Socialism in America

Read my response earlier on what socialism/communism is. BTW, they are not the exact same, even Karl Marx said they were not, but socialism leads to communism. I think they are very close, but if you disagree then I will let you argue with Marx, not me.

Secondly, Acts had people voluntarily give their money to live together, no one was forced and you could hold back money for yourself. This voluntary system is only allowable in a capitalistic society. This was not socialism and after you read my explanation of socialism, I think you will see that. As well, this was a social arrangement that pulled their needs. In other words, it was charity, not socialism/communism. Finally, it was economic, not completely social as socialism and communism advocate.

As noted, socialism/communism is more than economic, are you advocating the social engineering Marx outlined in the Communist Manifesto? Do you support this view? Do you believe every entity should exist for the working class?

BTW, I am not arguing against Russia, I am arguing against the documents and primary sources that advocate socialism and communism and not your understanding of socialism and communism. Yet, the state in the USSR did what Marx advocated it do.

 

I disagree with Marx. Socialism, IMHO, does not necessarily lead to Communism. He believed that Socialism would lead to one party rule, by the Communist Party. I believe he was very wrong.

Socialism as stressed in the NT is certainly different from the modern theory of political Socialism. And yes, it was voluntary, but once you joined and said you agreed your word was more than your bond, it was your life. Remember Ananias and Sapphira.

There is nothing in Capitalistic theory about volunteering to take care of others. Capitalism is about profits. Fairness and althruism play no part in the philosophy of Capitalism. I am not saying this is either good nor bad ... the concepts are just not there.

I beg to differ. Taking care of others is social. Caring and healing the sick is social. Sharing our resources is social.

No, I would never support social engineering by Marx. It does not work and never will. Mankind is too flawed for such a philosophy to work. Even if the philosophy looks great on paper it would never work in practice.

Only in taking power and in the control by one party. I expect Marx spun in his grave at Stalins terrors and in Mao's Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

These incidents alone should be enough to convince anyone that Communism does not work. The only reason I can see that Communism would appear to anyone is that they lust for power.

Milton Friedman made an interesting comment:

Capitalism and Socialism as ideas are not evil. It is the wrong use of either that brings evil.

Of course, lust for power and profits also plays a role in Capitalism, but that is another topic.

 

Ananias and Saphirra lied. If you say you are going to give it all and don't, that is a lie. They were not required to give it all, but the penalty was through lying.

Secondly, you say you disagree with Marx on Communism (and I assume his socialism), but that is the problem. You want a socialism that is inconsistent and will ultimately fail without social engineering. Socialism will never exist without force as long as people are aloud to dream. If there is ever someone who wants more things, socialism must act in force and enact social engineering.

Finally, if you think socialism will eliminate the greed, you are wrong. In fact, it just makes greed's power more concentrated.

Again, Acts is not an example of socialism. It was voluntary, you could leave an inheritance, you did not have to give everything, and it was based upon the compassion of the people. Socialism is involuntary, severely limits an inheritance, you did have to give everything, and is not based upon the compassion of the people but dictated from above. It was not socialism.

I do not know why you are defending a system whereby can be outlined, as I have done, as completely anti-Christian. You want to change it, but the more you change it the more you reject what you say you are advocating. What you are advocating is neo-Marxism. You want the economic aspects, you want to force people to give to the working class and punish those who don't comply, but you don't want to touch the family. This is a most inconsistent viewpoint.

BTW, I stated that this was evil, satanic. I have outlined using primary sources why I thought it was after people challenged me. I find it troubling that people thought it was neutral and only backed off after I cite primary sources. Will you or anyone say that socialism/communism as outlined by Marx is anti-Christian? It still seems people are defending Marx or neo-marxist views.

 

I have never said that Communism as outlined by Marx is not anti-Christian and I have not nor will I defend Communism.

I have far too much to do to continue this discussion today.
Have a blessed day.

 

NO, but the topic here is socialism/communism related to marxism, that began the topic and continued throughout. Various people defended this view. When I said in clear and uncertain terms that these are evil, people disagreed including you. I outlined from primary sources it was evil. You came to the defense of socialism. Never once did you agree that it was evil, but you defended a neo-marxist viewpoint.

