Christianity: Free Market or Communist?

[PhorIndicator]

^uhh.... except that many communes do exist that are centered around the ideals of communism. believe it or not, there are people out there who believe in cooperation, altruism, and putting the collective needs and interests of the group ahead of self-interest. if ants and bees can do it, why can't humans? materialism and the mainstream consumerist culture we live in are the real impediments to the wide-spread adoption of communism, but it's not as if being selfish is in our genes. we're socialized to write-off communism and socialism as unviable but there are plenty of communities out there that make it work.

First off... communism is an economic system based on Karl marx's philosophy, which basically said that the socio-economic status which we are born into defines our reality. Marx was an economist and a philosopher; he built his philosphy around economy, because he believed economy dictated reality. Marx was unhappy with the crappy way the proletariat was treated and the way in which the bouergoise class had a monopoly on all the power, preventing any real kind of promotion for a member of the proletariat working class. Marx was disgusted by this because it meant that the class you were born into defined your reality and set limitations on your life, regardless of your hard work or motivation to succeed. So he proposed communism, a way in which all members of a society were treated equally by implementing an economic system which distributed wealth equally among people and assigned them their occupations based on their talents.

That's communism, in a nutshell. Profound ideally; Impossible realistically.

I never denied the existence of communes around the world centered around communistic ideals. But communism is mainly an economic philosophy designed to benefit society through economic systems. The philosophy is indeed a noble one; I don't deny that. It has the greatest good of society as a whole as its motive. But it doesn't work. Communism will NOT work in this world. It hasn't, and it never will. It works hypothetically and idealistically, but not realistically. People are lazy by nature. They will only work hard enough to not get fired. Communism deprives them of the motivation to work harder than anyone else or even work hard at all, because their salary is secured. Also, if they work harder than anyone else, it doesn't matter, because they will still be paid the same as everyone else doing their exact same job and doing the minimum amount of work needed to get by.

Like, do you deny this? I mean come on... How much of this do you really disgaree with or deny the applicability of communism in the real world and how mucn do you just want to argue for the sake of argument?

Communism does not work. Period. It requires people be perfect, and all work as hard as they can regardless of how much money they make. this just won't happen. Period. This isn't really disputed...

 

[DigitalDuality]

i don't think the Bible preaches communism nor socialism, but rather having FREE WILL and utilizing that free will with a morality that GIVES to the community, world, and less fortunate.

What is moral about not having a choice to give money to the poor. The government steps in, takes part of your income or taxes your goods and gives it to the poor, and possibly those abusing that system. Are YOU, as an individual and citizen more moral b/c you gave to the poor against your free will?

Or is it more moral, and more in line with christianity, to live in a free market without social systems.. and instead of being greedy, giving up your worldly posessions or donating money and goods to those who need it.

The point, economically speaking in the Bible is to do without on your own free will. No one forced Jesus to give, he did it on his own. But it would see that which allows you the most freedom to exercise those morals.. would be more in line with the Bible, thus.. free market.

This is why i conflict about christians fighting for christian law to ban abortion, gay marriage, sodomy, decency laws, etc... It isn't moral to NOT or to DO something b/c a system will initiate force against you if you do or don't. It is moral according to the bible if you act accordingly on your own free will. If you think abortion is wrong and against god, don't support it. Make that CHOICE. Don't believe in homosexuality? Well then, do go playing hide the sausage with your buddies.

I don't really think the Bible advocates a particular type of government..it would just seem to me that the person who has the most freedom, and lives by the bible upon their own accord would be the more moral person...rather than the christian who gives to the poor through forced taxes, the christian who doesn't have an abortion merely b/c it's illegal, etc...

 

[paradoxcycle]

Originally posted by U.R.B.4.U.R.
It's all right here pal. But if you don't have a life and you want to read more of something mindless, go to the Shroomery and check out Philosophy and Spirituality. That will keep you happy.8(

What exactly is your damage? This topic is relevant and if people are responding to it, let them discuss it. Relax.

 

[U.R.B.4.U.R.]

