And so it goes.

I have a lot to say on the heart and soul of Marxist socialism for which the Church speaks her mind against and righty so, but it’s tiring. Rerum Novarum is an excellent start for someone seeking Truth.

 

[IWantGod]

“When the tragedies of socialist regimes — such as those in Venezuela, the USSR, China, Cuba, and many others — are pointed out to America’s leftists, they hold up Sweden as their socialist role model. But they are absolutely wrong about Sweden.”

–Walter Williams, writing in The Stream

For socialism to work everybody in the whole world would have to be involved. But even then, people still have the right to private property, a natural right that would have to be denied in favor of socialism.

I believe in the greater good for all people (not just for individuals) and i also believe in the common-good because i don’t believe that profit should ever come before peoples needs; but socialism is a distorted version of the common-good to the extreme.

On the other hand an Unbridled-Capitalism is just as problematic breeding an extreme individualism in it’s wake, placing profit before people. Such an extreme would only favor the fortunate and those who just so happen to be strong in the context of a competitive environment since the market monopolizes on people’s strengths and weaknesses, and everybody else would lose to varying degrees. So we have to meet somewhere between the common good and the right to profit and private property in order to have a humane and just society that reflects everybody’s God given dignity…

In other words, in terms of peoples needs, i am against a Darwinian kind of capitalism (a system that only favors the fortunate and the competitively strong), or at least i recognize that not all peoples needs can be met by such a market and not everybody has an opportunity to succeed in such a system… if poverty is a possibility then the system is failing, and the woes of socialism is not an excuse to ignore that fact…

Working hard for a good life is a good thing, but competing for a good life, competing to stay out of poverty, just seems wrong to me. Competing just to keep one room in a shared house doesn’t seem to reflect a market that benefits everyone.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

The ‘left’ in this nation mainly likes the term ‘Progressive,’ not socialism.
But they do make claims such as ‘redistribution of wealth’ and
the early Christian put all their possessions at the Apostle’s feet.

---

People play semantics with the word ‘socialism’ all of the time.

---

The ‘left’ claims they are for social justice and are the purveyors of true freedom.

---

What is their record?
Taking a pragmatic contrary to The Declaration of Independence to seduce consciences
from those in favor of killing helpless children in the womb and/or more and more
just outside of the womb late term or what is commonly called ‘partial birth abortion;’
‘I’m personally opposed but…’ - Dr. Bernard Nathanson revealed before his conversion
these pragmatics and other lies would be good to ‘legalize’ the killing of these children.
So not only, against the right to life of these helpless children painfully brutalizing murdered every single day; the left promotes damaging at least the subconscious
well being of those seduced, many in difficult earthly needs situations, or oppressed
with threats of abandonment or ‘kicked to the curb,’ if they protect the life of their child;
& other mitigating circumstances. Many converts do report in their forgiveness
from Jesus Christ; in His Healing, that they become aware of this deep hidden pain
deep within their ‘being’ revealed as needing healing. ‘Normalizing’ child murder far reaching consequences on many persons and society as a whole. And it is not only
an abomination before The Thrown of God, it is an abomination before the Declaration of Independence.

---

They ‘normalize’ and increasing oppose religious freedom with imposing a contrary
moral view on same sex attraction.

---

They flip on almost any real human social justice situation to gain power, play at heartstrings to claim, ‘hey we’re for the poor - the others are heartless;’ to use Saul Alinsky; type ‘Rules For Radicals,’ community organizing - using a biased media.
For example, the common goal of protecting the border; while making allowance
for ‘grand fathered in,’ undocumented persons from foreign lands to be able to become full citizens. But they get a lot of emotionally charged support and votes by claiming
‘open borders,’ now. Both sides historically, consistently worked with the idea that
we need to improve legal immigration means and protect out borders.
(cont…)

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Thank God more Christians are waking up to _ Trojan Horse in the City of God: The Catholic Crisis Explained_ ref. book published in a 1993 printing; by Dietrich von Hildebrand with a forward by John Cardinal O’Connor.
Dietrich von Hildebrand stood up against Catholic and even clerics during the rise of the
the Nazi Party which developed from the German Workers Party.
“By 1932 the political scene had altered. Von Hildebrand was shocked to discover that some of his Catholic friends wanted to reconcile Nazism with Catholicism – something he vehemently rejected. He had begun to see that his “battle” against the party was a “mission”, something he was called to speak out against.”
source: https://catholicherald.co.uk/issues...-the-german-theologian-who-made-fun-of-nazis/
" Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist rhetoric," > source: Nazi Party - Wikipedia

