Why are we so averse to socialism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EthanBenjamin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Latias said:
But the Nazis also railed against “Jewish Bolshevism”.
Click to expand...
Communism and fascism are not compatible because the goal of communism is classlessness, where everyone is equal, and it’s supposed to be community focused. It’s seeks to eliminate national boundaries, making everyone equal.

While the fascism is nationalistic.

differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-communism-and-fascism/

The problem in this thread is that many people are treating all these terms linearly, instead of realizing that both communism and fascism can have some socialist traits while still being in complete conflict with each other.

Also, a socialist nation doesn’t have to completely void of some capitalist traits, and capitalist nations don’t have to be completely void of socialist traits.

Also, communism and fascism are not both extreme ends of the economic political spectrum. Yes, communism is the stream form of socialism and is an economic political school of though; however, fascism is an extreme form of nationalism and authoritarianism.
 
It’s strange that Communism is supposed to be a classless society, yet in practice it always seems to look pretty much like a hereditary monarchy—witness the Castro’s in Cuba, and the Kim Jong Un family in North Korea. There’s always a ruling elite, the peasantry with no voice, and no meaningful elections.
 
JimG said:
It’s strange that Communism is supposed to be a classless society, yet in practice it always seems to look pretty much like a hereditary monarchy—witness the Castro’s in Cuba, and the Kim Jong Un family in North Korea. There’s always a ruling elite, the peasantry with no voice, and no meaningful elections.
Click to expand...
The US is allied with Saudi Arabia, and Ukraine under Poroshenko is worse than the Kims. The people of Crimea are happy to be liberated from the Azov Battalions and the Euromaidan.

One could currently speak of the Bush dynasty and Clinton dynasty in the US.
 
👍
anon67074017 said:
The Nazi Party hated socialism. They viewed it as a Jewish tool to enslave the Aryan race. National Socialism is not socialism at all. It is really far-right fascism.
Click to expand...
veer

👍 This reminds me so very much of my high school government class In a ultra conservative town. The text was never used. We were often taken on fielrips to the John Birch society libarary. The teacher was a Bircher, and had a very unusual take on the political spectrum. According to him the Communists and socialists were on the far right, and facism were on the far left.
 
EthanBenjamin said:
Hello again!
I have another question, and I know you people are great with you answers, so I am convinced I came to the right place!
I would describe myself as a socialist. I believe that the government should have a strong safety net for those people who are so unfortunate as to not be able to support themselves. I believe that if one desires and looks for work, they are entitled to an income substantial for themselves and any of their dependents. I believe that the rich generally will not be as benevolent as they could be with their incomes, and I do not think that exuberant spending beyond what provides basic comforts is needed. So a nice phone and maybe some new furniture is okay, but a mansion the size of a city block for a family of two is not okay. I think taxes should be increased for corporations which do not directly benefit the wellbeing of the whole, and the same goes for wealthy individuals. I believe in the right of workers in the private sector to unionize. However, I am not the kind of liberal socialist that the term socialist carries as a connotation; I remain pretty socially conservative. I am firmly against all abortion, I of course support the church wholeheartedly, I think a constitutional republic like that of the USA is necessary to protecting everyone’s rights, etc etc.

I have been caught in situations with some Catholic friends and family where it works out in the conversation that I mention that I am a socialist, and there seems to be some disapproval amongst those people. One friend directed me to one of the Pope’s encyclicals (Rerum novarum, was it?), but I simply do not have time to go through a 20-page document to find my answers. Could anyone succinctly explain to me why my concept of socialism is contrary to the Catholic church’s teachings? I myself feel that the plan I outlined would even be more in-line with the beatitudes and works of mercy than unbridled capitalism, though I am frequently inorrect about a lot of things.

Thank you so much!
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by socialism here. But the common good philosophy of giving a safety net to the poor is simply controlled capitalism, making sure that profit does not outweigh the common good and the needs of those who are very poor.

But socialism, if by that you mean Karl Marx’s political philosophy, abandons the idea of private property, and that is why the church essentially rejects communism or socialism.

A free national health service is not socialism. That is propaganda.
 
“Some Catholics believe that the closest approximation to CST [Catholic Social Teaching] among modern political parties is democratic socialism. This is a dangerous error. Socialism as such has been the target of CST ever since Leo XIII.”

A Rome Charmed with Democratic Socialism?

“[T]he main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.”[15]
–Pope Leo XIII
 
JimG said:
“Some Catholics believe that the closest approximation to CST [Catholic Social Teaching] among modern political parties is democratic socialism. This is a dangerous error. Socialism as such has been the target of CST ever since Leo XIII.”

A Rome Charmed with Democratic Socialism?

“[T]he main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.”[15]
–Pope Leo XIII
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you. Socialism is not compatible with Catholicism. It does not matter if it is democratic or not.
 
IWantGod said:
I’m not sure what you mean by socialism here. But the common good philosophy of giving a safety net to the poor is simply controlled capitalism, making sure that profit does not outweigh the common good and the needs of those who are very poor.

But socialism, if by that you mean Karl Marx’s political philosophy, abandons the idea of private property, and that is why the church essentially rejects communism or socialism.

