Socalism & Christianity, a perfect match or a complete clash of ideologies?

[King Dan of Great the 1st]

You know whats hilarious. It's the last few seconds in the video when the police officer is trying to stop the individual from falling to the ground and helping them from stumbling. That's the only evidence I see in the media, just the police doing there job.

 

[PrimFinallyFoundGod!]

I don't know what you'd label me as but I am someone with conservative values who like a FEW socialist policies, namely national healthcare, and government financial support for the disabled. I like democracy because this country has gone through many PMs without our input and each was worse than the last. One of them only lasted 6 days and she managed to make the GBP almost equal to USD.

But I don't agree with most left ideology like pro-abortion, gender being a social construct, white people being racist by default, black students getting free stuff and easier tests JUST for being black, increasing taxes any more than they are (we already tax the top bracket by 45% which is insane already), propaganda in schools, police bashing and religion bashing, considering women exposing themselves "empowerment" etc

My university gives anyone who "identifies" as black a free £500, a laptop and cheaper/free education. Many black people signed up to courses to get the £500 and never turned up.

When I found out this I felt hurt and angry but there isn't an alternative (it is a university that is open and also offers remote learning, it also has free access courses for poor people which we fall into the category of, their degrees are cheaper than other universities because of the distance learning)

If there was an alternative though I wouldn't of gone ahead with my course because of this.

So I don't think they are mutually exclusive no but if you believe in leftist ideology too then it is as we know taking a life, adultry, the eternal sin against God, cross dressing, homosexuality etc are all sinful and often Satanic too, especially abortion

 

[Milk-Drops]

I don't know what you'd label me as but I am someone with conservative values who like a FEW socialist policies, namely national healthcare, and government financial support for the disabled. I like democracy because this country has gone through many PMs without our input and each was worse than the last. One of them only lasted 6 days and she managed to make the GBP almost equal to USD.

Socialism is interest8ng in that it's a base ecconomic stance. Socialism branches unto multiple ideologies when it comes to how to set up a state. Anarchism when there is no state, communism when the state is ran by workers, Democratic Socialism when the government is democratic but the economics are collectivist, national Socialism when instead of class the focus is on race, fascism when the focus is on a mythologies past of one's nation.

What you are descr8bing is social democracy where the system is capitalist in nature, but social welfare programs are used to address uneleastic aspects of the market, such h as welfare programs and social benefits (Post office, Healthcare, fire department, military, and infrastructure).

But I don't agree with most left ideology like pro-abortion, gender being a social construct, white people being racist by default, black students getting free stuff and easier tests JUST for being black, increasing taxes any more than they are (we already tax the top bracket by 45% which is insane already), propaganda in schools, police bashing and religion bashing, considering women exposing themselves "empowerment" etc

Most of that is culture war stuff, and not anyth8ng to do with Socialism. Some of this stuff has flipped so many times it's not funny.

My university gives anyone who "identifies" as black a free £500, a laptop and cheaper/free education. Many black people signed up to courses to get the £500 and never turned up. >[/quote[ Oof, looks like the school didn't think theough possible exploitation.

When I found out this I felt hurt and angry but there isn't an alternative (it is a university that is open and also offers remote learning, it also has free access courses for poor people which we fall into the category of, their degrees are cheaper than other universities because of the distance learning)

If there was an alternative though I wouldn't of gone ahead with my course because of this.

So I don't think they are mutually exclusive no but if you believe in leftist ideology too then it is as we know taking a life, adultry, the eternal sin against God, cross dressing, homosexuality etc are all sinful and often Satanic too, especially abortion

I think it's less "Leftist ideaology" and more various different ideas that get lumped together. Left culturalybis a big tent l. A lot of different schools of thought on various issues. Here in the US it's mostly Christian issues that makes people "right wing" culturally. Most everyone else is moderate or left decause the "right wing" is very narrow. Unless the pweon is right libertarian, they seem to be the only real outliers

 

[hawkman]

I Grew Up in a Communist System. Here’s What Americans Don’t Understand About Freedom

Clip from link above.

