[Bryan]

Originally Posted by redbaron

Capitalism gives everyone the chance to succeed via hard work and intelligence.

if you really believe that, you are quite naive. There are millions of people who work 40+ hours a week and can barely put food on the table for their families.

[TunerSteve]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Implicit in the word "Christlike" is the imitation of Christ. That doesn't mean I know how to build an economic system around his teachings. If you'd like to suggest something I'd be glad to hear it.

Perhaps when it's time to pay your taxes...you go fishing?

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Bryan

if you really believe that, you are quite naive. There are millions of people who work 40+ hours a week and can barely put food on the table for their families.

All systems apart from when Jesus returns and establishes His reign are goig tro be flawed because they are rn by men.

Me peronall- I like capitalism for it provides better opportunities for people to advaneand grow. I think history bears thi out. The most prosperous nations on earth have been ones that capitalism wa in place. It has its faws and dangers yes, but it allows a chance for greater fiscalliberty to people if they are willing to make the sacrifices to obtain the rewards.

Socialism has many decent benefits as well. Its biggest drawback as history has shown is that it tends to diminish hard work (there is little or n reward for working harder than others) and inhibits creativity for the creator of a new idea, has no incentive to risk all to gain much.

[Ridley's Own]

Part of the difficulty in answering this question is that what US conservatives refer to as 'socialism' is so far removed from real socialist theory as to be something else entirely.

Socialists are going to argue that capitalism (as an economic theory) is bad because it is exploitive, and thus unfairly concentrates power and wealth in the hands of a few, creates an unfair/unjust society and doesn't maximize everyone's potential.

By exploitation, they usually mean this: workers sell their labor to produce a widget in exchange for a wage from the factory owner. But, in order to make money for himself, the owner sells the widget at a higher value than the worker produced it. This is exploitive, because the owner is making money off of the worker's labor while the owner did no work to actually produce the widget itself.

So socialists are going to want to rationalize the production process and economy so that everyone works and everyone produces, and that the question of exchange is done in a fair way; equal goods for equal labor. The inter-socialist question becomes how that happens, with varying degrees of centralization, from authoritarian centralism (as in the USSR) to libertarian socialism (which is effectively the way the GM nationalization took place).

To say 'socialism' really doesnt' help, because what one person means by socialism isnt' necessarily the same thing that another person means. Cornell West, for example, is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America Religion and Socialism Committee, but wouldn't describe himself as a Marxist.

As far as socialism as a economic theory:

"You cannot claim to worship Jesus in the Tabernacle, if you do not pity Jesus in the slums... It is folly -- it is madness -- to suppose you can worship Jesus in the Sacraments and Jesus on the throne of glory, when you are sweating him in the souls and bodies of his children." ~ Bp. Frank Weston, 1923 Anglo-Catholic Congress.

There is nothing within socialism that is required to be godless. In fact, the bulk of the English socialist/labour movement came from the Christian churches. Checkout: www. anglocatholicsocialism.com for sermons, articles, etc.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by redbaron

Capitalism gives everyone the chance to succeed via hard work and intelligence. Socialism punishes success and rewards failure, by taking from those who work hard and innovate, and giving to those who are lazy and stupid. yes there are exceptions, but by creating a war between the haves and have nots, you breed envy and derision and solve it by making everyone equal. Well, other than the bourgeois, naturally.

Under socialist theory, it's capitalism that rewards the lazy, since the bourgeoisie are the ones that are making money without actually producing the labor required to make stuff. The hard work and innovation isn't done by that class, it's done by the proletariat, who are being exploited by being paid less than the full value of their labor. When Stalin cited II Thess. 3:10 in article 12 of the Soviet Union's Constitution, he wasn't talking about lazy workers... He was talking about the bourgeoisie who weren't working, but simply living off the work of someone else: their workers.

Same as St. John Chrysostom's understanding:

Originally Posted by St. John

But the laws of St. Paul are not merely for the poor. They are for the rich as well... But you say, "I have my paternal inhereitance!" Tell me, just because he is poor and was born of a poor family possessing no great wealth, is he therefore worthy to die?

Originally Posted by hopeful

Most Socialist governments, in practice, allowed little individual freedom and made study of the Bible forbidden. I'm thinking mostly Eastern European block countries here who were not kind to their people and therefore has a negative connotation.

