Capitalism or Socialism?

[Ritafee]

And I love the idea that if you can convert your enemy to a friend, then you will ultimately have no enemies....

As long as conversion is not coercive ...

 

[BetteTheRed]

That's probably one of the few things in life that is never coercive. Probably less coercive than marriage, because there's no covenant.

You can no more "convince me" that you are my friend than I can tell your dog to sit.

If you are my friend, you will behave in certain ways; if you are not, you will behave in less honest and open ways.

 

[Ritafee]

I am convinced that friends do not go along to get along if it means obeying unjust laws such as compliantly sitting when we should be standing and vigilant against oppressors.

Honest and open sustained civil disobedience ... along with the building of voluntary socialist movements ... is our only hope.

Resistance is not about what we achieve, but about what it allows us to become.

It was for freedom that Christ (a friend we have in Jesus) set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

 

[Mrs.Anteater]

I am convinced that friends do not go along to get along if it means obeying unjust laws such as compliantly sitting when we should be standing and vigilant against oppressors.

Honest and open sustained civil disobedience ... along with the building of voluntary socialist movements ... is our only hope.

Resistance is not about what we achieve, but about what it allows us to become.

It was for freedom that Christ (a friend we have in Jesus) set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

And friends protect each other instead of acting in their own interest.

 

[jimkenney12]

Pontifax Geronimo, one of the roles of national leaders ( king, business people, land owners) was to oppose the exploitation and abuse of people without power. Israel and Judah were repeatedly condemned because they allowed the abuse and exploitation of the powerless. One important role of government in a religious sense is preventing exploitation. Tools to employ include taxes that take large chunks of excess wealth gained by gaming the economic system and using those taxes to provide for the basic needs of those who are in need. Timothy is almost certainly composed after Paul's death and reflects a grab for power by men wanting to regain what was lost

 

[Luce NDs]

Should the mob get the treasure or just the authorities supporting tyranny?

Would balance suggest an unseen medium ... well weighted psyche! Damn, wouldn't that be prone to sinking sensations ... I get an image from Master and Commander!

Tis a dark cinema to say least about what's attire there! Naval uniforms ...

 

[jimkenney12]

I would provide most of the money to the mob

 

[GeoFee]

In our capitalist system hockey players are millionaires while teachers and nurses struggle financially. I use this as one example of how capitalism serves to establish an unjust balance.

 

[GeoFee]

this is interesting GeoFee ----I am sure you won't agree but this is how this lady sees it

5 Reasons Socialism Is Not Christian​

By Julie Roys, CP Op-Ed Contributor

5 Reasons Socialism Is Not Christian

Jesus confronted the money-changers and challenged believers to give to the needy But, would he support socialism

www.christianpost.com

Jesus confronted the money-changers and challenged believers to give to the needy. But, would he support socialism?

Increasingly, Americans think he would. In fact, a recent Barna poll found that more Americans think Jesus would prefer socialism (24%) than those who believe he would prefer capitalism (14%). The other 62% responded neither or not sure, but the poll still reveals a disturbing trend.

Last Saturday, Micah Conkling, a Christian writer and podcaster, argued on my radio program that socialism is the political and economic system that best fulfills the Golden Rule. Not surprisingly, Conkling is a Millennial, the most pro-socialist generation America has ever known. According to a recent Reason-Rupe survey, 53% of Americans under 30 view socialism favorably, compared to less than a third of Americans over 30. Similarly, Gallup found that 69% of those under 30 said they would be willing to vote for a socialist presidential candidate.

I understand why Millennials are wary of the current system. They've witnessed a consistently declining economy; one of the most partisan eras in American history; the fall of the twin towers; and a war predicated on weapons of mass destruction that were never found. I agree with them that our political system desperately needs reform. But, socialism is not the answer. Though it may sound compassionate and Christian, it's actually antithetical to everything Christianity teaches.

Here's why:

1. Socialism is Based on a Materialistic Worldview

According to socialists like Bernie Sanders, the greatest problem in the world is the unequal distribution of wealth.

His website declares: "The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue of our time."

