Christian socialism

[Athetotheist]

Conservative Christians often wax ominous about "the evils of socialism" and insist that socialism and Christianity are mutually incompatible.

Considering the embarrassing materialism of the "prosperity gospel" and the widening gap between the rich and the poor, might conservative Christians be ready to view Christian socialism in a more positive light?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christian-Socialism

[Daedalus X]

[Replying to Daedalus X in post #4]

I would also say that since christianity recognizes property rights, then christianity would be a capitalist system.

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." (Acts 4:32)

Yes, they were of one heart and of one soul, and they did gladly did share all that they had. We can call this behavior "christian charity", rather than socialism. Socialism, where ever it has been tried, has been tried at the business end of a gun. Big difference.

[Replying to Daedalus X in post #4]
You leave out a couple of key elements. Capitalism is private ownership of production for private profit; socialism is public ownership of production for public profit.

As it should be. Though in practice, public profit ends up being private profit for the elites that are appointed to run the socialist system.

[Replying to Daedalus X in post #4]
The problem with capitalism is that it doesn't reward work; it rewards ownership.

Sure it rewards work, ever heard of a payroll check? It can be said "capitalism rewards merit, socialism rewards mediocrity".

[Replying to Daedalus X in post #4]
People rightfully own what their labor creates. When people work and their work generates wealth, that wealth rightfully belongs to them; when someone who merely owns the workplace takes their wealth and gives back to them only a sliver in the form of "wages", that workplace owner is taking wealth from those who rightfully own it since it was their labor which generated it.

I do own my own labor, that is why I have a right to sell my labour to my employer in exchange for a payroll check. Again, as it should be.

[Replying to Daedalus X in post #4]
As for taxing the rich, here again the rich should have to pay for what they get. For example: if the rich are going to pay no taxes while stashing their fortunes in offshore havens, the taxpayer-supported US military shouldn't be sent in to save the day when a local revolution threatens their bankrolls. Wouldn't you agree?

I would agree. And, would you agree that 90% of voters are not rich, and the 10% of voters that are rich are entirely at mercy of the 90%.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Daedalus X in post #11]

Socialism, where ever it has been tried, has been tried at the business end of a gun. Big difference.

The difference you're alluding to is the difference between socialism and communism.

....public profit ends up being private profit for the elites that are appointed to run the socialist system.

Here, public profit ends up being private profit for the elites that are appointed to run the capitalist system.

I do own my own labor, that is why I have a right to sell my labour to my employer in exchange for a payroll check.

But under capitalism, the employer sets the price for your labor; you don't get to. If the employer isn't willing to pay what you need for your labor, you go without work. That's why jobs are outsourced.

And, would you agree that 90% of voters are not rich, and the 10% of voters that are rich are entirely at mercy of the 90%.

I would most definitely not agree, unless the 90% own large corporations which get away with decimating the environment they live in and paying no taxes.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #8]

Regardless of what you call it, you could have that dynamic only within a certain group.

But that group could be widespread, as in an entire profession. And other professions operating the same way could meld into a society.

Right, that would be a guild. They operate socialistically within capitalism, having disastrous effects on those left out of that benefit who have to fend for themselves, just like Nazis behaving socialistically toward other Nazis but leaving other races out in the cold or treating them as if they don't have rights.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #8]

Regardless of what you call it, you could have that dynamic only within a certain group.

But that group could be widespread, as in an entire profession. And other professions operating the same way could meld into a society.

Right, that would be a guild. They operate socialistically within capitalism, having disastrous effects on those left out of that benefit who have to fend for themselves, just like Nazis behaving socialistically toward other Nazis but leaving other races out in the cold or treating them as if they don't have rights.

The Nazis did not behave socialistically at all. They were fanatically antisocial. And socializing a profession would not involve anyone being "left out" to "fend for themselves".

[Purple Knight]

The Nazis did not behave socialistically at all.

They gave out free health care and took people off the streets who were classified as "work-shy" and put them to work. They had a mixed system that Hitler thought wouldn't work for anywhere but Germany (he said, "National Socialism is not for export," at one point) but it was definitely at least partly socialist, at least for the in-group.

And socializing a profession would not involve anyone being "left out" to "fend for themselves".