A free national health service is not socialism. That is propaganda.
Click to expand...
Basically every movement in all human history lends to extreme either as ignorance and idealism or malintent hijacking of the movement.

I dare you to name one movement left unchecked that didn’t or perhaps not unchecked but powerful enough to overcome said checks…

Communist nations were not advocated as what they were, nor did most supporters envision, vote for, or support what they became. One only needs to know history to mistrust socialism.
 
LethalMouse said:
Basically every movement in all human history lends to extreme either as ignorance and idealism or malintent hijacking of the movement.

I dare you to name one movement left unchecked that didn’t or perhaps not unchecked but powerful enough to overcome said checks…

Communist nations were not advocated as what they were, nor did most supporters envision, vote for, or support what they became. One only needs to know history to mistrust socialism.
Click to expand...
Again, I don’t know what you mean by socialism. Karl Marx was trying to address a real problem in society, he wasn’t simply trying to impose his ideal utopia on society. We see this problem today. There is a growing gap between the rich and the poor. The standard of living for a lot of people is simply unacceptable in a civilised society. As such, crime and poverty goes hand in hand. Instead of tackling crime by giving people a real opportunity to make good of their lives, people’s lives are being thrown in the bin and the state panders to the will of the rich. The prison system is packed to the brim to the point that its become a private money making business.

There is nothing wrong with being rich, but not at the expense of the common good. The problem isn’t really about the distribution of wealth as such, but rather its more about people having the means to production. Its about people having the dignity of a good living. Socialism may not be the answer, and I certainly don’t support the concept of removing peoples right to private property. However I don’t believe in the right to private property at the expense of the common good; it should never be to the extent that it eliminates the common needs of the people through which the wealth of private owners is produced and society is built. That’s why things like free public health and better state regulation needs to exist, so that everybody has a legitimate chance of making the very best of their skills and talents and the least of these get the support they deserve.
 
IWantGod said:
Again, I don’t know what you mean by socialism. Karl Marx was trying to address a real problem in society, he wasn’t simply trying to impose his ideal utopia on society. We see this problem today. There is a growing gap between the rich and the poor. The standard of living for a lot of people is simply unacceptable in a civilised society. As such, crime and poverty goes hand in hand. Instead of tackling crime by giving people a real opportunity to make good of their lives, people’s lives are being thrown in the bin and the state panders to the will of the rich. The prison system is packed to the brim to the point that its become a private money making business.

There is nothing wrong with being rich, but not at the expense of the common good. The problem isn’t really about the distribution of wealth as such, but rather its more about people having the means to production. Its about people having the dignity of a good living. Socialism may not be the answer, and I certainly don’t support the concept of removing peoples right to private property. However I don’t believe in the right to private property at the expense of the common good; it should never be to the extent that it eliminates the common needs of the people through which the wealth of private owners is produced and society is built. That’s why things like free public health and better state regulation needs to exist, so that everybody has a legitimate chance of making the very best of their skills and talents and the least of these get the support they deserve.
Click to expand...
Because as I said movements don’t go as you percieve. You end up with the kindbof socialism we have always ended up with.

I would note too that “conservatives” give more to charity (look it up) so they are helping.

As I meet poor people in life more are reckless than they are just having bad luck. I buy something for $50 I can afford to replace 20x over and I keep it in good condition for 10 yrs. My poor friends buy something for $50 they cant afford to replace for y months and they treat it like a disposable POS. The standard of living for a poor person is soo false. My parents grew up avg middle class and poor people spend on more luxuries than their parents did. Get antennae tv it is ridiculous… and I have had antennae tv… I dont spend money I dont have…
 
LethalMouse said:
Because as I said movements don’t go as you percieve. You end up with the kindbof socialism we have always ended up with.

I would note too that “conservatives” give more to charity (look it up) so they are helping.

As I meet poor people in life more are reckless than they are just having bad luck. I buy something for $50 I can afford to replace 20x over and I keep it in good condition for 10 yrs. My poor friends buy something for $50 they cant afford to replace for y months and they treat it like a disposable POS. The standard of living for a poor person is soo false. My parents grew up avg middle class and poor people spend on more luxuries than their parents did. Get antennae tv it is ridiculous… and I have had antennae tv… I dont spend money I dont have…
Click to expand...
Its not just about objects of pleasure or entertainment, its about the equality of opportunity. I don’t see the point of pretending that poverty does not exist. Poverty exist in more ways than one. If you spend most of your working hours, 12 hours a day in some cases, just so you can keep a roof over your head, I have to say there is a certain degree of inequality and vulnerability in that. There is a lack of security. Most people can’t buy their own homes because their want and need for opportunity and security is not valued, and millions of people don’t have Jobs and that number is rising because of a lack of Job security. The reason people build wealth is precisely so they can have that security and dignity that many people will never see in their life time even though they are the workers that are building it. Am I really to believe there isn’t a problem just because poor people can actually buy a Tv and some people waste the little money they have on pleasure?

This isn’t about what people can afford, this is about people securing their futures for their families and not having the means to production in order to do so. Instead what we have is a kind of wage slavery where whole generations of people are literally trapped in an endless cycle of just getting buy and getting poorer as the price of living goes up.

