Socialism

[levi86]

You realize your argument is disintegrating?

How’s that? You asserted that the church abolished socialism, I showed that for this to be the case the Church would have had to have made it illegal for it to be practiced in any form (this includes monasteries)There’s no shame in admitting you used the wrong word when illustrating your point.

Later monastic communities were cases of religious drawing apart from the general Catholic community

So? The reason for their establishment is irrelevant. They were still self sufficient communal communities that were committed to God.

Prove it. Remember, having made this assertion, the burden of proof is on you.

Now I’m confused. Are you denying that the religious are the most influential and productive (per capita) within the church? Are these religious not (in the vast majority of cases) associated with a monetary, convent, order or presbytery? The vast majority of which are based upon collectives.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How’s that? You asserted that the church abolished socialism, I showed that for this to be the case the Church would have had to have made it illegal for it to be practiced in any form (this includes monasteries)There’s no shame in admitting you used the wrong word when illustrating your point.

I said the Church did not continue the socialist model in establishing Christian communities during the lives of the Apostles. That has nothing to with monasteries that came later.

Monastic life is a tiny microcosm in the Catholic Church.

So? The reason for their establishment is irrelevant. They were still self sufficient communal communities that were committed to God.

They do not, however, form a model for the rest of us – which is the point.

Socialism is not the rule in the Catholic Church.

Now I’m confused. Are you denying that the religious are the most influential and productive (per capita) within the church? Are these religious not (in the vast majority of cases) associated with a monetary, convent, order or presbytery? The vast majority of which are based upon collectives.

Most religious are not in monasteries! And that still doesn’t prove the Church is built on a socialist model.

Your argument has disintegrated into preoccupation with inconsequential issues.

 

[levi86]

Your argument has disintegrated into preoccupation with inconsequential issues.

Well I suppose that makes two of us then

I can truly understand your blinding bias against an economic system that differs from your own. Your state has spent the last fifty years convincing the public that the USSR and socialism was evil. I’m sure you also believed (or still do) that Saddam Hussein actually had something to do with Al Qaeda.

There’s no way I could possibly compete with five decades of indoctrination. With this in mind I’m bowing out.

Happy Easter
God bless

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well I suppose that makes two of us then

I can truly understand your blinding bias against an economic system that differs from your own. Your state has spent the last fifty years convincing the public that the USSR and socialism was evil. I’m sure you also believed (or still do) that Saddam Hussein actually had something to do with Al Qaeda.

There’s no way I could possibly compete with five decades of indoctrination. With this in mind I’m bowing out.

A personal attack like this is tantamount to an admission of defeat.

 

[Cubfan]

Pardon me for putting my 2 cents in. My problem is with capitalism. A system run on self interest seems to be the opposite of what our lord taught! Socialized medicine seems like a very moral choice compared to the medical care system we have here in the USA. Now I realize that there are abuses in all human institutions but here in the USA we call the victims lazy cheats and just use this as an excuse to turn our backs to suffering and injustice.
My Mom just came over so I will check in latter. Bye for now.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Pardon me for putting my 2 cents in. My problem is with capitalism. A system run on self interest seems to be the opposite of what our lord taught! Socialized medicine seems like a very moral choice compared to the medical care system we have here in the USA. Now I realize that there are abuses in all human institutions but here in the USA we call the victims lazy cheats and just use this as an excuse to turn our backs to suffering and injustice.
My Mom just came over so I will check in latter. Bye for now.

As a wise man once said, “Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Socialism is just the opposite.”

The difference being, under capitalism, many people make decisions affecting the economy, and they have no national police agency to enforce their will. While under socialism, only a few people make those decisions, and if anyone disagrees with them, those dissidents can expect a knock on the door in the middle of the night.

 

[Cubfan]

I think you are confusing a socialist economic system to an authoratarian police state! Is not England a type of socialist system? Long live liberation theology.
I really do have to go now.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think you are confusing a socialist economic system to an authoratarian police state! Is not England a type of socialist system? Long live liberation theology.
I really do have to go now.

And the more socialist they become, the less free they are.

England, for example, recently threw out the right to refuse to incriminate oneself with a law that says if a person will not answer questions from the police, the police may infer guilt. Remaining silent, all by itself is now probable cause in England!

We recently had a poster from Canada complain how Canadian hospitals and clinics are short of doctors – because Canadian doctors are coming to the United States to practice. What was the poster’s proposed solution? Why that we penalize those doctors, of course!! Set the law on them! Make them practice medicine under socialism!!

