Is Socialism Moral? Especially, Christian?

[Purple Knight]

The question for debate is whether a socialist system is closer to how Jesus intended people to behave than a capitalist one.

The sub-question is for those who think socialism is moral whether that was inspired by religion or not: If a country's laws were very close to what Jesus (or your morality) taught, but as a consequence, the country was a very bad place to live, would you move there? For example, a country that has a lot of assault because it is a law that you turn the other cheek and don't hit back, and you'll be punished for retaliating. Or a country where ministers roam around, imbued with legal authority, and they decide when you must sell all your possessions and give to the poor, including your house and car.

It's very easy to have high morals when the consequences are less present because the system you happen to live in works to protect you from them. Is there something extra moral about choosing to live where the system doesn't do that? Or is it just foolish? Because perhaps the goal is to have and hold the highest morals possible and if you've been given an ivory tower with which to protect them, that's simply a logical choice to achieve maximum morality.

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #96]

Where does capitalism make workers rich? Certainly not in communist nations lacking the vibrant economic environments provided by free market entrepreneurs in a protected free market society.

Capitalists and their supporters have almost always opposed measures designed to lessen or eliminate poverty.

Marke: Communists, socialists, and capitalists cannot end poverty, but communists and socialists can level the playing field somewhat by making non-ruling class citizens equally poor.

They blocked minimum wage laws often for many years, and when such laws were passed, they blocked raising the minimums (as they have done in the United States since 2009).

Marke: Sadly, California has poroved what responsible financial experts told them would happen if the government raised the minimum wage above what the market could bear.

Capitalists similarly opposed laws outlawing or limiting child labour, reducing the length of the working day, providing unemployment compensation, establishing government pension systems such as Social Security, providing a national health insurance system, challenging gender and racial discrimination against women and people of colour, or providing a universal basic income.

Marke: Even JFK realized that oppressive over-taxation of businesses resulted in economic downturns which hurt everyone, especially the poor. Universal government-provided health insurance remains a bad idea for many reasons, not the least of which is the unsustainable cost and the degeneration of available health care for all. Before modern times children commonly worked in fields and factories in positions that were beneficial to the economy and their own development. Excessively lowering work days and hours do not increase productivity or responsibility in business environments. Universal basic incomes favor the lazy, the incompetent, and the irresponsible at the expense of the economic health of a nation.


Capitalists have led opposition to progressive tax systems, occupational safety and health systems, and free universal education from preschool through university. Capitalists have opposed unions for the last 150 years and likewise restricted collective bargaining for large classes of workers. They have opposed socialist, communist, and anarchist organizations aimed at organizing the poor to demand relief from poverty.
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/ ... -is-a-myth

Marke: If lefties could possibly come up with some sort of payment plans for all these societal benefits that did not include increasing the debt or massively increasing the wealth of corrupt grifters then maybe we could look at those proposals.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #100]

I oppose the rich in government confiscating worthy portions of the wealth of their 'subjects' in order to satisfy Jesus' command to give money to the poor.

"A godly nation needs a godly government. There's no separating God from government! We must have a godly government!! WE NEED MORE GOD IN GOVERNMENT!!!"

"God tells us to take care of the poor."

"Hey.....that's for individuals to do, not governments....."

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #101]

Communists, socialists, and capitalists cannot end poverty, but communists and socialists can level the playing field somewhat by making non-ruling class citizens equally poor.

No one being exceedingly rich isn't the same as everyone being poor.

Sadly, California has poroved what responsible financial experts told them would happen if the government raised the minimum wage above what the market could bear.

What a capitalist market could bear.

Even JFK realized that oppressive over-taxation of businesses resulted in economic downturns which hurt everyone, especially the poor. Universal government-provided health insurance remains a bad idea for many reasons, not the least of which is the unsustainable cost and the degeneration of available health care for all.

Then why are Danes and Canadians generally happy with their health care systems, and happy enough to pay higher taxes for them?

This is capitalism's "taxes-are-the-root-of-all-evil" boogeyman.

Universal basic incomes favor the lazy, the incompetent, and the irresponsible at the expense of the economic health of a nation.

Not, I suspect, to the extent that corporate welfare does the same.