That's largely because of their particular strain of socialism had a totalitarian bent to it, one that simply never developed in the US/Western democratic tradition. You have to remember that up until 1989, none of the Eastern European countries you cite had working democracies... EVER. So to move from a fascist totalitarianism to revolutionary communist totalitarianism in, say, East Germany was more of a lateral shift than a step down.

Further, those socialist countries that had democratic traditions already in place prior to adopting a socialist economy haven't had any of those sorts of issues. Norway, Sweden, Finland, the UK, Iceland... They all have state churches, so this idea that socialism means banned Bibles isn't exactly true.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by Bryan

if you really believe that, you are quite naive. There are millions of people who work 40+ hours a week and can barely put food on the table for their families.

I think in America, thats more like, millions work 40+ hours a week, and can just barely pay their cable, internet, and phone bills. The percent that actually work and genuinely can barely buy enough food to live is very very small (unlike third world countries and such).

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by normajean777

I think in America, thats more like, millions work 40+ hours a week, and can just barely pay their cable, internet, and phone bills. The percent that actually work and genuinely can barely buy enough food to live is very very small (unlike third world countries and such).

Not sure that's a fair comparison. Do you have any evidence to suggest that's true, or is it just slandering people for not 'working hard' (whatever that means).

[Nate]

Originally Posted by normajean777

I think in America, thats more like, millions work 40+ hours a week, and can just barely pay their cable, internet, and phone bills. The percent that actually work and genuinely can barely buy enough food to live is very very small (unlike third world countries and such).

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Not sure that's a fair comparison. Do you have any evidence to suggest that's true, or is it just slandering people for not 'working hard' (whatever that means).

Say what? He didn't even use the phrase "working hard"? And his comparison isn't between lazy workers and hard workers and the varying degrees of poverty of each, but between workers [lazy or ambitious] who can afford necessities (food on the table) and workers [lazy or ambitious] who can afford luxuries (cable, internet, cell phone, car note).

Even a minimum wage worker makes over $15K a year working 40 hours a week. Average rent is something like $700 a month. Add necessary utilities, and what's left is about $5,000. Not a lot at all, but with WIC, welfare, private charity, dual-income families, it's generally enough to "put food on the table" at least. By and large, Americans don't starve.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Not sure that's a fair comparison. Do you have any evidence to suggest that's true, or is it just slandering people for not 'working hard' (whatever that means).

I don't think he ever slandered anyone with not "working hard". Are we reading the same comment?

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

That's largely because of their particular strain of socialism had a totalitarian bent to it, one that simply never developed in the US/Western democratic tradition. You have to remember that up until 1989, none of the Eastern European countries you cite had working democracies... EVER. So to move from a fascist totalitarianism to revolutionary communist totalitarianism in, say, East Germany was more of a lateral shift than a step down.

Further, those socialist countries that had democratic traditions already in place prior to adopting a socialist economy haven't had any of those sorts of issues. Norway, Sweden, Finland, the UK, Iceland... They all have state churches, so this idea that socialism means banned Bibles isn't exactly true.

So, socialism with a totalitarian bent is not socialism? And people who suffered all those years in those countries, deprived of God's word are not proof that socialism can be an enemy of the Bible? Go tell that to my Ukranian friends who are praising God for delivering them to the US after generations of persecution, even to the death.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Bryan

and you think capitalism would work given those same theological truths?

Capitalism works because of depravity. It uses selfishness and greed as its engine, but because that is inherent to man, it works because it allows people to harness depravity. Now whether upward economic mobility is even a good thing... thats another matter entirely, and one I am convinced Christianity does not agree with America's moral compass.

Bryan, if you don't think you can come up from the slums, you should try walking in my shoes. I come from the slums. I went hungry as a kid. I am the son, and grandson of poor men, but we have all survived. Of me and my brothers, one is a prof of engineering, I am a masters student, one of my brothers is a pilot, and the last is a drug addicted rock musician.

I work with kids in the hood, and they are far wealthier than I was at their age.

I have had opportunities that are rare, and I have had the ability to climb several social strata. It can be done. It is not easy, but capitalism does allow for that. Not every form of society allows for that.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

So, socialism with a totalitarian bent is not socialism?