Sounds like something from a horror movie. Survival of the fittest. Economic-Dawinism.
 
IWantGod said:
Its not just about objects of pleasure or entertainment, its about the equality of opportunity. I don’t see the point of pretending that poverty does not exist. Poverty exist in more ways than one. If you spend most of your working hours, 12 hours a day in some cases, just so you can keep a roof over your head, I have to say there is a certain degree of inequality and vulnerability in that. There is a lack of security. Most people can’t buy their own homes because their want and need for opportunity and security is not valued, and millions of people don’t have Jobs and that number is rising because of a lack of Job security. The reason people build wealth is precisely so they can have that security and dignity that many people will never see in their life time even though they are the workers that are building it. Am I really to believe there isn’t a problem just because poor people can actually buy a Tv and some people waste the little money they have on pleasure?

This isn’t about what people can afford, this is about people securing their futures for their families and not having the means to production in order to do so. Instead what we have is a kind of wage slavery where whole generations of people are literally trapped in an endless cycle of just getting buy and getting poorer as the price of living goes up.

Sounds like something from a horror movie. Survival of the fittest. Economic-Dawinism.
Click to expand...
They dont want to secure their future, these are the same people who become poor after becoming rich…

But I am conscious that you are never going to believe that the narrative that people are soo bad off isnt true Trust ne I wish I didnt know how people do. I still give the homeless guy some $$$ but I know damn well it is his own fault he is homeless 97% of the time…

And fyi I have been unemployed, indebt, and with nothing and no assistance… it teaches you how to overcome and not just be like a child asking for the teet. I did what nmI had to do and learned everyday how to do better. Period. They can too.
 
LethalMouse said:
They dont want to secure their future, these are the same people who become poor after becoming rich…

But I am conscious that you are never going to believe that the narrative that people are soo bad off isnt true Trust ne I wish I didnt know how people do. I still give the homeless guy some $$$ but I know damn well it is his own fault he is homeless 97% of the time…

And fyi I have been unemployed, indebt, and with nothing and no assistance… it teaches you how to overcome and not just be like a child asking for the teet. I did what nmI had to do and learned everyday how to do better. Period. They can too.
Click to expand...
The fact that you made it out as an individual, really doesn’t in anyway change the reality of what I have said. You haven’t even address the core points that i have made or shown any real evidence that you understand. You simply shrugged your shoulders and said well, its their fault, they are the losers because supposedly they want to be there and you’re a winner because you managed to make it out of your own situation all by your self without any assistance. Good for you and I am glad that you were able to help yourself, but I’m more concerned with everyone else. For me, what you have said is not reality, at least not the self evident reality that people experience everyday…

But you are certainly welcome to your opinion.
 
One notes with amusement the anti-socialist rhetoric on this Forum in the same week the Vatican announced that Dorothy Day has reached the second stage in her road to beatification.
 
LethalMouse said:
They dont want to secure their future, these are the same people who become poor after becoming rich…

But I am conscious that you are never going to believe that the narrative that people are soo bad off isnt true Trust ne I wish I didnt know how people do. I still give the homeless guy some $$$ but I know damn well it is his own fault he is homeless 97% of the time…

And fyi I have been unemployed, indebt, and with nothing and no assistance… it teaches you how to overcome and not just be like a child asking for the teet. I did what nmI had to do and learned everyday how to do better. Period. They can too.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that it is entire the homeless man’s fault for being homeless? I don’t care how undergoing economic adversity would make you a better person. I doubt you think the wealthy are moral inferior because they haven’t experience such conditions. But who cares? The question for me is whether I would have the courage to volunteer and fly an Il-2 (as a woman) and attack German tanks and strong points. Am I willing to risk death for that? Am I willing to die to do what is necessary?

Would these people would have been homeless in East Germany? You don’t know anything about actual socialism except what you think it is due to anti-communist propaganda.
And security, adds Pascal Thibault, a French journalist working in Berlin. He believes that because of their history Germans have come to fear the future. He explains: “For the French the worst is never certain to happen, for the Germans it’s always a possibility.” What Ossis miss most is the tranquillity of the GDR, described by writer Volker Braun as the most boring country in the world. But says Enkisat, it’s a boredom that “the homeless, jobless and temporary workers really miss”. It was a niche society. Everyone, providing they stayed within limits, could enjoy “a safe, mediocre existence without being bothered by the system . . . It was easier then to escape the pressures of bureaucracy than it is now to avoid the pressures of money.” Ossis feel just as powerless as before. Enkisat concludes: “Of course we can make a fuss, but what’s the point?”
Click to expand...
There is a reason for Ostalgie. It is not that East Germany was perfect, but it certainly wasn’t the abject hellhole that Western propaganda portrayed it to be. It generally treated people with dignity if they were not agitators. It was a surprising humane system.

books.google.com/books?id=azlqmWgWJeQC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=homelessness+east+germany
While homelessness was non-existent in the former German Democratic Republic, the new federal states (formerly East Germany) have begun to catch up with the old federal states in this respect.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top