Originally posted by U.R.B.4.U.R.
It's all right here pal. But if you don't have a life and you want to read more of something mindless, go to the Shroomery and check out Philosophy and Spirituality. That will keep you happy.8(

What exactly is your damage? This topic is relevant and if people are responding to it, let them discuss it. Relax.

Well not to go into it here. PM me if you REALLY want to hear the answer to your question.

So I'm relaxed, I said my peace awhile ago and I'm chill.

 

[thursday]

I never denied the existence of communes around the world centered around communistic ideals. But communism is mainly an economic philosophy designed to benefit society through economic systems. The philosophy is indeed a noble one; I don't deny that. It has the greatest good of society as a whole as its motive. But it doesn't work. Communism will NOT work in this world. It hasn't, and it never will. It works hypothetically and idealistically, but not realistically. People are lazy by nature. They will only work hard enough to not get fired. Communism deprives them of the motivation to work harder than anyone else or even work hard at all, because their salary is secured. Also, if they work harder than anyone else, it doesn't matter, because they will still be paid the same as everyone else doing their exact same job and doing the minimum amount of work needed to get by.[/B]

economics:

1. the branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management.
   [/list=1]
   economy:
   1. the system of production and distribution and consumption.
   2. the system of operation of the processes of anabolism and catabolism in living bodies.
   3. an orderly, functional arrangement of parts; an organized system.
   4. the system or range of economic activity in a country, region, or community.
      [/list=1]
      

      Like, do you deny this? I mean come on... How much of this do you really disgaree with or deny the applicability of communism in the real world and how mucn do you just want to argue for the sake of argument?
      
      Communism does not work. Period. It requires people be perfect, and all work as hard as they can regardless of how much money they make. this just won't happen. Period. This isn't really disputed...

      how isn't communism applicable in the real world? marxism failed to account for cultural forces in his social model--communism cannot be implemented through a violent revolution or political/legal coercion--that is why proto-marxist experiments have generally failed in nation states. it's hard to convince large national populations to change from a capitalistic way of thinking to a communistic one over-night because cultural change is a gradual process. but it's a lot easier for smaller populations of progressive-minded individuals to create a self-sufficient community based on a communist economy.
      
      all over the world we've seen progressive communities like these being formed. we're even seeing more and more nation-states adopting socialist policies such as universal healthcare, socialized education, communal farming projects, etc. it's possible, it works, and it's beneficial for a society to adopt such policies. even in nature we see a lot of species of very simple to extremely complex organisms who have evolved to take advantage of communal existence as a highly effective living strategy. a communistic social hierarchy allows large numbers of individuals to live together in harmony, achieving a better life by dividing their workload and sharing the fruits of their labours. implemented correctly, communism increases economic efficiency and better ensures the survival of the whole.
      
      justice and equality are utopian ideals as well, but that doesn't mean it's unrealistic to strive for these ideals. those are just excuses for not trying to adopt these ideals which require progressive change and challenging the status quo.

 

[ebola?]

>>What is moral about not having a choice to give money to the poor. The government steps in, takes part of your income or taxes your goods and gives it to the poor, and possibly those abusing that system. Are YOU, as an individual and citizen more moral b/c you gave to the poor against your free will?>>

Your argument speaks only on state-socialism and says nothing of communism (as communism is necessarily anarchic).

>>First off... communism is an economic system based on Karl marx's philosophy, which basically said that the socio-economic status which we are born into defines our reality.>>

More accurately, Marx argued that the socio-material relations into which we're born shape (but do not determine fully) the avenues of action open to us. "Men make their own histories but do not do so freely" (or something like that...it was snazzier when he said it.).

>>Marx was unhappy with the crappy way the proletariat was treated and the way in which the bouergoise class had a monopoly on all the power, preventing any real kind of promotion for a member of the proletariat working class. >>

More accurately, Marx agued that capitalist social relations entail alienation of the worker from the fruits of her labor, her activity at work, herself, and ultimately those around her. He also argued that capitalism entails exploitation of the wage-labor in the process of capitalist profit. Marx did not wish for workers to be promoted more often. Rather, wished for alienation and exploitation to be abolished.