This betrays a fundamentally materialistic worldview, which is the basis of socialism.
To socialists, all that really exists is the material world. In fact, Karl Marx, the father of socialism/communism, invented the notion of dialectical materialism — the belief that matter contains a creative power within itself. This enabled Marx to eliminate the need for a creator, essentially erasing the existence of anything non-material.

To socialists, suffering is caused by the unequal distribution of stuff — and salvation is achieved by the re-distribution of stuff. There's no acknowledgment of spiritual issues. There's just an assumption that if everyone is given equal stuff, all the problems in society will somehow dissolve.


This worldview contradicts Christianity, which affirms the existence of both a material and a non-material world — and teaches that mankind's greatest problems are spiritual. The Bible says the cause of suffering is sin and salvation is found in the cross of Christ, which liberates us from sin. Because of sin, though, there will always be inequalities in wealth. As the parable of the talents shows, those with good character tend to accumulate more; those with bad character may lose everything they have. Yet, even if we are unable to accumulate wealth, Christianity teaches that we can still have an abundant life. That's because our quality of life is not determined by how much stuff we have, but by our relationship to Christ.

2. Socialism Punishes Virtue

Socialists want to distribute wealth to individuals according to their need, regardless of virtue.

As Karl Marx, famously said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

However, whenever any institution provides aid, it runs the risk of removing God-designed rewards and consequences. It can punish those who are industrious by making them pay for those who are not. And, it can reward those who aren't industrious by giving them the fruits of another man's labor. This is precisely what socialism does.

Interestingly, Marx mooched off others his whole life, and failed to provide for his wife and children.

As Aristotle once noted, "Men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives."

The Bible teaches that aid should be tied to responsibility. First, anyone who refuses to work should be refused aid.

As 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says, "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."

Next, no one should be given aid whose family can provide for him. In fact, the Apostle Paul said that a man who fails to provide for his family is "worse than an unbeliever." (1 Tim. 5:8) The church also required widows receiving aid to have "a reputation of good works." (1 Tim. 5:10) So, even in dispensing aid, the church rewarded virtue and discouraged vice. Unfortunately, socialism does just the opposite.

3. Socialism Endorses Stealing

Barack Obama once defended his socialist policies to a little girl by saying, "We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money. If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?"

That sounds pretty Christian, right? What Christian wouldn't endorse sharing your abundance with someone who has nothing? However, Obama wasn't endorsing people voluntarily sharing their wealth with others; he was endorsing the government forcibly taking a piece of the pie from one person and giving it to someone else. Put another way, that's saying that if you have three cars and your neighbor has none, the government has a right to take your car and give it to your neighbor. That's not Christian; that's stealing!

But, socialists don't believe in private property. And, some Christian socialists actually assert that the Bible doesn't either. That's preposterous.

Both the Old Testament and New Testament unequivocally affirm private property. We can't even obey the eighth commandment to not steal, unless we accept the notion of private ownership. Nor, can we steward our money as the Bible commands if the state owns our money, not us. So, for an economic and political system to be Christian, it must protect private ownership and allow individuals freedom to allocate their resources according to their conscience.

4. Socialism Encourages Envy and Class Warfare

Socialists demonize the rich, blaming all of society's problems on them.

Bernie Sanders once posted to his Facebook Page: "Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America."

Here, Sanders is mimicking Karl Marx, who viewed history as a series of class struggles between the rich and the poor — and advocated overthrowing the ruling class.

Scripture strongly warns the rich and powerful not to oppress the poor.

In fact, Proverbs 14:31 says, "Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for his maker . . ."

But, Sanders — and other Leftists, including Hillary Clinton — go far beyond decrying specific acts of injustice. They basically condemn an entire class of people simply for possessing wealth. And, they encourage those who are poor to overthrow them. In fact, Clinton once said the U.S. economy required a "toppling" of the wealthiest 1%.

The rich are not causing all the problems in American society. People like Bill Gates are not acquiring wealth by stealing from the masses. They're creating great products, which produce wealth, and actually provide jobs for many people. But, even if they were exploiting the poor, nowhere does Scripture support the have-nots demanding money from the haves. Instead, it teaches that we should not covet (Exodus 20:17) and should be content in all circumstances (Phil. 4:11-13).