 

[mike182d]

Pardon me for putting my 2 cents in. My problem is with capitalism. A system run on self interest seems to be the opposite of what our lord taught! Socialized medicine seems like a very moral choice compared to the medical care system we have here in the USA. Now I realize that there are abuses in all human institutions but here in the USA we call the victims lazy cheats and just use this as an excuse to turn our backs to suffering and injustice.
My Mom just came over so I will check in latter. Bye for now.

The irony is that no socialist system can exist independent of a capitalist system. For example, the cost of prescription medications is lower in other nations, which lowers the cost of providing universal health care for those same nations. The only reason why this is possible is because one of the wealthiest nations in the world, the United States, bears the brunt of research and development costs that go in to producing such medications.

I also love vern humphrey’s example of the community in Jerusalem. This community could not exist as a self-sufficient, independent community and was dependent upon the income received from other communities that did not follow this model.

 

[mike182d]

Surely we don’t have to discuss the fallacy of Sola Scriptura.

What does the fallacy of Sola Scriptura have to do with anything?

I’m pointing out a simple fact that neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever speak about the evils of social classes, slavery in particular.

You don’t find it odd that your models for Socialism in the Bible - Jesus and the Apostles - not only refrain from speaking out against the worst form of class descrimination but also encourage members of that very class to continue to be subservient to their masters?

Does that sound like socialism to you?

 

[vern_humphrey]

The irony is that no socialist system can exist independent of a capitalist system. For example, the cost of prescription medications is lower in other nations, which lowers the cost of providing universal health care for those same nations. The only reason why this is possible is because one of the wealthiest nations in the world, the United States, bears the brunt of research and development costs that go in to producing such medications.

Absolutely:

Canada and the European nations have killed their privately-funded drug Research and Development programs with their price controls. In 2003, John E. Calfee in “The High Price of Cheap Drugs” pointed out;

" American manufacturers now account for 7 of the top 10 worldwide best-selling medicines, and 15 of the top 20. This reflects a large and growing disparity in research and development expenditures. In 1990, European pharmaceutical firms outspent American firms on R&D by approximately 8 billion euros to 5 billion euros ($7 billion to $4.3 billion). In 2000, U.S. firms outspent European firms by 24 billion euros to 17 billion euros ($20.9 billion to $14.8 billion)."

In other words, in just a decade, the European nations (and Canada) succeeded in throwing away their lead in drug R&D.

We do NOT want to choke off R&D in the US. Every one of us will need drugs at some time, and we want the latest developments.

Those nations with price controls are getting a free ride on the back of the US consumer. We pay the majority of R&D costs and they get the benefits of our developments. They are able to use our patent laws to get copies of US drug companies’ patents and they simply threaten the US companies with producing the drugs in their countries, and merely paying a small royalty.

Price controls, aside from killing drug R&D in those countries also killed competition in drugs. As a result, generic drugs cost MORE in those countries than in the United States. A study by D’Angelo Consulting of Ottawa (cited in Forbes Magazine, February 2003), found that 21 of the top 27 best selling generic drugs cost more in Canada than in the US. And the combined price for all 27 was 37% higher in Canada than in the US!

Price controls make drug companies less likely to gear up to produce a new drug when the original patents expire. In the US when the patent expires on a new drug, the price drops an average of 74% – but in Canada, the drop is only 38%.

 

[mike182d]

The problem was that Jesus did not command us to give to the poor because He thought the poor should be in possession of the world’s wealth. The end Christ sought was not possessions or wealth, it was love. God couldn’t care less what “class” of society you are in. *In fact, *Christ says that it is *better *to be poor than wealthy. That idea alone is enough to refute the claims that Socialism is compatible with Christianity.

Consider prayer. Christ commands us to pray, and to pray often. Does it follow then that an appropriate form of governance would be to *require *people to pray by law? No, because the end Christ seeks in that command is not prayer for the sake of prayer, but to foster a sincere love of God. A government policy mandating this misses the point entirely.

Christ does not command us to give to the poor for the sake of giving to the poor. He commands us to give to the poor to foster love for the least among us. No government policy can achieve this and mandating such misses the point of Christ’s command entirely.

 

[Montalban]

These are in regards to one’s own disposition; transforming one’s own heart and not the institution of government programs.

Unless, of course, you believe that it is also the Government’s job to humble people, to make them meek, etc.

