No, Jesus Wasn't a Socialist

Speedster

Executive Member
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
9,245
Precisely what he did not do.
Help me out, what am missing? I asked him for examples of the socialist states he was referring to. He said Canada (amongst others). But now you say he didn't say Canada is a socialist state.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,041
If everyone is their own country, what is to stop the bad people from been bad to other people?
Ah okay. Fair question! :)

I think being part of a community or nation, rather than a country, could still mitigate that. So bad people and outlaws can buggeroff to their own lands lol.
 

Randhir

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
26,148
Help me out, what am missing? I asked him for examples of the socialist states he was referring to. He said Canada (amongst others). But now you say he didn't say Canada is a socialist state.
Democratic socialist as in how those states practice it. Ie capitalism with social programmes when it comes to certain things, as in healthcare, education etc.

He has outlined it pretty clearly, and even said he was against a socialist state.
 

Speedster

Executive Member
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
9,245
Democratic socialist as in how those states practice it. Ie capitalism with social programmes when it comes to certain things, as in healthcare, education etc.

He has outlined it pretty clearly, and even said he was against a socialist state.
So you are saying democratic socialist states aren't socialist states?

Edit: for clarity, I never said Ghoti was advocating for socialism, I simply said that he misunderstood it.
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
46,122
Ah okay. Fair question! :)

I think being part of a community or nation, rather than a country, could mitigate that.
People are people. I like and wish your view of humanity would prevail, but in reality it would be warlords and mercs in minutes. Kings and their armies.
 

Randhir

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
26,148
So you are saying democratic socialist states aren't socialist states?
You don't need to put words into my mouth, you need to re-read ghoti's posts. He's even helpfully quoted the relevant sections for you, as I have.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,041
Communism is where the people control the means of production
the people don't control anything, look at China over the eons, the supreme leader (or the state as a cruel joke of the embodiment of the people) control the means of production ... and therein lies the problem, there's virtually no difference between socialism and communism, just words and meaningless definitions

When he made that fish and bread for all the people in feeding the multitude. He controlled the means of production. He did not charge people for the food and gave it away for free. So technically communist.
He controlled only his own production, thereby adding production capacity that previously did not exist. He did nothing to the production of others. Capitalist all the way. What he charged for his product was entirely his choice, that's capitalist as well.

One could also argue he launched the first strike in a price war to the bottom, another capitalist phenomenon.
 

Speedster

Executive Member
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
9,245
You don't need to put words into my mouth, you need to re-read ghoti's posts. He's even helpfully quoted the relevant sections for you, as I have.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm trying to understand how when he gives Canada as an example of a socialist state you say that he hasn't. You then say he said democratic socialist states, which I'm assuming you see as different to socialist states. You mention above that you see democratic socialist states as capitalist states, which is very confusing as the two are incompatible (the state and individuals can't both own the means of production).

Maybe I should quote the bit where he refers to democratic socialism as a form of socialism for you
Personally I think you only see one type of socialism, autocratic socialism.

Remember.... two axis. The other side of the political compass has democratic socialism...
From that it's clear that he sees democratic socialism as a form of socialism.
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
46,122
the people don't control anything, look at China over the eons, the supreme leader (or the state as a cruel joke of the embodiment of the people) control the means of production ... and therein lies the problem, there's virtually no difference between socialism and communism, just words and meaningless definitions
AFAIK communists believe that socialism is needed to achieve communism. China believes "does communism" though socialism or something like that. I dunno, Im not a communist. As I said earlier.

There is NO such thing as a pure capitalist state, and there is no such thing as a pure communist state. (Though both their pundits will tell us that their idea is the bees knees and works perfectly in theory).

EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY in the world is a mixed market state (a combination of socialism and capitalism). The argument is not which is better (we need both) the real debate is about how much of each we need and where we need it.
 

Randhir

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
26,148
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm trying to understand how when he gives Canada as an example of a socialist state you say that he hasn't. You then say he said democratic socialist states, which I'm assuming you see as different to socialist states.
He quoted himself to you and it's very clear what he means. I've helped as much as I can.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,041
There is NO such thing as a pure capitalist state, and there is no such thing as a pure communist state. (Though both their pundits will tell us that their idea is the bees knees and works perfectly in theory).

EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY in the world is a mixed market state (a combination of socialism and capitalism)
Indeed, 100% true

The argument is not which is better (we need both) the real debate is about how much of each we need and where we need it.
We don't need both, we've just gotten so accustomed to having the mix that we no longer believe pure capitalism can work. Pure socialism has been tried many times, and it has failed every time.

Various combinations have been tried with various levels of success or failure.

How many times has pure capitalism been tried so that we have a record of its performance rather than theories?
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
24,917
Sjoe, all these equivocal ideological terms trap us in endless debate.

For me the overriding issue is charity, which is the highest form of love.

Charity, like all forms of love, cannot be imposed, compelled or claimed as a right. It is freely given and received, or is is nothing but tyranny.
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
46,122
Indeed, 100% true


We don't need both, we've just gotten so accustomed to having the mix that we no longer believe pure capitalism can work. Pure socialism has been tried many times, and it has failed every time.

Various combinations have been tried with various levels of success or failure.

How many times has pure capitalism been tried so that we have a record of its performance rather than theories?
I like how Canada has done it

Good example of where the state run social service is better than the pure capitalism option is their education system. Theyve realized investing in their education today, they produce more tax payers tomorrow.

If schools were all "for profit", many of those kids would never grow up and become productive tax paying members of society. The gap between the rich and the poor would increase and so would social unrest.

Canada has a mixed market, so you get public university and you get private education. You have a choice of either.

In a pure capitalist society would not have that choice.
 
Last edited:

Speedster

Executive Member
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
9,245
Sjoe, all these equivocal ideological terms trap us in endless debate.

For me the overriding issue is charity, which is the highest form of love.

Charity, like all forms of love, cannot be imposed, compelled or claimed as a right. It is freely given and received, or is is nothing but tyranny.
Charity can only exist where there are individual property rights. I can't give something I don't have. In other words, socialism precludes charity.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,041
I like how Canada has done it
I don't know enough about Canada to have an opinion to be honest, their prime minister is a right twat though, they best get rid of him

If schools were all "for profit", many of those kids would never grow up and become productive tax paying members of society. The gap between the rich and the poor would increase and so would violence
If all schools were private they would need to compete more on price to have more viable customers, more people would therefor be in a position to afford private education and the gap between rich and poor would not just necessarily increase.

Still, that's a theory, we haven't seen it put to the test.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
24,917
Charity can only exist where there are individual property rights. I can't give something I don't have. In other words, socialism precludes charity.
Yes.

But private property rights are a corollary of liberty that is necessary for love.

Love cannot and does not claim title or right to the fruits of another's labour. Hence it rejects any system that uses compulsion to extract someone else's labour and the fruits of that labour (aka property), which like love inhere in the individual human will.

Any system which proposes to compel the extraction of human labour or its fruits gravely damages not just the individual good but also the Common Good, for the Common Good can never override the rights and obligations of any individual member of society. Ever. To think that somehow Society has a greater or prior right over the individuals that constitute it is to construct a fiction, and that always ends in the shedding of blood. As history proves.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
16,684
I've often stated that there are many individualist tendencies in Christianity. So I agree with the premise.

But we have to be careful which denomination/version of Christianity is being referred. Some might bare asserted authority by other man-made institutions or people.
Christianity being individualistic my foot. The whole one man dying for everybody else's sins alleviates a person from taking personal responsibility which eventually leads to crazy Karen's screaming they are covered by Christ's blood so she can do the fukk what she wants to with no ramifications.
 
Top