5. Socialism Seeks to Destroy Marriage & Family

A little known fact about socialism is that, from its beginning, it has sought to destroy marriage and family. Grove City Professor Paul Kengor explains this in detail in his book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Marriage and Family. Essentially, what socialism seeks is for the state to replace the family. That way, it can indoctrinate children in its Leftist way of thinking, and remove from them any notions of God and religion.

Friedrich Engels, co-author with Marx of the "The Communist Manifesto," once wrote that the society he envisioned would be one where "the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair."

Similarly today, Bernie Sanders calls for a "revolution" in childcare and for the government to provide early childhood education beginning with children as young as six-weeks-old. And, he's a proud supporter of gay marriage — what Kengor calls "communism's Trojan Horse" to secure the final takedown of traditional marriage.

To socialists, what Bernie describes is a utopia. But, to Christians, it's a dystopia. That's because there's nothing Christian about socialism — and there's absolutely no way Jesus would ever support it.


And here is another read ----I just posted the last paragraph ---you can read all ----

How should a Christian view socialism?​

How should a Christian view socialism? | GotQuestions.org

How should a Christian view socialism? Was Jesus a socialist? What does the Bible say about socialism?

www.gotquestions.org

Socialism, for all its popularity in some circles, is not a biblical model for society. In opposition to socialism, the Bible promotes the idea of private property and issues commands to respect it: commands such as “You shall not steal” (Deuteronomy 5:19) are meaningless without private property. Unlike what we see in failed experiments in socialism, the Bible honors work and teaches that individuals are responsible to support themselves: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). The redistribution of wealth foundational to socialism destroys accountability and the biblical work ethic. Jesus’ parable in Matthew 25:14–30 clearly teaches our responsibility to serve God with our (private) resources.

Capitalism is rooted in covetousness. Corporate advertisers employ seductive imagery and language to entice excessive consumption of material goods. This contradicting spiritual insight which leads us to be content with the basic necessities of life.

 

[Northwind]

In our capitalist system hockey players are millionaires while teachers and nurses struggle financially. I use this as one example of how capitalism serves to establish an unjust balance.

Some would argue that those players bring in revenue. I don't buy that. Why not put some of those sports revenues into our schools and health care systems? The players would still enjoy a good income and we'd have better services and better paid health and education professionals/staff.

 

[Northwind]

5 Reasons Socialism Is Not Christian

I could probably spend some time to refute all of these five points quite easily. I have neither the time nor the will to do so at this point.

The main issue I have is with the definition of the word "socialism" and how that label is used in the US in particular. It is used as a blanket statement/label to discredit anything that might help others and consequently interfere with the greedy version of capitalism we see in many circles. The author of this article is using a skewed definition of socialism to make her point. As a result, her argument is faulty. If she had in fact chosen to discuss the components of what she considers "socialism" such as providing health care or other social supports, the discussion would be more useful.

 

[Ritafee]

And friends protect each other instead of acting in their own interest.

Voluntary Socialism ... which I espouse to ... is not a 'my way or the highway' philosophy as far as I understand it ...

Independent groups that involve people in meeting society’s needs are the only way to lessen dependence upon a capitalist government and its eventual totalitarian control.

So beware of the political illusion. Of course, government is ordained by God to maintain order, promote justice, and restrain sin. But listen with healthy skepticism to inflated political rhetoric. Political institutions provide no panaceas to the ills of our age, no matter how attractive they sound: and they are surely no substitute for individual responsibility. - Jack

 

[Ritafee]

Socialism is a system where people legally take away from those who work,

Yes, career politicians and government bureaucrats legally take away from the true working class to line their own pockets ... I agree.

I would call that:

STATE Socialism Or Government-Only Capitalism

At it's most basic level, the term 'socialism' is government control of all institutions that provide goods and services to the people. Government fully controls education, manufacturing, production, food distribution, infrastructure, healthcare (premium increases, less healthcare, taxed for other people’s healthcare, more bureaucracy).