The early Christian groups who were termed ‘primitive communists’ didn’t work for one big government but ploughed the land in common (as in a commune) and shared everything.

 

[Montalban]

Christ does not command us to give to the poor for the sake of giving to the poor. He commands us to give to the poor to foster love for the least among us.

Indeed, we’re told what to love! (and what not to)

1 Tim 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.

No government policy can achieve this and mandating such misses the point of Christ’s command entirely.

That’s a strange logic. We shouldn’t legislate in favour of a policy of love?

We’re told not to kill. Should governments not have a policy preventing this too, because it misses the point of the 10 Commandments?

 

[vern_humphrey]

The early Christian groups who were termed ‘primitive communists’ didn’t work for one big government but ploughed the land in common (as in a commune) and shared everything.

We have no evidence for agricultural activities in a communist setting. The one community that practiced communism was in Jerusalem, an urban community and the wording of Acts implies that any land they had was sold and the money distributed to the community.

 

[Montalban]

We have no evidence for agricultural activities in a communist setting. The one community that practiced communism was in Jerusalem, an urban community and the wording of Acts implies that any land they had was sold and the money distributed to the community.

I was referring to a group of Christians that were primitive communists* (mentioned in page 1, post #7) called the Diggers.

• Christians who were ‘primitive communists’ not ‘primitive Chrisitans’ who were communits.

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
Christ is risen!

 

[vern_humphrey]

I was referring to a group of Christians that were primitive communists* (mentioned in page 1, post #7) called the Diggers.

• Christians who were ‘primitive communists’ not ‘primitive Chrisitans’ who were communits.

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
Christ is risen!

The Diggers were an English group, begun by Gerrard Winstanley as True Levellers in 1649, who became known as “Diggers” due to their activities.

How does a Protestant group formed more than 1600 years after the Jerusalem experiment show the Church endorses socialism?

 

[Montalban]

How does a Protestant group formed more than 1600 years after the Jerusalem experiment show the Church endorses socialism?

When I introduced this example it was to show that Christianity per se has no problem with socialism. I though I had stated that in that post. I reintroduce it here to show that Chrisitans can farm ‘communally’.

You quip that we have no biblical notion of communal farming, which is true, but then the Bible is not all sufficient for determining the truth - if you’re Catholic or Orthodox, we believe in the Bible and tradition. And you thus seek to constrict the socialism as practiced in the early church to simply the urban environment.

I have no idea that the Apostles only practiced one form of justice in the city, and another in the country.

Despite the restrictive nature of the biblical evidence we can see Jesus blessing the poor, asking us if we visited him in jail, and looked after the poor (Matthew 25:36ff). There’s no sense that I can see that Jesus said “Do this only in the city”

Acts shows them pooling resources and giving these out on a needs basis. If you’ve evidence that Jesus preached a message restricting ‘clothing the poor’ please let me know.

In the matter of piety, poverty serves us better than wealth, and work better than idleness, especially since wealth becomes an obstacle even for those who do not devote themselves to it. Yet, when we must put aside our wrath, quench our envy, soften our anger, offer our prayers, and show a disposition which is reasonable, mild, kindly, and loving, how could poverty stand in our way? For we accomplish these things not by spending money but by making the correct choice. Almsgiving above all else requires money, but even this shines with a brighter luster when the alms are given from our poverty. The widow who paid in the two mites was poorer than any human, but she outdid them all. St. John Chrysostom

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
Christ is risen!

 

[vern_humphrey]

When I introduced this example it was to show that Christianity per se has no problem with socialism. I though I had stated that in that post. I reintroduce it here to show that Chrisitans can farm ‘communally’.

You quip that we have no biblical notion of communal farming, which is true, but then the Bible is not all sufficient for determining the truth - if you’re Catholic or Orthodox, we believe in the Bible and tradition. And you thus seek to constrict the socialism as practiced in the early church to simply the urban environment.

If you’re Catholic or Orthodox, we don’t rely on 17th Century Protestant examples to prove Church tradition!!

I have no idea that the Apostles only practiced one form of justice in the city, and another in the country.

It has nothing to do with justice – it’s an economic system. And the example cited in Acts is in Jerusalem. And, as Luke makes clear, it was in the past (compared to the time he wrote.)