>>So he proposed communism, a way in which all members of a society were treated equally by implementing an economic system which distributed wealth equally among people and assigned them their occupations based on their talents.
>>

More accurately, Marx presented communism as the resolution to the present alienation and exploitation. He also argued that communism is congruent with the social character of industrialized means of production whereas capitalism is not (presenting a fundemental contradiction). Furthermore, communism does not entail regimented and equal distribution of wealth and assignment of occupations. Rather, it implies that access to the means of production be free and that individuals share freely the fruits of their labor.

>>I never denied the existence of communes around the world centered around communistic ideals. But communism is mainly an economic philosophy designed to benefit society through economic systems.>>

Is the productive and consumptive activities of these communes not economic? Or do you believe them parasitic off currently existing capitalism?

>>Communism will NOT work in this world. It hasn't, and it never will.>>

In paleolithic times, it did. That's a bit different though, yeah.

>>They will only work hard enough to not get fired. Communism deprives them of the motivation to work harder than anyone else or even work hard at all, because their salary is secured. Also, if they work harder than anyone else, it doesn't matter, because they will still be paid the same as everyone else doing their exact same job and doing the minimum amount of work needed to get by.
>>

Communism entails the complete abolition of bosses and salary. Perhaps we loath to work for we work not for ourselves...we work for those who we despise.

>>Like, do you deny this? I mean come on... How much of this do you really disgaree with or deny the applicability of communism in the real world and how mucn do you just want to argue for the sake of argument?>>

You forget socialists of various colors post routinely here. Some of them have even been given mod positions.

ebola

 

[thursday]

Both communism and capitalism are materialistic. Jesus was not a materialist. In his world, our needs would be so little that there simply wouldn't be any questions about distributing wealth.

communism and captialism have to do with economics, but that doesn't mean that they are necessarily materialistic, which means valuing material wealth above all else in life. economics has to do with the production, distribution, and consumption of resources--these are vital functions in any population whether you believe material wealth has any intrinsic value or not.

capitalism is an economic system which facilitates the selfish accumulation of capital, which in turn controls the distribution of resources and power in a capitalist society. thus, in order to survive, all individuals must engage in a constant struggle competing with each other for capital. this inevitably creates a societal/cultural fixation on capital and materialism. in a society which is driven by capital, it is inevitably that materialism becomes valued as a practical virtue.

communism is an alternative system which attempts to distribute labor and resources democratically, dealing with material resources on the basis of communal necessity rather than selfish desire. as such, the acquisition of vital material resources becomes relegated as a secondary priority. the individual doesn't have to worry about amassing material wealth because he is guaranteed the basic resources for sustaining a respectable existence. and if one isn't preoccupied with the constant competition for material wealth, then one can devote their energy to other more productive, more spiritually elevating things in life--such as relationships with others, artistic self-expression, the accumulation of intellectual wealth, etc.

 

[PhorIndicator]

You forget socialists of various colors post routinely here. Some of them have even been given mod positions.

ebola

Ha... fair enough. I think I've made my point anyway. It's starting to digress away from the original topic of the thread.

 

[thursday]

in otherwords, you can't refute the counter-arguments to your point, so instead of conceding to being wrong you're just going to ignore the contrary evidence and keep holding on to your misconceptions about communism and reality.

 

[ebola?]

There really, really had to be a more diplomatic way to put that.
Since I'm typing here anyway...

>>thus, in order to survive, all individuals must engage in a constant struggle competing with each other for capital. this inevitably creates a societal/cultural fixation on capital and materialism. in a society which is driven by capital, it is inevitably that materialism becomes valued as a practical virtue.
>>

I could be misreading you here, but I think you're employing too wide of a definition of capital. Capital is not just any lump of material wealth. Rather, capital is a productive apparatus (thinking of production in the widests sense) claimed to be owned by the capitalist. The capitalist will employ workers who use this capital in their laboring process to produce commodities which the capitalist will then sell for a profit. It is only in this socio-material relationship that material wealth becomes capital-proper. Anywho, this is all largely peripheral...

ebola

 

[thursday]

capital is money. and in a capitalist society, money is essentially interchangable for material resources and political power. in an egalitarian society, everyone should be able to afford a respectable standard of living and possess an equal amount of political power. unfortunately, in a capitalist society not everyone is guaranteed adequate income, so some may end up with barely enough money to live off of, or not even enough to survive. the privileged will possess a disproportionate amount of power, which therefore gives them more privilege and more power, while the poor and dispossessed become more and more marginalized. so in order ot survive in such a cut-throat environment, people have to constantly compete with each other in a struggle to amass more wealth than the next person. it's a system which rewards a minority while disenfranchising the rest.