Anything controlled by the government, by default, increases the cost, if for no other reason than to pay for the program administration.

Why should laws and regulations aim at controlling drug prices if the government owns the drug companies, sets drug pricing, receives reimbursement for drugs; so the more drugs cost, the more the government receives back?

Why should patients be treated fairly, in a reasonable amount of time, as a human being, if the hospitals and doctors are overworked and underpaid due to the lack of government approved resources?

On the surface, the government taking care of all its “happy and well-adjusted citizens” sounds good. But, CAPITAL rarely makes it to the 'needy'.

Socialism has never been successful in any country where it has been imposed.

The only thing it is successful at is destroying a country’s economy and the will of the citizenry, if they happen to still be among the living.

George I am sure ... is not suggesting 'that socialism'.

'That socialism' is communism.

The leaders Impose 'that socialism' in the first place, then “step in to take control.”

Witness what is going on globally right now ... Technofascist 'Communism' under the guise of 'that socialism' ... one ring to rule them all.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Anything controlled by the government, by default, increases the cost, if for no other reason than to pay for the program administration.

OTOH, things controlled by the private sector increase costs even more. You merely have to look at the clusterfuck that is "health care" in the U.S. where they pay twice as much for half the care, to see the truth of that. Or consider what your hydro bill looked like before Hydro One was sold off.

I don't know what you'd propose to do about health care or education, rita, but moving them into the private sector would be a disastrous move in the wrong direction.

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

OTOH, things controlled by the private sector increase costs even more. You merely have to look at the clusterfuck that is "health care" in the U.S. where they pay twice as much for half the care, to see the truth of that. Or consider what your hydro bill looked like before Hydro One was sold off.

I don't know what you'd propose to do about health care or education, rita, but moving them into the private sector would be a disastrous move in the wrong direction.

Amen!
Since the nineties I have seen a constant dismantling of the public sector here in Oz, replaced by the private sector, that has made the cost of basic utilities more expensive for the consumer. And, even more alarming, if the private corporation doesn't make enough profit - guess what - the government bails them out with taxpayer money. It's a corporate con......

 

[Ritafee]

"health care" in the U.S.

Do you suppose that The prime minister of Canada and his family enjoys 'just' the same measure of 'health care' under his administration as you or I do? Canada's supposedly socialist 'health care' ... nothing to brag about as far as I can see ... what am I missing?

 

[Ritafee]

a constant dismantling of the public sector

When pictured as concentric circles, the core public service in central and subnational government agencies defines the inner circle of the public sector.

In this case, the distinction of the public sector from the private sector is relatively straightforward—it is evident in terms of employment relationships and the right of exercising public power.

The next circle includes a number of different quasi-governmental agencies that are, however, placed outside the direct line of accountability within government.

Examples range from social security funds to regional development agencies.

The outer circle is populated by state-owned enterprises, usually defined by the government’s ownership or its owning the majority of shares.

Numbers of developed countries witnessed extensive privatizations of state-owned enterprises, whether in parts or in full (examples range from airlines to the telecom sector).

The term public sector is also used for analytical purposes, in particular, as a contrast to the private sector and third, or voluntary, sector.

Scholars are increasingly confronted with the difficulty of defining the public sector. Privatization, delegation of public power (for example, in prisons), the joint public-private provision of services, usually regarded as “public,” as well as institutional rearrangements have made the identification of the public sector difficult, especially for purposes of comparative analysis.

For some, therefore, the notion of the public sector has lost all conceptual strength, given those problems of defining clear boundaries.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Canada's supposedly socialist 'health care' ... nothing to brag about as far as I can see ... what am I missing?

Well, to start with, no-one's bankrupt for healthcare, a far too frequent occurrence in the U.S. Everyone is covered, again, in contrast to the U.S.

I'd prefer a MORE socialist healthcare system, similar to the NHS, where dental care and pharmacare are both considered part of a national health care system.

And what are you missing? Canada has consistently placed in the top 3-4 countries in the world as most desirable to live. We have health care outcomes, as measured by a pile of benchmarks, that are world class. Sure, we could improve. Everyone can improve.