Despite the restrictive nature of the biblical evidence we can see Jesus blessing the poor, asking us if we visited him in jail, and looked after the poor (Matthew 25:36ff). There’s no sense that I can see that Jesus said “Do this only in the city”

There’s no sense that I can see that Jesus said, “Become communists.” The experiemnt was tried in Jerusalem, and failed.

Acts shows them pooling resources and giving these out on a needs basis. If you’ve evidence that Jesus preached a message restricting ‘clothing the poor’ please let me know.

If you’ve ebvidence that this experiment in socialism worked – and spread to all Christian communities, let me know.

It failed. And as a result, the Jerusalem community was dependent on charity – because they had eaten their seed corn.

In the matter of piety, poverty serves us better than wealth, and work better than idleness,

And yet socialism generates idleness. Go to any poor neighborhood, where people are all on welfare, and notice how many young people you see on the street corners idle.

Recall the old communist joke – "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.

especially since wealth becomes an obstacle even for those who do not devote themselves to it. Yet, when we must put aside our wrath, quench our envy, soften our anger, offer our prayers, and show a disposition which is reasonable, mild, kindly, and loving, how could poverty stand in our way? For we accomplish these things not by spending money but by making the correct choice. Almsgiving above all else requires money, but even this shines with a brighter luster when the alms are given from our poverty. The widow who paid in the two mites was poorer than any human, but she outdid them all. St. John Chrysostom

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
Christ is risen!

Yes, but she gave her own mites – not someone else’s.

 

[Montalban]

If you’re Catholic or Orthodox, we don’t rely on 17th Century Protestant examples to prove Church tradition!!

If only I’d restricted my evidence solely to that. So thanks for the straw-man! That they were following Matthew 25:34-43 is to be applauded.

It has nothing to do with justice – it’s an economic system. And the example cited in Acts is in Jerusalem. And, as Luke makes clear, it was in the past (compared to the time he wrote.)

Looking after the poor by giving them the resources that they require is part of economics, for someone with money gives it to someone who has need of it.

There’s no sense that I can see that Jesus said, “Become communists.” The experiment was tried in Jerusalem, and failed.

So you’re saying the Apostles were failures! Another novel take on the early church!

If you’ve evidence that this experiment in socialism worked – and spread to all Christian communities, let me know.

I did this by showing that the removal of possessions was practiced amongst Christian communities. Monks, etc.

Just repeating what I’ve already shown… Charity to widows was also known to the early Christian community.
“Christians brought their funds to those in need, mean and women, citizen and non-citizen”
Fox, R. L. (1986), “Pagans and Christians”, (Penguin), p323.

“The Roman empire was no welfare state” writes John McManners, “and before Christian times in the West… care for the poor was rare” Carroll, V., & Shiflett, D., (2002) “Christianity on Trial”, (Encounter Books; San Francisco), p142.

That’s what socialism (in theory) is supposed to be, the redistribution of resources on a needs basis. We call it when it doesn’t involve a government and when it goes direct to set causes, thus you give money to the AIDS charities and it (should) go to AIDS related causes.

The difference with a socialistic government is you give your money and they decide who should get it. And this is what the Apostles were doing, unless your aware of particular charity funds that they set up such as “Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Camels” etc.

It failed. And as a result, the Jerusalem community was dependent on charity – because they had eaten their seed corn.
And yet socialism generates idleness. Go to any poor neighbourhood, where people are all on welfare, and notice how many young people you see on the street corners idle.

Recall the old communist joke – "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.

Those silly Apostles! What were they thinking?

Yes, but she gave her own mites – not someone else’s.

Doesn’t matter. She gave her own. It was given to the Apostles. They doled it out as they saw fit. That’s what happens with my taxes today, if we have a democratically elected socialist government.

And interestingly enough the Parable of the Good Samaritan was used to extend the law of tort to cover protection from faulty goods. Obviously Lord Atkin saw in the “Who is my neighbour?” question a reason to extend ‘charity’ (or in this case ‘protection’ (i.e. Duty of Care) ) through to a wider community.
“Lord Atkin himself apparently agonised over the decision, and I recall that his daughter wrote that he discussed the decision with his family, and told them that he was intending to apply the Parable of the Good Samaritan to the facts of the case.”
Margaret A McGregor Vennel, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Auckland
[1990] New Zealand Law Journal 383-384
reprinted in Latimer, P (Ed.), (1997), “Commercial Law Workbook” (2nd ed), p477

He saw that the ‘love thy neighbour’ concept of Jesus’ was not restrictive as you might have wished.

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
Christ is risen!