What is more Christian -socialism or Capitalism?

[Saxum]

Yeah, I don’t support the destruction of indigenous culture. You got me.

The preservation of indigenous culture is selfish if it means that we must withhold electricity, medicine, technology etc. It is not a virtue to allow tribes to wallow in their mud huts while we enjoy the luxuries of modern life. I think we should lift the tribes out of their ignorance, preach the gospel and give them the goods of modern life.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Yeah, I don’t support the destruction of indigenous culture. You got me.

The preservation of indigenous culture is selfish if it means that we must withhold electricity, medicine, technology etc. It is not a virtue to allow tribes to wallow in their mud huts while we enjoy the luxuries of modern life. I think we should lift the tribes out of their ignorance, preach the gospel and give them the goods of modern life.

Withholding technology is different to destroying culture. Forcing indigenous groups to uproot and leave their ancestral lands is different to giving folks the option of medicine.

 

[Saxum]

Withholding technology is different to destroying culture. Forcing indigenous groups to uproot and leave their ancestral lands is different to giving folks the option of medicine.

I don’t advocate uprooting indigenous groups from their ancestral lands. I advocate missionary work among them to encourage conversions, promote education and establish a market economy. All individuals deserve the chance to enjoy the blessings of life that are made possible by capitalism. And most importantly, we must preach the Gospel to them.

 

[Alex337]

Then you came in at a weird part of this discussion. We were talking about indigenous people being forced to leave their lands in order to get work in cities.

 

[Saxum]

We were talking about indigenous people being forced to leave their lands in order to get work in cities.

The great thing about capitalism is that this wouldn’t happen. Capitalists will enter indigenous lands and take advantage of the natural resources and available labour. The indigenous may lack the knowledge and ability to take advantage of their resources. This is why western businesses should be enabled to take control of the lands and help the tribes make best use of their resources.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

We were talking about indigenous people being forced to leave their lands in order to get work in cities.

The great thing about capitalism is that this wouldn’t happen. Capitalists will enter indigenous lands and take advantage of the natural resources and available labour. The indigenous may lack the knowledge and ability to take advantage of their resources. This is why western businesses should be enabled to take control of the lands and help the tribes make best use of their resources.

I literally grew up in a town that is currently dying because of how this doesn’t happen. And no, you shouldn’t just get to steal indigenous lands.

 

[Alex337]

More detail as I recognise my reply was brusque.

People originally came in and made my old town primarily to do lumber. They didn’t really hire indigenous people so much as drive them off the land but that’s neither here nor there. After the lumber dried up there was some farming but with automation most of this farming doesn’t require people and the produce is shipped elsewhere.

There are no more resources. There are very few jobs. I left. I don’t think indigenous folks should all be expected to leave their cultural home because of this.

 

[Saxum]

And no, you shouldn’t just get to steal indigenous lands.

But this is sometimes necessary for the greater good. The pilgrims ‘stole’ indigenous lands and created America. The British ‘stole’ lands and created places like Singapore. This type of thing enables cultural advancement. Are you saying indigenous people who inhabit oil rich lands or gold rich lands should be left alone? I say no. I think capitalists should be allowed to exploit the opportunities that the land offers as long as the indigenous people receive a fair profit share.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

And no, you shouldn’t just get to steal indigenous lands.

But this is sometimes necessary for the greater good. The pilgrims ‘stole’ indigenous lands and created America. The British ‘stole’ lands and created places like Singapore. This type of thing enables cultural advancement. Are you saying indigenous people who inhabit oil rich lands or gold rich lands should be left alone? I say no. I think capitalists should be allowed to exploit the opportunities that the land offers as long as the indigenous people receive a fair profit share.

Controversial opinion of the day: maybe don’t steal? Maybe don’t force people off their lands.

I have seen this first hand. My family suffered under the Stolen Generation institution that this thinking created. I don’t think you understand the kind of horrors you are proposing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Socialism has been condemned by the Church. I don’t know about capitalism…

Has anyone quoted the Catechism on this question yet? Here is what it says:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

This requires careful reading. The Church does not reject socialism per se, only the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated with socialism. Therefore not everything that is labelled “socialism” is to be condemned, unless it embodies totalitarian or atheistic ideologies. Now those evil ideologies certainly are a part of, say, Chinese communism. But those ideologies are not part of the brand of socialism found in Finland, for example, which has universal health care, government-funded university education, and a comprehensive welfare system. I don’t think the Church condemns that degree of socialism. It is not totalitarian, and not atheistic, since over 70% of the population belongs to the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

On the other hand, the treatment of capitalism is also nuanced. Capitalism itself is not condemned, but when the practice of capitalism considers only the law of the marketplace over human labor, it fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.”

So there is no simple answer to these questions. Each instance of socialism or capitalism need to be evaluated in the light of this teaching of the Church.

 

[TheNeutral]

Or would the answer be somewhere in the middle?

Socialism sounds good in theory because then it’s about caring about and looking after everyone in society.
On the other hand,while capitalism sounds bad on the surface and like creating a society of each “man” for himself/dog eat dog,at the same time a capitalist society encourages greater wealth creation in the country and that wealth can be taxed higher and used to help people in need.

What is your view?

We need to stop targeting the rich. Both socialism and your capitalist “proposition” do so.

The idea that everyone should be a 200k max middle class citizen is not only illogical, but critically unjust. To better understand this, imagine Warren Buffet and Normal-Job Joe-Bob. Warren Buffet gets up at like 5:00 am every day, works shifts that we be borderline-illegal if he weren’t the one subjecting himself to it, and has to do this all day every day for the rest of his life to maintain his fortune. Meanwhile NJ JB gets up and works a 10-4 at McDonalds flipping patties and enjoys a nice 5-6 break everyday, gets trips, vacations, medical leaves, and all the luxuries of employment. Why then should hard-working Buffet have to give 90% of his wealth to a bunch of (relatively) lazy people who don’t work with a billionth of the effort he does? Likewise, why should he be taxed 80% of his money to give to other people who could very easily start their own businesses and fix their own problems?