 

[kittyinthedark]

i don't think the Bible preaches communism nor socialism, but rather having FREE WILL and utilizing that free will with a morality that GIVES to the community, world, and less fortunate.

What is moral about not having a choice to give money to the poor. The government steps in, takes part of your income or taxes your goods and gives it to the poor, and possibly those abusing that system. Are YOU, as an individual and citizen more moral b/c you gave to the poor against your free will?

Or is it more moral, and more in line with christianity, to live in a free market without social systems.. and instead of being greedy, giving up your worldly posessions or donating money and goods to those who need it.

The point, economically speaking in the Bible is to do without on your own free will. No one forced Jesus to give, he did it on his own. But it would see that which allows you the most freedom to exercise those morals.. would be more in line with the Bible, thus.. free market.

This is why i conflict about christians fighting for christian law to ban abortion, gay marriage, sodomy, decency laws, etc... It isn't moral to NOT or to DO something b/c a system will initiate force against you if you do or don't. It is moral according to the bible if you act accordingly on your own free will. If you think abortion is wrong and against god, don't support it. Make that CHOICE. Don't believe in homosexuality? Well then, do go playing hide the sausage with your buddies.

I don't really think the Bible advocates a particular type of government..it would just seem to me that the person who has the most freedom, and lives by the bible upon their own accord would be the more moral person...rather than the christian who gives to the poor through forced taxes, the christian who doesn't have an abortion merely b/c it's illegal, etc...

Beautiful!

 

[kittyinthedark]

Originally posted by Thursday
but it's a lot easier for smaller populations of progressive-minded individuals to create a self-sufficient community based on a communist economy.


all over the world we've seen progressive communities like these being formed. we're even seeing more and more nation-states adopting socialist policies such as universal healthcare, socialized education, communal farming projects, etc. it's possible, it works, and it's beneficial for a society to adopt such policies. even in nature we see a lot of species of very simple to extremely complex organisms who have evolved to take advantage of communal existence as a highly effective living strategy. a communistic social hierarchy allows large numbers of individuals to live together in harmony, achieving a better life by dividing their workload and sharing the fruits of their labours. implemented correctly, communism increases economic efficiency and better ensures the survival of the whole.

Firstly, there's a really important word right at the beginning of this quote - "SMALLER." I'll leave you to think about that.

Secondly - Please explain Hong Kong to me. If communism is so much better, why the HELL would this tiny little enclave of capitalism be thriving in the middle of a gigantic ocean of communism. And more importantly, why would the rabidly communist Chinese government allow it to remain so?

I would also like to point out that humans are not ants. In case anyone has forgotten that.

 

[thursday]

Firstly, there's a really important word right at the beginning of this quote - "SMALLER." I'll leave you to think about that.

Secondly - Please explain Hong Kong to me. If communism is so much better, why the HELL would this tiny little enclave of capitalism be thriving in the middle of a gigantic ocean of communism. And more importantly, why would the rabidly communist Chinese government allow it to remain so?

I would also like to point out that humans are not ants. In case anyone has forgotten that.

1.) read the rest of that paragraph concerning "smaller" communities. and note that not everyone thinks that nation-states are the best types of political organizations to live under.

2.) china is a communist dictatorship, and is one of the failed proto-communist nation-states i mentioned. as i mentioned before, coercing people to follow a communist ideology will inevitably result in failure. and what measures of relative success has hong kong achieved solely through being a capitalist society? have you been to hong kong lately? it's not exactly paradise. crime is more rampant in much of hong kong than many parts of asia. the income distribution is also extremely disproportionate for a relatively "developed" society. comparing hong kong to a society that's lived under brutal oppression for the past 6 decades doesn't exactly prove capitalism to be a good thing for society as a whole. it only shows that oppression is a bad thing when combined with any kind of economy.

