Socialism is Evil

[Aus22]

If Socialism was evil so was Jesus Christ. He was a socialist because he advocating the rich giving to the poor.

Now that lassiz faire capitalism has collapse even in the USA all countries are part Socialist. All have progressive taxtion that distrubte income from the rich to the poor.

Now all have government own enterprises following the partial or full nationalization of failed financial institutions.

 

[Pandora]

If Socialism was evil so was Jesus Christ. He was a socialist because he advocating the rich giving to the poor.

Now that lassiz faire capitalism has collapse even in the USA all countries are part Socialist. All have progressive taxtion that distrubte income from the rich to the poor.

Now all have government own enterprises following the partial or full nationalization of failed financial institutions.

its a little bit differnt Aus,


Jesus advocated being a cheerful giver. Giving those those you see who are in need, and of your own free will.

Socialism is when the government takes your money from you and gives it to who they see fit. It is not of your own free will and its not cheerful.

there is a very big difference between the two. People who follow Jesus generally are very giving with what the government lets them keep, imagine how much more giving they could do if the government kept their grabbing rotton stinkin hands out of their pockets in the first place.

 

[Agnapostate]

Oh, that's right. I shouldn't have forgotten about this. I will get back to it when I'm not as busy as I have been over the past week.

its a little bit differnt Aus,

Jesus advocated being a cheerful giver. Giving those those you see who are in need, and of your own free will.

Socialism is when the government takes your money from you and gives it to who they see fit. It is not of your own free will and its not cheerful.

there is a very big difference between the two. People who follow Jesus generally are very giving with what the government lets them keep, imagine how much more giving they could do if the government kept their grabbing rotton stinkin hands out of their pockets in the first place.

You have an incorrect understanding of socialism. Legitimate forms of socialism are voluntary and based on free association. They cannot be coerced or forced. Libertarian socialism is an illustrative example of legitimate socialism. Libertarian socialism is also espoused at various points in the Bible.

Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’”

And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves.

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need. And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Liberation theology incorporates some form of libertarian socialism, also.

Liberation theology is a school of theology within Christianity, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church. It emphasizes the Christian mission to bring justice to the poor and oppressed, particularly through political activism. Its theologians consider sin the root source of poverty, and often use social sciences, such as sociology and economics to help understand how to combat poverty. Some elements of certain liberation theologies have been rejected by the Catholic Church...Liberation Theology posits fighting poverty by suppressing its source: sin. In so doing, it explores the relationship between Christian theology — especially Roman Catholic theology — and political activism, especially about social justice, poverty, and human rights. The Theology's principal methodological innovation is seeing theology from the perspective of the poor and the oppressed (socially, politically, etc.); per Jon Sobrino, S.J., the poor are a privileged channel of God's grace. According to Phillip Berryman, liberation theology is "an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor's suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor".

Christian socialism generally refers to those on the Christian left whose politics are both Christian and socialist and who see these two philosophies as being interrelated. This category can include Liberation theology and the doctrine of the social gospel...Christian socialists draw parallels between what some have characterized as the egalitarian and anti-establishment message of Jesus, who – according to Christian Gospel – spoke against the religious authorities of his time, and the egalitarian, anti-establishment, and sometimes anti-clerical message of most contemporary socialisms. Some Christian Socialists have gone as far as to become active Communists (see Christian communism). This phenomenon was most common among Christian missionaries in China, the most notable being James Gareth Endicott, who became supportive of the struggle of the Communist Party of China in the 1930s and 1940s.

Christian Communism is a form of religious communism centered around Christianity. It is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support communism as the ideal social system. Although there is no universal agreement on the exact date when Christian communism was founded, many Christian communists assert that evidence from the Bible suggests that the first Christians, including the Apostles, created their own small communist society in the years following Jesus' death and resurrection. As such, many advocates of Christian communism argue that it was taught by Jesus and practiced by the Apostles themselves.

 

[GenSeneca]

Legitimate forms of socialism are voluntary and based on free association. They cannot be coerced or forced.

This is something I can agree with... but not this:

Libertarian socialism is an illustrative example of legitimate socialism.

Libertarian Socialism on Wiki:

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property,[2] in order that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. -- Wiki on Libertarian Socialism

Libertarian Socialism, by your own description of Legitimate Socialism, is not legitimate because it requires the power of government to seize private property, i. e. the means of production.

What "authoritarian institution" protects an individuals right to property? Our Constitution did not grant us our rights, it recognized them as being unalienable and created government to protect those rights.

So tell me please, is it the legitimate institutions created by our Constitution, with the responsibility of protecting individual rights, that are seen as "authoritarian" and in need of being abolished?

 

[Agnapostate]

Libertarian Socialism, by your own description of Legitimate Socialism, is not legitimate because it requires the power of government to seize private property, i. e. the means of production.

What "authoritarian institution" protects an individuals right to property? Our Constitution did not grant us our rights, it recognized them as being unalienable and created government to protect those rights.

So tell me please, is it the legitimate institutions created by our Constitution, with the responsibility of protecting individual rights, that are seen as "authoritarian" and in need of being abolished?

It would not be the power of "government" (in the conventional sense) in most cases, as in the most prominent form of libertarian socialism, anarchism, the state would be abolished.

What do you consider "private property" to be, first of all?

 

[top gun]

The last three people on your list are Nazis. You define Keynesians as "socialists?" You also define Soviet officials as socialists, though the Soviet Union was a state capitalist regime. The rest of the people on your list are Marxists who clung to one form of authoritarianism or another. Luxemburg is one of the few respectable authors there.

Try this:

• 
  Noam Chomsky
• Mikhail Bakunin
• Peter Kropotkin
• Sam Dolgoff
• Daniel Guerin
• Emma Goldman
• Murray Bookchin
• Errico Malatesta
• Flores Magon brothers
• Pierre Joseph Proudhon

Why don't we discuss libertarian socialism?



You know nothing. Your "reading list" reveals that you have a passing familiarity with authoritarian "socialism," and know nothing whatsoever about libertarian socialism. The most profoundly anti-democratic and authoritarian system in place is capitalism.

You appear to have a great understanding from a research side of these individual people/political circumstances... much more than I... but from the general perspective of what I do know I would agree with you.

I'll look forward to your future responses on this topic as they come up.

 

[GenSeneca]

It would not be the power of "government" (in the conventional sense) in most cases, as in the most prominent form of libertarian socialism, anarchism, the state would be abolished.

In what way will you take control of the means of production and resources in order for the means of production and resources to be "shared" by society as a whole?

Once the means and resources are shared by society as a whole.... who's job is it to maintain them? Who provides the capital to upgrade and operate them?

What do you consider "private property" to be, first of all?

All physical holdings, and intellectual works, that an individual creates, controls or inherits.

Now another question:

What "authoritarian institution" protects an individuals right to property?