Individual freedom can only exist in the context of free-market capitalism. Personal freedom thrives in capitalism, declines in government-regulated economies, and vanishes in communism. Aside from better economic and legislative policies, what America needs is a more intense appreciation for individual freedom and capitalism.

I was born and raised in communist Romania during the Cold War, a country in which the government owned all the resources and means of production. The state controlled almost every aspect of our lives: our education, our job placement, the time of day we could have hot water, and what we were allowed to say.

Like the rest of the Eastern European countries, Romania was often referred to as a communist country. In school, we were taught it was a socialist country. Its name prior to the 1989 Revolution to overthrow the Ceausescu regime was the Socialist Republic of Romania.

From an economic standpoint, a petty fraction of property was still privately owned. In a communist system, all property is owned by the state. So if it wasn't a true communist economy, its heavy central planning and the application of a totalitarian control over the Romanian citizenry made this nation rightfully gain its title of a communist country.

Socialism Creates Shortages​

Despite the fact that Romania was a country rich in resources, there were shortages everywhere. Food, electricity, water, and just about every one of life's necessities were in short supply. The apartment building in which we lived provided hot water for showers two hours in the morning and two hours at night. We had to be quick and on time so we didn't miss the opportunity.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I, myself, am a socalist and have been for many many years and firmly believe that a more socalist society would be better then the current one. Since I have started to study the Bible, I personally believe the Bible renforces my ideas of socalism as it talks about caring for one another, loving one another and helping out those who are less fourtante.

I was just wondering what other Christians would think of this paring?

Well, there is socialism and there is marxism which calls itself socialism but it practiced quite differently.

Marxist socialism as practiced in the old Soviet Union or N. Korea or China (which is mixed) requires tyranny. It also required the loss of private property which is something God is not supportive of. In the Bible there is private property and private means of support. There is no case of collective means of support or government owned means of production. You cannot have "do not steal" if there is no private property.

In general, socialism is the government caring for less fortunate in the society which in the Bible, ought to be cared for voluntarily by the believers, which was practiced by the early church and has been a part of many churches although not all, by any means. I live in Europe where there is more socialism than some places, but it varies between countries. These are all democratic countries who want some form of social care as well as private ownership of the means of production. (Those countries where the government owned this resulted in very unproductive production for obvious reasons.)

So what is the socialism you see as present in the Bible?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Well, there is socialism and there is marxism which calls itself socialism but it practiced quite differently.

Socialism is any system where the workers hold control over the means of production. Marxism believes in the concept of the "Dictatorship if the Prolateriate". Meaning the government and ecconony is worker ran.

Marxist socialism as practiced in the old Soviet Union or N. Korea or China (which is mixed) requires tyranny.

The USSR was ran by the Bulshevik party which was run under the ideals of Vladamir Lenin. Marxism splintered into multiple ideas and Lenin formed "Scientific Socialism" which today is referred to as Marxist Leninism. Lenin came to the conclusion that a strong Vanguard party is need to educate and protect the people from "Counter Revolutionaries" that where the tyranicle part comes from since the government is hyper focused on removing opposition to the party.

It also required the loss of private property which is something God is not supportive of. In the Bible there is private property and private means of support. There is no case of collective means of support or government owned means of production. You cannot have "do not steal" if there is no private property.

This is where the colloquial and Ecconomic definitions of private property get confused. Private property refers to means of production such as land, resources,Factories. Etc. In short capital. In general Socialism distinguishes private and personal property. You can't own commercial land, but you own your house. You can't individually own a corporation but you can own a tool directly used in that corporation. Basicly you can't just own stock, real-estate, and concepts, you own the results of your labor.

In general, socialism is the government caring for less fortunate in the society which in the Bible, ought to be cared for voluntarily by the believers, which was practiced by the early church and has been a part of many churches although not all, by any means.

No socialism is the people owning the means of production. Any system will have collective and individual policy. Even capitalist writers recognize the need for some form general welfare.

I live in Europe where there is more socialism than some places, but it varies between countries. These are all democratic countries who want some form of social care as well as private ownership of the means of production. (Those countries where the government owned this resulted in very unproductive production for obvious reasons.)