People who were not members of that profession, or any other profession with such a system in place.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #15]

They gave out free health care and took people off the streets who were classified as "work-shy" and put them to work. They had a mixed system that Hitler thought wouldn't work for anywhere but Germany (he said, "National Socialism is not for export," at one point) but it was definitely at least partly socialist, at least for the in-group.

They provided those benefits for ethnic Germans because they were nationalists.

People who were not members of that profession, or any other profession with such a system in place.

.....would still not be left out. In whatever work one does, labor can be its own management.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #15]

They gave out free health care and took people off the streets who were classified as "work-shy" and put them to work. They had a mixed system that Hitler thought wouldn't work for anywhere but Germany (he said, "National Socialism is not for export," at one point) but it was definitely at least partly socialist, at least for the in-group.

They provided those benefits for ethnic Germans because they were nationalists.

And I didn't snip even though I usually do because I don't like post bloat, because I specifically pointed out that it was only for the in-group. I also said that you might not call it socialism, but it's the same behaviour, just with a more limited scope.

And if I really wanted to just throw down a trump card, I would point out that Sweden doesn't generally provide free health care to Americans, so this is still socialism in a limited scope. However I recognise this as a douche argument since no sane country would do that... or even could do that, and not only because of resources, but it would be a logistical nightmare and probably impossible.

What I wanted to do was draw a comparison between Nazis, providing an extreme and gamechanging benefit to ethnic Germans only, leaving everyone else out in the cold, and a mercantile system where the guilds take care of their own, but if you're not in one, you're left to fend for yourself in a world where many are getting a socialism-style benefit, which essentially guarantees you won't be able to compete.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #15]

They gave out free health care and took people off the streets who were classified as "work-shy" and put them to work. They had a mixed system that Hitler thought wouldn't work for anywhere but Germany (he said, "National Socialism is not for export," at one point) but it was definitely at least partly socialist, at least for the in-group.

They provided those benefits for ethnic Germans because they were nationalists.

And I didn't snip even though I usually do because I don't like post bloat, because I specifically pointed out that it was only for the in-group. I also said that you might not call it socialism, but it's the same behaviour, just with a more limited scope.

And if I really wanted to just throw down a trump card, I would point out that Sweden doesn't generally provide free health care to Americans, so this is still socialism in a limited scope. However I recognise this as a douche argument since no sane country would do that... or even could do that, and not only because of resources, but it would be a logistical nightmare and probably impossible.

What I wanted to do was draw a comparison between Nazis, providing an extreme and gamechanging benefit to ethnic Germans only, leaving everyone else out in the cold, and a mercantile system where the guilds take care of their own, but if you're not in one, you're left to fend for yourself in a world where many are getting a socialism-style benefit, which essentially guarantees you won't be able to compete.

That's just it----it isn't about competition. Socialized industries wouldn't be like merchant guilds conveying higher social status through payment for membership; they would produce to meet the needs of society and everyone would benefit from production [labor] and profit [wealth]. Everyone's basic needs would be met and no one would be left to fend for themselves.

[Purple Knight]

That's just it----it isn't about competition. Socialized industries wouldn't be like merchant guilds conveying higher social status through payment for membership; they would produce to meet the needs of society and everyone would benefit from production [labor] and profit [wealth]. Everyone's basic needs would be met and no one would be left to fend for themselves.

In a fully socialist system, that's how it would work (ideally) yes. My point is that there are many smaller systems that adopt socialist methods in order to outcompete others, within a greater system that is competitive. This really should stand as proof of something, to those who always decry socialism.

Nobody wants capitalism, especially not capitalists. Capitalists want capitalism for everyone else, and socialism for themselves. When they're allowed their precious freedom, they use it to form mini socialist collectives that function to protect the in-group. It works because... when people work together... instead of fighting each other at every level... it turns out that doesn't have negative results.

[JoeyKnothead]

In a fully socialist system, that's how it would work (ideally) yes. My point is that there are many smaller systems that adopt socialist methods in order to outcompete others, within a greater system that is competitive. This really should stand as proof of something, to those who always decry socialism.

Nobody wants capitalism, especially not capitalists. Capitalists want capitalism for everyone else, and socialism for themselves. When they're allowed their precious freedom, they use it to form mini socialist collectives that function to protect the in-group. It works because... when people work together... instead of fighting each other at every level... it turns out that doesn't have negative results.

When one of the smartest here among us puts it to ya, ya done got it put.

I'm reminded of "too big to fail", where risk is removed by the notion that a bailout is the "only answer".