Was Jesus a socialist? (4 Viewers)

[dagimlet]

we're a democratic republic. in a pure democracy, every issue is voted on by everybody.

but you already knew that.

 

[mister pc]

we're a democratic republic. in a pure democracy, every issue is voted on by everybody.

but you already knew that.

representative democracy is certainly a form of democracy. its unfortunate that you have made more posts in this thread than valid points. you talk a lot but dont say much.

 

[GhostFace]

I'm sorry, did you say something?

Yes, I did say something, in fact you quoted me.

 

[V Chip]

you talk a lot but dont say much.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T6OoOhKM_yc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T6OoOhKM_yc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

Yep. Good thing I am not living in 16th century Spain.

 

[aksarben saint]

the word democracy is derived from the greek word dēmokratía which literally means "will of the people". because we are a democracy, federal aid for the poor can be seen as collective fulfillment of our duties as individuals.

We're not a Democracy, we're a Republic, big distinction

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

 

[Geldo]

Geldo, don't you think in a sense we have "outgrown" socialism? The nation as a whole (and yes, I know you're British, but let me continue) has something like an 11% poverty rate. We have some aspects of socialism in our system, and I do admit that I admire certain elements of the more socialistic European systems, but I think we're doing pretty well as a country without having to redistribute the wealth to any great degree.

Thoughts?

Dag, one of the biggest problems with debating Socialism is that the word means so many different things to different people.
For some it means hardcore Marxist Leninism, forced collectivisation, tyranny, equality delivered by force against the people's interests or wishes. I deplore this version of Socialism, and it would certainly have horrified Marx himself.

To me it is an ideal, where basic human rights to healthcare, education, opportunity, housing, employment, free assembly, and religious, sexual and political freedom are all guaranteed.

This latter brand of Socilaism was the guiding philosophy of great political leaders such as Clement Attlee and thinkers like George Orwell. (Anyone who has read 1984 or Animal Farm knows how much Orwell despised Stalinism).

I believe that aspiring to create a better society where people are guaranteed such fundamental human rights is what modern progressive Socilaism is about and why it still has a role to play in our lives.

As for the redistribution of wealth issue. A Maoist would take away a billionaire's wealth at gunpoint and redistribute it among party officials but there are other better alternatives!

The best way to create redistribution of wealth is not to focus purely on making the rich poorer but to ensure the poor are equipped to cope in a capitalist economy. This might be achieved by investing money in rescuing people from 'ghettoism' where each generation facing a daily grind of poverty, desperation, criminality, and hopelessness creates and then reinforces another.

By raising taxes on the super-rich (not by much - maybe 3-5 per cent) governments could put money into education, trial some innovative social programmes which give individuals and communities a way out of poverty and state dependency. Give a man an education and a worthwhile job, and you give him hope and something to live for. Give him unemployment and surround him with crime, is it any wonder that he'll give up and snort his way into oblivion.

To me Socialism is about giving everyone a stake in society and a chance to play a role in its betterment. I think that's still worth believing in.

 

[dagimlet]

Dag, one of the biggest problems with debating Socialism is that the word means so many different things to different people.
For some it means hardcore Marxist Leninism, forced collectivisation, tyranny, equality delivered by force against the people's interests or wishes. I deplore this version of Socialism, and it would certainly have horrified Marx himself.

To me it is an ideal, where basic human rights to healthcare, education, opportunity, housing, employment, free assembly, and religious, sexual and political freedom are all guaranteed.

This latter brand of Socilaism was the guiding philosophy of great political leaders such as Clement Attlee and thinkers like George Orwell. (Anyone who has read 1984 or Animal Farm knows how much Orell despised Stalinism).

I believe that aspiring to create a better society where people are guaranteed such fundamental human rights is what modern progressive Socilaism is about and why it still has a role to play in our lives.

To me Socialism is about giving everyone a stake in society and a chance to play a role in its betterment. I think that's still worth believing in.

I don't really have a problem with socialism, at all. I've seen it work in other countries.

I'm just not sure the American government can pull it off succesfully.

 

[Geldo]

I don't really have a problem with socialism, at all. I've seen it work in other countries.

I'm just not sure the American government can pull it off succesfully.

Well FDR's New Deal had some elements of Keynesian and Socialist thinking so it has been tried successfully before. Martin Luther King's ill-fated Poor People's Campaign might have transformed American society if he had not been cut down by an assassin's bullet.

 

[mister pc]

We're not a Democracy, we're a Republic, big distinction

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

representative democracies are a type of republic. The united states government can accurately be referred to as a constitutional republic or a representative/electoral democracy. but i have no interest in engaging in semantical debates which ignore the actual point behind the statement.

Main Entry: representative democracy
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a type of democracy in which the citizens delegate authority to elected representatives

http://dictionary.babylon.com/REPRESENTATIVE_DEMOCRACY

 

[St.Ryan]

He got banned for this thread? Is there a post that was deleted?

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

I agree that it depends on the definition of socialism--Marxist totalitarian state, redistribution of wealth (which any government that collects a dollar of tax money does), some level of social welfare as in late 19th century Germany, the New Deal, modern day Sweden, Britain in the 1960's.

Three things:

1. When I think of socialism, I think of government ownership of the means of production.

2. When we accuse someone of being a "socialist" in this country, we end the debate because the term is a pejorative one.

3. Every advanced country on the planet today has some balance between government and the market--the differences, which can be substantial, concern the emphasis placed on government or the market

 

[Geldo]

I agree with you RJ. Although on these boards, I have found an open-mindedness and willingness to discuss issues that has really surprised me.
Government ownership of the means of production is a complex issue, and for what it's worth the British business community actually begged the 1945 Socialist government to take the railways under public ownership because the private sector did not have the cash to fund the investment that was desperately needed.
Likewise when a number of British banks collapsed recently, the shareholders had to rely on a public bailout to keep them from meltdown.

 

[The Unrest Cure]

Geldo, don't you think in a sense we have "outgrown" socialism? The nation as a whole (and yes, I know you're British, but let me continue) has something like an 11% poverty rate. We have some aspects of socialism in our system, and I do admit that I admire certain elements of the more socialistic European systems, but I think we're doing pretty well as a country without having to redistribute the wealth to any great degree.

Honestly, how well the nation is doing is quite relative. If one is in that 11% - or in that percentage of "natural unemployment" - it could well be argued the country isn't doing half as well as it should.

"The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That's how I see football, that's how I see life." - Bill Shankly

 

[dagimlet]

Honestly, how well the nation is doing is quite relative. If one is in that 11% - or in that percentage of "natural unemployment" - it could well be argued the country isn't doing half as well as it should.

"The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That's how I see football, that's how I see life." - Bill Shankly

Not to pick on Europe, but we probably have a higher poverty level threshold than most countries with similar systems. We definitely have one of the world's highest per capita incomes.