---

The ‘Progressives’ learned from history. Now they paint their opponents
who strive against attacks on 1st Amendment rights, which include
free speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom religious observance
as ‘racist’ or ‘hateful’ for standing up for the Judaeo Christian Objective Morality
and Ethic. An example of this imposition of anti-Christian morality is Catholic Orphanages not allowed to function because they cannot place helpless children
with same sex couples. There are others like parents not allowed to opt-out
their children from seducing anti-Christian morality instruction normalizing same-sex unions.
_cont…

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

What is the result of a ‘modernist’ (all religions are the same - based on human internal need/ or ‘debunked’ by the age of reason and science enlightenment);
naturalist, ‘Progressive’ - humanity by virtue of our reasonableness is naturally working by advancement to a non-judgmental relativistic moral code to a peaceful harmony;
agenda(s) and ideologies like ‘socialism’ that stem from this?
hmmm;
“The Reign of Terror,” in France; the atrocities in Communist Russian & China to astronomical levels; the repeat of some of the Nazi euthanasia ideas with false compassion on sick & elderly increasing; making children in the womb competitors
by focusing on them as ‘carbon footprints’; and the most immense mass murder by ideology in human history - helpless children painfully brutally murdered by the tens of thousands worldwide every single day.
“And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their sexual immorality, nor of their thefts.” - Rev. 9:21

---

I do pray for their repentance with all of my heart. I pray for all of the ‘duped’ from God’s Impartial View to wake up to the Remnant Church prophesied about by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, Evangelist David Wilkerson, and others.
The Light Shines in the darkness. Pray, pray, pray for souls; all of us either die and go to The Judgement Seat of Christ and we know not The Day of The Last Judgement.
" 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed, and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. 19 Those I love, I rebuke and discipline. Therefore be earnest and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in and dine with him, and he with Me. 21 To the one who is victorious, I will grant the right to sit with Me on My throne, just as I overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” - from Rev. 3

 

[PJH_74]

This attitude would only make sense if you decided that a position you found yourself in was in fact the position that God desired and you made all efforts to remain in said position. Otherwise you can say it’s God’s will whatever you do. Which makes it nonsensical.

I really don’t get it either, it took 4-5 posts to even say that he’d be open to occupying the lowest rung on the social ladder in anyway. He’s idea seems to be that everyone is equal in the eyes of God, however it is the natural order that some were born to lead and have power. Honestly this sounds like something out of the Middle Ages. My impression is that he is using this to argue against Socialism to justify that wealth inequity is God’s will. It’s the duty of those in charge to take care of the masses, not to improve their lot.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

This attitude would only make sense if you decided that a position you found yourself in was in fact the position that God desired and you made all efforts to remain in said position. Otherwise you can say it’s God’s will whatever you do. Which makes it nonsensical.

I really don’t get it either, it took 4-5 posts to even say that he’d be open to occupying the lowest rung on the social ladder in anyway. He’s idea seems to be that everyone is equal in the eyes of God, however it is the natural order that some were born to lead and have power. Honestly this sounds like something out of the Middle Ages. My impression is that he is using this to argue against Socialism to justify that wealth inequity is God’s will. It’s the duty of those in charge to take care of the masses, not to improve their lot.

One has to ask: ‘What is NOT God’s will?’

I had one guy on another forum argue that he had to support Trump because the fact the he had become president was God’s will. That the guy was a rabid right-winger who accepted every word that spouted from Trump’s mouth as being gospel was, to him, not relevant.

But if you asked if he would have supported Clinton if she had won, because presumably that would also have been God’s will, then there was a deathly silence. Dead air in the thread. Tumbling tumbleweed rolling through the forum. Literaly no response.

It will come as no surprise that people seem to know God’s will when the result is beneficial, but when it isn’t…well, who can know the mind of God.

 

[PJH_74]

I had one guy on another forum argue that he had to support Trump because the fact the he had become president was God’s will. That the guy was a rabid right-winger who accepted every word that spouted from Trump’s mouth as being gospel was, to him, not relevant.

That’s part of the problem in today’s America. Here we have a thread that some equate Communism with Socialism. The funny part is that many who take this kind of view would not for go their Social Security Medicare/Medicaid.

I think a portion of those who supported Trump did so because they’ve been legitimately left behind and they felt he could be the answer, fine enough. What boggles my mind is how he can attack or rebuff a number of high profile incidents with dishonoring those solders who have given their lives or highly decorated war heroes. Never mind the persistent compromising of those values that they fought for.

 

[PJH_74]

by focusing on them as ‘carbon footprints’; and the most immense mass murder by ideology in human history - helpless children painfully brutally murdered by the tens of thousands worldwide every single day.

There’s more than enough attention and resources to go around. The problem is we spend vast amounts to kill things instead.

 

[Richca]

To the OP and title of the thread, yes, I agree.

 

[on_the_hill]

The article gives examples of tyrants and despots, but otherwise doesn’t explain why socialism is dangerous.

Not knowing the history of the tyrants and despots is bad regardless of their platforms.