Print

[lordfly]

clearly you don't know what socialism is.

Clearly you have a knee-jerk reaction to certain words.

[coolmod]

The future is now. Destroy the wealth of the middle class. Wait for the people to get hungry and

desperate enough to start a revolution, then turn the military police on the masses. Round up all

who cause civil unrest, plant a chip in their head, so if anymore trouble starts flip the off switch and

let them go quietly back to the coo-coo's nest. The techno-version of socialism. The corporate

evil-doers win and all us sheep are in the pen.   

[lordfly]

The future is now. Destroy the wealth of the middle class. Wait for the people to get hungry and

desperate enough to start a revolution, then turn the military police on the masses. Round up all

who cause civil unrest, plant a chip in their head, so if anymore trouble starts flip the off switch and

let them go quietly back to the coo-coo's nest. The techno-version of socialism. The corporate

evil-doers win and all us sheep are in the pen.  

I'm still waiting for you "revolutionaries" who have it all figured out to blow up government buildings.

[PXaiver]

Socialism, at its core, is distributing the wealth of a society equally amongst all of its members.

Charity, at its core, is distributing the wealth from well-to-do members of society to those less fortunate.

Apple, meet apple.

Any idea coming from a human being is going to be an earthly concept. Heaven included.

LF, thank you very much.

[JL]

i'm responding to false assertions.

Clearly you have a knee-jerk reaction to certain words.

[JL]

socialism, defined as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole," the only way to accomplish this, is through government coercion, which is a direct assault on the philosophy Jesus taught.

charity on the other hand is voluntary, and Jesus encouraged that.  I'm no biblical expert but it is clear that Jesus remained very neutral on the concept of government.

"Any idea coming from a human being is going to be an earthly concept. Heaven included"

exactly.  so attributing your earthly assumptions to a concept outside the constraints of everything we understand as humans, is meaningless.


 

Socialism, at its core, is distributing the wealth of a society equally amongst all of its members.

Charity, at its core, is distributing the wealth from well-to-do members of society to those less fortunate.

Apple, meet apple.

Any idea coming from a human being is going to be an earthly concept. Heaven included.

[PXaiver]

socialism, defined as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole," the only way to accomplish this, is through government coercion, which is a direct assault on the philosophy Jesus taught.

To address the bold, that is false.  I consider myself a socialist but I do not want a socialist society to come about by government coersion.  I want it to be a mandate by the people. 

[JL]

yes, we've covered this:  it requires government coercion, or the complete abandonment of human nature, comfort, prosperity, and desire by all humans simultaneously.  the later would also be accompanies by the extinction of mankind and this would be a moot point. 

To address the bold, that is false.  I consider myself a socialist but I do not want a socialist society to come about by government coersion.  I want it to be a mandate by the people. 

[PXaiver]

yes, we've covered this:  it requires government coercion, or the complete abandonment of human nature, comfort, prosperity, and desire by all humans simultaneously.  the later would also be accompanies by the extinction of mankind and this would be a moot point. 

Describe to me exactly how mankind would become extinct if the human race were to desire to live equally and how would comfort, prosperity and desire be abandoned?  If anything comfort and prosperity would increase.

Now we live in a capitalist society right now.  Why?  Because it's the will of the majority of the people.  I don't like it but I adapt just as someone who wouldn't like living in a socialist society would have to adapt.  It's not that hard to figure out and the government would not coerce people into it.  It would be the mass population getting what the mass population wants.  Not everyone is happy with one particular form of government or the other, but people adapt because survival is a very strong instinct.

[JL]

a complete abandonment of self interest would be required.  self interest, or "greed" as you call it, is what sustains our species and all animal species. 

we DO NOT live in a capitalist society...to make this claims demonstrates a misunderstanding of our system.  we have a mixed economy. 

"Because it's the will of the majority of the people." 

this is precisely what you desire.  the mandate of the people! 

what if some people desire to have their own currency and exchange within their group?  are they to be forced to give up the fruits of their labor to be distributed by the government?  or what if a person chooses to produce things for himself?  would he be allowed to keep and consume them for himself even though this is inconsistent with socialism? 

Describe to me exactly how mankind would become extinct if the human race were to desire to live equally and how would comfort, prosperity and desire be abandoned?  If anything comfort and prosperity would increase.

Now we live in a capitalist society right now.  Why?  Because it's the will of the majority of the people.  I don't like it but I adapt just as someone who wouldn't like living in a socialist society would have to adapt.  It's not that hard to figure out and the government would not coerce people into it.  It would be the mass population getting what the mass population wants.  Not everyone is happy with one particular form of government or the other, but people adapt because survival is a very strong instinct.

[PXaiver]

a complete abandonment of self interest would be required.  self interest, or "greed" as you call it, is what sustains our species and all animal species. 

Self interest and greed are two completely different things.  I can have a self interest in music but I do not hoard music.  You an have a self interest in sewing but you cannot hoard or prevent someone from sewing.  With greed you hoard things and prevent others from getting them.

we DO NOT live in a capitalist society...to make this claims demonstrates a misunderstanding of our system.  we have a mixed economy. 

Oh so just because we have government regulations means we have a mixed economy.... *

"Because it's the will of the majority of the people." 

this is precisely what you desire.  the mandate of the people! 

Well isn't that the type of society that we're living in now?  The mandate of the people decides what governmental and economic structure we live in.

what if some people desire to have their own currency and exchange within their group?  are they to be forced to give up the fruits of their labor to be distributed by the government?  or what if a person chooses to produce things for himself?  would he be allowed to keep and consume them for himself even though this is inconsistent with socialism? 