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #101]

Communists, socialists, and capitalists cannot end poverty, but communists and socialists can level the playing field somewhat by making non-ruling class citizens equally poor.

No one being exceedingly rich isn't the same as everyone being poor.

Marke: Is there something unfair or evil about capitalists getting rich?

Sadly, California has proved what responsible financial experts told them would happen if the government raised the minimum wage above what the market could bear.

What a capitalist market could bear.

Even JFK realized that oppressive over-taxation of businesses resulted in economic downturns which hurt everyone, especially the poor. Universal government-provided health insurance remains a bad idea for many reasons, not the least of which is the unsustainable cost and the degeneration of available health care for all.

Then why are Danes and Canadians generally happy with their health care systems, and happy enough to pay higher taxes for them?

This is capitalism's "taxes-are-the-root-of-all-evil" boogeyman.

Universal basic incomes favor the lazy, the incompetent, and the irresponsible at the expense of the economic health of a nation.

Not, I suspect, to the extent that corporate welfare does the same.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #104]

Is there something unfair or evil about capitalists getting rich?

There is when they get rich off the labor of the working class and keep the working class in poverty.

[Purple Knight]

Morality just needs to be sincere. And sincere morality will lead to more sincere morality, if cultivated.

I don't see socialism as moral to begin with. Not a good start, in my opinion. Morality must be free. Free to cultivate and be cultivated.

Well how free do you mean? Generally people do not think the prisons ought to be opened, because without giving those sweet souls a chance to refuse to kill on their own, they can't develop and be truly moral.

People who argue that freedom is moral don't always understand that freedom is not qualitative - it's a thermostat. Legal murder is an extreme most people do not support, though it would be moral and is totally covered by the argument that morality must be free to cultivate and be cultivated. Forcing people not to murder indeed doesn't make them good people.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to marke in post #104]

Is there something unfair or evil about capitalists getting rich?

There is when they get rich off the labor of the working class and keep the working class in poverty.

I like to imagine it this way: Would one person really be vastly better off if another person just poofed away? These are mangoworms, infesting a dog.



The mangoworms flourish from the association and desire it. They're doing incredibly well. Better than the dog, I'd say. Now, if we poof away the mangoworms, the dog's condition is much improved. However, if we poof away the dog, the mangoworms cease to flourish and they will all die.

There's one party in the relationship that needs the other, and one party that would be better off without the other.

It actually is a zero-sum game. It's pie with a maximum size to it, though we haven't quite reached it yet, we're almost there.

It's a pie because money - in other words, relative success - is the currency by which scarce resources are purchased. If there wasn't money, it wouldn't be bad if the other six people on the deserted island all doubled their resources. It doesn't affect your coconuts for him to have doubled his coconuts. Until coconuts are used as currency because then, the prices of everything will adjust to the greater relative wealth of the doublers and that just made you poor. You might not care if you do for yourself. But in an economy that is integrated and designed so nobody does everything or even most things for themselves, you will suddenly find that because everyone else doubled their wealth, your rent is now too expensive and you're out on the street. The grocery store also doubled its prices, and now you can afford half as much. Utilities too, and you're lucky if you can afford heat in the winter.

[oldbadger]

Marke: I oppose the rich in government confiscating worthy portions of the wealth of their 'subjects' in order to satisfy Jesus' command to give money to the poor.

So you don't believe in everything that Jesus said and did.
I haven't got a problem with that, but Jesus might.

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #104]

Is there something unfair or evil about capitalists getting rich?

There is when they get rich off the labor of the working class and keep the working class in poverty.

Poverty is relative. Citizens of poor countries may earn as little as $30/month or less yet poor workers in America claim the 'system' is unjust if they only make $300/week. The problem with unregenerate envious and greedy workers is that they think if they are not making as much as the CEO then the system is unfair, which is stupid. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich and sustainable wages in a healthy economy are set by market forces, not by 'greedy' CEOs who somehow think that by mistreating their workers they can compete with other companies that do not mistreat their workers.

[marke]

Marke: I oppose the rich in government confiscating worthy portions of the wealth of their 'subjects' in order to satisfy Jesus' command to give money to the poor.

So you don't believe in everything that Jesus said and did.
I haven't got a problem with that, but Jesus might.

I do not believe Jesus taught what unbelievers erroneously claim He taught.