We need to stop treating these businessmen like antagonists. They are humans just like you who have to eat, sleep, take care of themselves, and most crucially work, much harder than 99% of the country has too. They deserve every penny they’re getting, and it’s not our place to tell them otherwise. If you want to “balance the scales”, stop buying their products that they work so hard to give to you. That’ll costs them money and save you yours–except you’re not going to do that because you like (and sometimes need) their products which they worked their lights off to give to you for use.

If I were a wealthy man reading through some of these comments, I’d resent the mere thought of donating to people who couldn’t care less about my struggle.

With that said, I’m all for wealthy people donating their money for those below them. The poor should be tended to and the financially struggling could use the help–as Christians, we are even implored to help others, but we need to stop treating these human beings like Lex Luthor and allow them to live. They shouldn’t have to surrender 99 (or even 49) percent of their wealth if they don’t want to, and if we want to live better lives we need to chase that ourselves (like they did).

 

[Augustinian]

But those ideologies are not part of the brand of socialism found in Finland, for example, which has universal health care

Universal “health care” includes Taxpayer Paid Abortions in the Republic of Finland.

I just don’t think that such a program is valid, or really acceptable. Neither are the taxpayer paid Sex Reassignment treatments.

 

[fin]

Well said!

 

[Alex337]

Cool. As someone with a “normal job” and with parents with “normal jobs” I find the view that we’re lazy insulting. The people I know with wealth rarely work as long and hard as the poorer people I know.

Why? Because most of the rich people I know didn’t have to work through high school in order to help support their family. Not to earn pocket money for themselves by having an after school job, but to actively help put food on their table. Going to school blurry eyed because they’ve already been up for four hours working at the cattle feed shed, knowing they have to go to their after school job or cook for their sibling as their parents will still be at their menial paying job. Not much time for extra study there.

Then maybe they go on to extra study to try to get one of those well paying jobs, I know I did. And yeah, you can make it of you’re darn lucky. I was lucky enough to have a teacher who helped me find scholarships and grants; I couldn’t have found those myself at home, we didn’t have a computer and home was for working.

Of course once you’re at uni you have to really hope those scholarships cover all the basis. Sometimes they do, sometimes not really. And you could stop supporting your family, but can you really say no when your mother needs money to fix the car so that she can go to work? Or when your younger sibling has been in an accident and your parents have lost work time in order to care for him? You could, but it would be pretty harsh.

I’m still not wealthy. Teaching doesn’t pay all that great and the hours are atrocious. But it is not a lazy job and it gives me a chance to help out students like my old teacher did for me.

Being poor does not make for a lazy life. Every day I teach kids who come from families with money and families with none.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

There does seem to be a great deal of amosity towards rich people.

 

[Rozellelily]

@neutral,

I think you have somehow misunderstood that I am against wealthy people which is not the case.
I’m actually a “fan” of Elon Musk etc.

What you are suggesting would be right if it was true that average or low income earners were lazy like you mentioned,however this is not the case for many people.
There are many people on low incomes who get up at the crack of dawn,commute to work for 2 hours there and back,come home late then go to sleep and rarely see their families and are very hard working.
Take for instances Disability Care workers-they are very hardworking,far from lazy,and get paid very low wages.
Same for manufacturing factory workers-some start at 6 am and do hard physical labour,often not in comfortable conditions (sweating etc) and they are paid very poorly.

You mentioned these people could easily start their own businesses-I actually run my own business and I can tell you,realistically,most people on low incomes cannot start their own business because starting a business requires capital.
After these people have paid their rent or mortgage,bills,travel expenses,food child related expenses if they have children etc they usually have no money left.

In addition they might not be successful in applying for a business loan and they might not have the means to pay it back should their business fail.
With over 60% of Small Businesses failing within the first three years of operation (in Australia),in practicality it’s not as easy as you make it sound.

Rarely people can make a successful business with little investment such as if they have really great artistic ability they could sell their art,but for the most part starting a business requires .

I’m definitely not against wealth,but what I am “against” is the “ugly side” of wealth that can come with some wealthy people such as spending on frivolities such as expensive champagne when it could be better used to help poor people or certain very rich men dropping big dollars to impress beautiful women who are hanging out with them for their money etc…

It might come as a surprise to you but there are the occasional wealthy people that believe they should be paying high taxes.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bill-gates-tax-rich-people-pay-higher-cnn-trump-reform-a8217431.html

 

[Rozellelily]

Well said.

 

[Rozellelily]

Sounds good,Malta looks nice.

 

[Augustinian]

It might come as a surprise to you but there are the occasional wealthy people that believe they should be paying high taxes.

There is nothing to stop Mr. Gates or other Uber Wealthy individuals from cutting an additional check to the government, if they think that the government can spend it better than they.

The fact that they don’t do that, not even after they pass,shows me that they have an ulterior motive and really don’t thing that at all. They are for making OTHERS pay higher taxes

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But those ideologies are not part of the brand of socialism found in Finland, for example, which has universal health care

Universal “health care” includes Taxpayer Paid Abortions in the Republic of Finland.

I just don’t think that such a program is valid, or really acceptable. Neither are the taxpayer paid Sex Reassignment treatments.

Abortions and Sex Reassignment treatments are not defining characteristics of Socialism. One can easily imagine the socialism of Finland without these things. And American capitalism also has these evil services. So socialism as a general system is not condemned, except as I noted in my first posting.