I confess to living in central Ontario. I live a 7-minute drive away from a first-class hospital. If I need urgent care, there's the ER, a variety of after hours clinics. If I need to see someone "soon", I can see my Nurse-Practitioner within two days, usually. I get referrred, as appropriate to specialists. Some of those are a bit more difficult, especially dermatologists.

I have borne three children, buried two of my own parents, and two of my late ex-husband's and my godmother. I've seen the health care system up close and personal, in many parts of Ontario, and seriously, have very few complaints. I have found it efficient, compassionate, and surprisingly, not terribly different from one place to another. It's always easy-ish to find ER, outpatient, oncology and hospice-type care, and there's always a ton of volunteers to help people.

 

[Luce NDs]

Yet ... ordinary people are easily connived into privatization of everything ... including the private nature of the powerful folks wealth ... so we won't
know if they are taxed for extra benefits they've enjoyed because of special opportunities ...

Private information is good for sequestering uncertainty ... it normally should be imposed on the demos ... republican theory on maintaining status quo ... so the rich can remain stably so ... they couldn't stand losing anything ... not a nickel!

 

[unsafe]

From Youtube

Was Jesus a socialist?
Did Jesus support socialism? Do the teachings of Jesus Christ condemn the accumulation of wealth while pushing for the equal distribution of resources? Lawrence Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, explains the misconceptions surrounding one of history’s greatest figure

Well, if socialism is nothing more than being kind to other people, then you might think the answer is yes. But you can be kind to other people and be a capitalist. John D. Rockefeller probably gave away more money than anyone in human history, and he was certainly a capitalist. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have given away millions, too.​

To get an accurate answer to our question, we need to define socialism.

Socialism is the concentration of power into the hands of government elites to achieve the following purposes: central planning of the economy and the radical redistribution of wealth. Jesus never called for any of that.

Nowhere in the New Testament does he advocate for the government to punish the rich—or even to use tax money to help the poor. Nor does he promote the ideas of state ownership of businesses or central planning of the economy.

In Luke 12, Jesus is confronted by a man who wants him to redistribute wealth. “Master,” the man says to Jesus, “tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” Jesus replies, “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?” and then he rebukes the man for being envious of his sibling.

How about Jesus’s Parable of the Talents (talents were a form of money in Jesus’s day)? A man entrusted three of his workers with his wealth. The two who invested the money and made a profit were praised and the one who buried his share so he wouldn’t lose any of it was reprimanded. Sounds a lot more like an endorsement for capitalism than socialism, doesn’t it?

Yes, Jesus spoke of the difficulty for a rich man to enter Heaven, but not because having money is evil. It’s not money; rather, it is the love of money, the New Testament tells us, that leads to evil. Jesus was warning us not to put acquisition of money and material possessions above our spiritual and moral lives.

Was Jesus promoting a socialist model when he kicked the “moneychangers” out of the Temple in Jerusalem?
Again, the answer is no. Note the location where the incident occurred: it was in the holiest of places—God’s house. Jesus was not angry at buying and selling in and of themselves; he was angry that these things happened in a house of prayer. He never drove a “moneychanger” from a marketplace or from a bank.

Jesus advises us to be of “generous spirit”—to show kindness, to assist the widow and the orphan. But he clearly means this to be our responsibility, not the government’s. Consider Jesus’s Good Samaritan story. A traveler comes upon a man at the side of a road. The man had been beaten and robbed and left half-dead. What did the traveler, the Good Samaritan, do? He helps the unfortunate man on the spot, with his own resources.

Ask yourself: To help the poor, would Jesus prefer that you give your money freely to the Salvation Army, for example, or have it taxed by politicians to fund a welfare bureaucracy?

Progressives like to point out that Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

But that has absolutely nothing to do with high taxes or wealth redistribution. It was the seed for the idea of separating church and state. It certainly wasn’t the same as saying that whatever Caesar says is his must then be so, no matter how much he demands or what he intends to use it for.

I say ------This is the 5 min video on this ----for those who want to watch it ------