If people have their own currency then the will not be allowed to share in the collective fruits.  Just like now, if I decide that because I work I shouldn't have to pay anything, I get prosecuted for stealing.  If a person chooses to produce things for themselves that could very well be considered a hobby, so no he would not have to share.  Now I hope you noticed that when I state what I feel the necessities for survival are that I do include hobbies.  Now if he were to produce everything for himself, food, grain, clothes, etc, he would have to share.  But I want you to note that I seek a society that does this on it's own.  The only thing that the government would be there for is to keep big business in check.  I'm thinking utopian and I realize it won't happen just like your capitalist nightmare wont fully be realized.


[/quote]

[lordfly]

charity on the other hand is voluntary, and Jesus encouraged that. 

I disagree. Many religious sects seem to have it for granted that you have to act as a "good person" in order to get to Heaven - the alternative, I would imagine, being eternal hellfire. Hardly a voluntary choice.

Similar to how Puritanism requires hard work to get into heaven, so does the act of charities and acting Godly. It's not for immediate earthly benefit, but the result is the same -
"involuntary" redistribution of goods to those less needy to equal out the playing field.

If there isn't a payoff at the end, no one's going to do it.

Now purely equal Socialism is a bit silly, which is what I think a lot of people are thinking of - communism-style "equality", which Churchill called "the equal sharing of misery". No matter how hard you worked, you got paid the same. There isn't a payoff at the end, so no one will do the work.

While I think that you need some sort of carrot and stick to drive forward innovation and economic activity, there should be some significant safety nets that prevents people from starving or dying off in spectacularly horrible ways.

There's no reason, for instance, why anyone in the US should be dying of hunger or lack of shelter. And yet, it's quite the problem. Why?

Why should the weakest members of society still be forced to scrape by on bread crumbs and tents? Surely they don't deserve outrageous opulence, but I would imagine in the 21st century the threats of hunger and homelessness should have been solved by now.

In a perfect world, the "basic needs" of the people would be taken care of - military protection, health protection, food, shelter. After that, it's every man for himself - competing for money (to buy more stuff), fame, glory, whatever.

Nobody should be worried about how to feed themselves in 2008, is all I'm saying.

[JL]

Jesus isn't "many religious sects."  Jesus is Jesus. 

socialism leads to shortages and mass starvation as I mentioned in another thread:

there is no rational means of distributing resources (economic calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem).

"Ludwig von Mises argued in a famous 1920 article 'Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth' that the pricing systems in socialist economies were necessarily deficient because if government owned the means of production, then no prices could be obtained for capital goods as they were merely internal transfers of goods in a socialist system and not 'objects of exchange,' unlike final goods. Therefore, they were unpriced and hence the system would be necessarily inefficient since the central planners would not know how to allocate the available resources efficiently.[3] This led him to declare '...that rational economic activity is impossible in a socialist commonwealth.'"

leading to this:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2555986

http://thewideawakes.org/archives/2007/02/09/food-shortages-in-venezuela-already-beginning-as-socialism-descends/

http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/06/29/manufactured-shortages-and-corruption/

http://www.mediatimesreview.com/february05/Inequality.php

http://www.springerlink.com/content/6752xh025173847k/

I disagree. Many religious sects seem to have it for granted that you have to act as a "good person" in order to get to Heaven - the alternative, I would imagine, being eternal hellfire. Hardly a voluntary choice.

Similar to how Puritanism requires hard work to get into heaven, so does the act of charities and acting Godly. It's not for immediate earthly benefit, but the result is the same -
"involuntary" redistribution of goods to those less needy to equal out the playing field.

If there isn't a payoff at the end, no one's going to do it.

Now purely equal Socialism is a bit silly, which is what I think a lot of people are thinking of - communism-style "equality", which Churchill called "the equal sharing of misery". No matter how hard you worked, you got paid the same. There isn't a payoff at the end, so no one will do the work.

While I think that you need some sort of carrot and stick to drive forward innovation and economic activity, there should be some significant safety nets that prevents people from starving or dying off in spectacularly horrible ways.

There's no reason, for instance, why anyone in the US should be dying of hunger or lack of shelter. And yet, it's quite the problem. Why?

Why should the weakest members of society still be forced to scrape by on bread crumbs and tents? Surely they don't deserve outrageous opulence, but I would imagine in the 21st century the threats of hunger and homelessness should have been solved by now.

In a perfect world, the "basic needs" of the people would be taken care of - military protection, health protection, food, shelter. After that, it's every man for himself - competing for money (to buy more stuff), fame, glory, whatever.

Nobody should be worried about how to feed themselves in 2008, is all I'm saying.

[SPOOKYTOOTH]

I watched an interesting program on the DOC Channel the other night that was very interesting. It was titled "Indoctrinate U" produced by Evan Coyne Maloney  by On The Fence Films LLC  2004 - 2007.

It was a documentary about how America's Universities are used to indoctrinate students into Marxism / Socialism, how LEARNING and HIGHER EDUCATION is NOT their PRIMARY function, but POLITICAL BRAINWASHING is;  and how those students and instructors who resist or speak out against that indoctrination are dealt with.   

....Comrade Kruschev would be Proud !!   

After reading through some of the responses to this thread another topic comes to mind...look for it in the future

[JL]

the suspense is killing me...

After reading through some of the responses to this thread another topic comes to mind...look for it in the future