That isn't waht I said. You stated that socialism historically means banned bibles. I said that was true as far as totalitarian socialism as developed in the Eastern Bloc after 1917, but not true as far as western socialized democracies go. Totalitarian socialism is a type of socialism, but not the only type. And one that would be unlikely to develop in the western liberal democracies.

A station wagon is a type of car. But not all cars are station wagons.

Totalitarian socialism is a type of socialism. But not all socialist economies are totalitarian.

Are we reading the same comment?

Originally Posted by nate

By and large, Americans don't starve.

This is simply not true, unless you define 'starve' as 'not dying.' From the Food Resource Action Council, as of 2008, 17.9% of all children in the US live in 'food insecure' households. That's almost 1 in 5. It is almost 1 in 4 if you're African American. Food insecurity means you are skipping meals or cutting back on what is eaten in order to make your budget work.

1 in 5.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

This is simply not true, unless you define 'starve' as 'not dying.' From the Food Resource Action Council, as of 2008, 17.9% of all children in the US live in 'food insecure' households. That's almost 1 in 5. It is almost 1 in 4 if you're African American. Food insecurity means you are skipping meals or cutting back on what is eaten in order to make your budget work.

1 in 5.

Depending on how you ask the question, I, making more than median income, fairly often skip meals and cut back on what is eaten in order to make my budget work.

I'd be quite interested to see the instrument.

And the survey results from their site lumped together those who had to "cut back on quality or quantity" (the "low security" group; could mean just eating beans instead of meat, I'd imagine) as opposed to those who had to "skip meals" (the "very low security" group) together in one big "insecure" group to arrive at the astonishing 17% figure for children in insecure households.

If you look at the state-by-state data, they have a bit more detail, and only around 4-5% of total households are in the lowest security "having to skip meals" category. It doesn't seem like it could be entirely coincidence that this lines up almost exactly with unemployment rates during that time. I'd bet if you scattered the two state-by-state you'd have almost a straight line.

That's 1 in 20, many of which are probably unemployed. This isn't quite as shocking as saying that 1 out of every 4 minority babies is in eminent nutritional danger.

I don't doubt there is malnutrition, especially among the poor [who, antihistorically, are more likely to be obese], but they don't seem to be struggling to eat, in general.

Furthermore, there are other inequities and social phenomena to blame [besides pure greed] for the astounding number of malnutritioned children in poor households.

For one thing, poorer households tend to have more children, in general, than richer households, by a decent margin. The number of unwed mothers is higher. Number of unplanned pregnancies higher. OctoMom wasn't an upper-middle class mother. Obviously, some of this is systemic, but blame has to also be placed on the poor themselves for some of their problems.

One answer would be to pass out condoms and foodstamps. Another would be the ubiquitous "more education." Perhaps another would be "make them work for it."

Those are all political answers, though, and the spiritual example has to be charity, which is totally different from socialism, but it makes sense socialism was born of it.

The problem with socialism, to me, isn't that it's a bad idea; it's that it's a great idea put to bad use. Unless we are in a semi-unified theocratic society, it doesn't make sense.

God loves a cheerful giver, not a begrudging bourgeoisie benefactor. I bet Catholic Charities has fed more babies per donated dollar than welfare typically is able to feed.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Nate

Depending on how you ask the question, I, making more than median income, fairly often skip meals and cut back on what is eaten in order to make my budget work.

I'd be quite interested to see the instrument.

Here you go. Its the same instrument used by the USDA to measure food insecurity.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

That isn't waht I said. You stated that socialism historically means banned bibles. I said that was true as far as totalitarian socialism as developed in the Eastern Bloc after 1917, but not true as far as western socialized democracies go. Totalitarian socialism is a type of socialism, but not the only type. And one that would be unlikely to develop in the western liberal democracies.

A station wagon is a type of car. But not all cars are station wagons.

Totalitarian socialism is a type of socialism. But not all socialist economies are totalitarian.

Are we reading the same comment?

Obviously not. But neither did I think normajean777 had slandered anyone as you accused him.

Reread my initial comment about where most of these were located which gave the term a negative connotation. Was the Bible banned in many Eastern bloc countries? You better believe it! Were people killed or thrown into prison for their beliefs? You bet they were! Was socialism an enemy of the Bible in these areas (as the question was initially posted)? You bet it was!