You wish to soften socialism, but either way you are advocating a radical change in society whose goal is more than economic, but social (the word is social ism, which is a change in social structures).

Those changes are evil.

 

<Shrug> And capitalism favours the rich over the poor, which is anti-Micah 6, oh, and Amos, etc etc. And it encourages greed, which is anti-Christian. And it encourages the concentration of power in the hands of the rich, which is evil IMO.

You see, both systems have their flaws and are, in some respects, evil, certainly when abused.

 

Capitalism is not perfect, but it is also not inherently evil like socialism and communism. In a capitalist society, I believe it allows for true humanitarianism and compassion ministries. Thus, this is a good thing. In communism, it forces a social engineering that is anti-Biblical.

 

I will say that Marxism, on the whole, is anti-Christian because it's based on a materialist philosophical basis which is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology. I'm not a Marxist, I'm just a harmless social democrat and I'm pro-Christian.

 

Michael Horton's Beyond Culture Wars excellently treated this issue. While making sure to point out his belief that this system is better in practical matters, he puts both in perspective:

Of course, one big difference is the fact that western capitalism allowed organized religion to thrive, so was therefore seen as being "friendly" to God, while the other system was atheist and often persecuted religion. But still, Horton notes:

 

The modernistic, materialistic elements of both are evil since they go against the spiritual which is to be found only in Christianity in its true form.

 

A glance around you at the real world will demonstrate that you are incorrect in these observations on capitalism.

 

Matt,

When I talk about Capitalism, I am referring specifically to Austrian economics. I do not believe that our model in America, Keynesian Economics, is really Capitalism. Yes, Austrian Economics can be harsh, but in general it is the best way for people to work hard in order to accomplish a lot.

I believe Keynesian Economics does protect big businesses and props up Wall Street (funny, I about said Wal-Street, that is funny). If we had Austrian Economics, we would not have had the most recent downturn and if we would have turned to it to solve our economic problems, many non-Austrian economists predicted we would have recovered. Oh, and the Austiran Economists were the only ones that predicted this most recent downturn, we were even made fun of.

For the record, I think we will eventually see an education bubble collapse, especially if they keep propping it up using Keynesian Economics. That will have horrible ramifications on our economy.

Yet, I do think it works, but we have to try it first.

 

But it was the failure of the Austrian school (boom and bust cycles culminating in the Great Depression) that led to Keynesian-style interventionism in the first place.

 

Where did you get that understanding? That is not true. In 1913 it was the founding of the Federal Reserve. This Reserve was printing up more money than could be accounted for, which resulted in a bust. They sowed the seeds for a bubble that busted. Wilson replaced our Austrian model (though it was slowly being eroded for years) for a strong Central Planning Federal Reserve system. It was not the Austrian model that created the bubble, it was the Keynesian type of model. Hoover was not a Austrian economist, but he believed in the federal reserve and he hurt the economy even more by relying upon the Federal Reserve and Central Planning.

In fact, it was not the Keynesian model that got us out of the depression. If you look at the economic writings of the day, the Keynesians said that the end of the war would prove even more disastrous as it would decrease government spending and add people to a very competitive job market. Austrians said it would stimulate the economy. We were right, and the good news was the end of rationing an a huge economic boom to the country.

Some blame the "depression" of the 1870's on Austrian Economics. In fact, in economic circles this was the biggest economic argument against Austrian Economics. Even Milton Friedman had difficulty defending against that charge (though, he was not completely Austrian). However, it is interesting that economists are beginning to believe this was not the depression they once thought and the economic studies are now saying that this was a great era of boom except for one quarter in 1873 where we did see a decline. This decline was short-lived and we continued to expand.

Other than that, the cycles usually revolved around a Federal Bank/Reserve or other Central Planning methods that inflated the economy and eventually saw a bust.

So, I don't buy that the fault was Austrian Economics, as we were not practicing Austrian Economics in the 1920's.

 

Capitalism is not neutral. It is lust of money filled with the attraction of having as many toys as you can pile up or a fat bank account to give false security. That is not neutral, it is a way that seems right to a man.

 

You are very correct. Capitalism is never neutral. Someone once said the essence of capitalism is what is mine is mine and what is yours is also mine. Capitalism plays on the greed of mankind for getting more and more at the expense of others. Capitalism is merciless on the poor.