3.) ofcourse we're not ants. and your point is?

 

[thursday]

What is moral about not having a choice to give money to the poor. The government steps in, takes part of your income or taxes your goods and gives it to the poor, and possibly those abusing that system. Are YOU, as an individual and citizen more moral b/c you gave to the poor against your free will?

but a democratic society is government BY THE PEOPLE. the government is supposed to carry out the will of the people. so in an ideal democracy, public/social policy would be legislated through broad-based referendums. if the entire nation votes to socialize healthcare and education then the government isn't forcing anyone to give their money to the poor, the government is just implementing policies which reflect the attitude of the public: that education and healthcare are basic necessites that everyone has the right to have access to regardless of their socioeconomic standing.

if the government were a dictatorship and forced such policies on the people(such as the USSR, China, etc.) then yes, it would be coercion and it would be immoral--but this immorality has more to do with the state of oppression rather than the socialist policies. governments like sweden, most all developed nations, and even developing nations like mexico and venezuela have gradually adopted more progressive-minded cultures which value altruistic social policies that promote a sense of social unity and civic responsibility. if you believe in helping the needy then it is only natural for you to want to reform the social and political institutions you live under to reflect these values.

Or is it more moral, and more in line with christianity, to live in a free market without social systems.. and instead of being greedy, giving up your worldly posessions or donating money and goods to those who need it.

a capitalist economy with socialist policies would definitely be a practical compromise which will gradually facilitate the transition towards a more free/egalitarian society. unfortunately, the free market policies we subject developing nations to directly exploit these vulnerable economies for our own gain. charity is a poor substitute for equality. and if we are benefiting from a system that exploits the less fortunate, then no amount of charitable giving will redeem us if we aren't willing to change the system that is creating the need for charity.

The point, economically speaking in the Bible is to do without on your own free will. No one forced Jesus to give, he did it on his own. But it would see that which allows you the most freedom to exercise those morals.. would be more in line with the Bible, thus.. free market.

somehow i don't think jesus would be in favor of unmitigated competition and unregulated markets as neoliberals desire. privatising the water supply in a developing nation, and then hiking up the prices just doesn't seem like a very "christian" thing to do.

I don't really think the Bible advocates a particular type of government..it would just seem to me that the person who has the most freedom, and lives by the bible upon their own accord would be the more moral person...rather than the christian who gives to the poor through forced taxes, the christian who doesn't have an abortion merely b/c it's illegal, etc...

the bible preaches a certain philosophy and certain moral values that are better upheld through certain types of governments and societies. it's up to us to use our best judgment to determine what type of society we should be striving for in order to achieve the ideals preached in the bible/koran/whatever. capitalism has been the dominant ideology for many centuries and many see reasons for reform, but ofcourse the problem with that is innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new. and so people content with their own state of existence come up with all kinds of sophist arguments to maintain the status quo.

 

[ebola?]

>>Secondly - Please explain Hong Kong to me. If communism is so much better, why the HELL would this tiny little enclave of capitalism be thriving in the middle of a gigantic ocean of communism.>>

I give up. I'm going to stop trying to clarify what communism is.

>>capital is money. and in a capitalist society, money is essentially interchangable for material resources and political power. >>

As a marxist sociologist in training, I disagree...but again, it's peripheral...and I agree with most of the rest of your post.

ebola

 

[thursday]

As a marxist sociologist in training, I disagree...but again, it's peripheral...and I agree with most of the rest of your post.

i think our argument is mainly over a semantical technicality. and i pretty much agree with most of the points you've made so far as well.

 

[PhorIndicator]

in otherwords, you can't refute the counter-arguments to your point, so instead of conceding to being wrong you're just going to ignore the contrary evidence and keep holding on to your misconceptions about communism and reality.

Ha sure man... that's it.

 

[thursday]

don't you ever question the validity of the beliefs you hold that you are't able to defend against criticism?

 

[PhorIndicator]

Of course I do. But I feel like I've said everything I wanted to say and honestly I didn't feel like writing anything more.

What have I said, specifically, that you disagree with? I'll be happy to respond, since you've shown an actual interest to truly discuss.