Yeah that's social Democracy. When the 20th century came there was a split in Marxist thought where you had the Lenin model and then a man named Eduard Bernstein who disagreed with Marx and Lenin on the need for a worker based dictatorship and instead puts more power into unions instead of a central economy.
It's similar to how Adam Smith is the father of Capitalism but we see splits with Milton, Rand, Locke. Etc.

Yay nerd stuff.

So what is the socialism you see as present in the Bible?

I see that since The Bible takes place in a Fudelustic time period, it's more closely related to rejecting worldly wealth in place for a collective purpose under God. So it's a rejection the then current system. So it has simolarites to what would become basic socialist thought.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Socialism is any system where the workers hold control over the means of production. Marxism believes in the concept of the "Dictatorship if the Prolateriate". Meaning the government and ecconony is worker ran.

Well, Sweden thinks of themselves as socialistic but the means of production are not owned by nor controlled by the employees but are privately held.

The USSR was ran by the Bulshevik party which was run under the ideals of Vladamir Lenin. Marxism splintered into multiple ideas and Lenin formed "Scientific Socialism" which today is referred to as Marxist Leninism. Lenin came to the conclusion that a strong Vanguard party is need to educate and protect the people from "Counter Revolutionaries" that where the tyranicle part comes from since the government is hyper focused on removing opposition to the party.


This is where the colloquial and Ecconomic definitions of private property get confused. Private property refers to means of production such as land, resources,Factories. Etc. In short capital. In general Socialism distinguishes private and personal property. You can't own commercial land, but you own your house. You can't individually own a corporation but you can own a tool directly used in that corporation. Basicly you can't just own stock, real-estate, and concepts, you own the results of your labor.


No socialism is the people owning the means of production. Any system will have collective and individual policy. Even capitalist writers recognize the need for some form general welfare.

Yeah that's social Democracy. When the 20th century came there was a split in Marxist thought where you had the Lenin model and then a man named Eduard Bernstein who disagreed with Marx and Lenin on the need for a worker based dictatorship and instead puts more power into unions instead of a central economy.
It's similar to how Adam Smith is the father of Capitalism but we see splits with Milton, Rand, Locke. Etc.

Yay nerd stuff.

I see that since The Bible takes place in a Fudelustic time period, it's more closely related to rejecting worldly wealth in place for a collective purpose under God. So it's a rejection the then current system. So it has simolarites to what would become basic socialist thought.

You seem quite well educated on the matter, far beyond the details of what I know. Thank you for your input. I used to think badly of socialism or social policies until I lived in one and was among the poorer of the society. Then the benefits of having help were quite nice. Nice to know an expert on this.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Well, Sweden thinks of themselves as socialistic but the means of production are not owned by nor controlled by the employees but are privately held.

You seem quite well educated on the matter, far beyond the details of what I know. Thank you for your input. I used to think badly of socialism or social policies until I lived in one and was among the poorer of the society. Then the benefits of having help were quite nice. Nice to know an expert on this.

Thank ya, I'm by no means an expert. Juat a nerd who gets bored easily. I learned a long time ago that most subjects suffer from taking very intricate concepts and simplifying it down to be more understandable, then the next peep does the same, etc. So eventually we get to a point where peeps forget and confuse so much stuff together.

I think that's why most peeps just think capitalism just means freedom and Socialism means government does a thing. It's just really really over simplified. XD

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Thank ya, I'm by no means an expert. Juat a nerd who gets bored easily. I learned a long time ago that most subjects suffer from taking very intricate concepts and simplifying it down to be more understandable, then the next peep does the same, etc. So eventually we get to a point where peeps forget and confuse so much stuff together.

I think that's why most peeps just think capitalism just means freedom and Socialism means government does a thing. It's just really really over simplified. XD

Yes I agree. Especially peeps who never lived in a democracy that has a strong social net.

 

[King Dan of Great the 1st]

There is no case of collective means of support or government owned means of production. You cannot have "do not steal" if there is no private property.

You shall kot steal.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, nor his ox, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Neighbours house?. Neighbours stock?. Do not steal or lust what your neighbour has that you don't.

Sounds like God is protecting private property and ownership.

 

[King Dan of Great the 1st]

You can own nothing and be happy like a sheep or a chicken. Lol.