• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Socialism and the Far Right

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I think in practice it is bad, legalized theft and against freedom of the people.
What do you think about military, law enforcement, fire departments, trash collection, public roads, parks, libraries, museums, schools, etc?
I hope people in USA vote for those who don’t try to destroy their constitution and freedom.
Who would that be?
 
Last edited:

Colt

Well-Known Member
most of the far right in the US rails against socialism but isn't that what jesus was promoting?


isn't it kind of hypocritical to be very rich, a capitalist, and a christian, or to be anti-socialism and christian?


Kentucky is a red state. But 34% of working families are 200% or more under the poverty line. Isn't that odd that someone would vote against the very thing that helps them.


View attachment 59037


Kentucky - Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity

*** coal mining WAS the industry in eastern Kentucky****

Jesus turned a few loves of bread and fish into enough to feed 5 thousand people. Why didn’t he keep doing that if he was such a Socialist?

Jesus wasn’t an enabler! He didn’t intend to create a professional dependent class of alms seekers!

Socialism compels the thrifty producer to support the improvident which produces more of them.

If families can walk across South America to get to better paying jobs in the U.S. then Kentuckians can walk their butts right on out of rural Kentucky to better jobs in other states. It’s a little harder considering that half of the population of Kentucky is obese, but generational poverty won’t change unless people change!
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I was speaking from the perspective of a hypothetical, archetypical church. Context is key.

Ohhhh... it your church perspective that's wrong. :)

I'm only wealthy in wisdom and I'm showering you with it out of kindness and generosity. :)

:D that was good.

:D - but I disagree... your car is too expensive too. :D I know because I asked a Honduran and he said you are filthy rich.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Yet you heap all the poor together and dismiss their struggle as laziness, ignoring obvious economic factors. Some work two jobs just to keep their head above water. The cost of living has been outpacing wages and salaries for decades, The ladders of economic mobility have been losing their rungs. the wealth gap continues to grow, and you honestly think it's all due to laziness?
then you obviously are being very biased and selective in and what I said.

But that again... that is what you do ;)

Not to mention that when I came with my wife, we had a mattress, a rattan rug and snowy black and white TV. Thank God my grandma gave us some aluminum set of pots and pans.

Maybe you were silver spoon fed?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That reminds me of this:
93kjpbtearg21.jpg
Yes, we see that often.
That's how both the left & the right look to me.

The left....
Always telling me that public roads & schools
are socialist. Why do they criticize & mock the
right for using the very same personal definition?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
then you obviously are being very biased and selective in and what I said.

But that again... that is what you do ;)

Not to mention that when I came with my wife, we had a mattress, a rattan rug and snowy black and white TV. Thank God my grandma gave us some aluminum set of pots and pans.

Maybe you were silver spoon fed?
You had a black & white TV.
When I was a kid, we could only afford black TV.
(The white cost extra.)

Anyway....
I read that exchange just after hearing a talking head
on NPR criticizing those of us not sky-is-falling alarmed
about the looming new Ameristanian civil war as
"privileging calm".

"Privilege" is now a verb....that's weird.
To privilege calm means you're not doing this....
tenor.gif


They always dis "privilege" as a bad thing.
But I see a big up side to keeping one's head
while others around you are losing theirs.
 
Last edited:

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
No. In Venezuela, they took a whole apartment complex and gave it to the poor. In less than a year, the complex was destroyed... did that help them?

The problem isn't that people are rich... there is a deeper problem.

There is, usually related to trauma. Often, through generational poverty. And poverty has been passed on through the years due to how we play economics, where some people get rich because others don't. Sometimes richness and poorness is a result of personal choices and effort, sometimes it's inherited, but it's always a community concern.

Austin's homeless crisis is so dire, a nonprofit built an $18 million tiny-home village to get the chronically homeless off the streets. Take a look inside Community First Village.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
A lot of Christian companies donate a substantial portion of their income to charity, even sponsoring charities. That's not more or less in-line with Jesus than advocating for socialism.
In the Parable of the Widow's Mite, the widow is praised for her going on beyond which was required under Jewish Law, namely the "tithe"*. This is important because this implies Jesus did not object to the fact that Jewish Law per Torah required helping the poor through more than just charity. As a matter of fact, eretz Israel is considered by historians to be the first large civilization to have programs set up to mandate help for all citizens in poverty or who are dispossessed.

And why would Jesus want it any different as doesn't life and wellbeing take priority over the structure of basic economic systems? [rhetorical question]


* the tithe involved more than just paying the Temple bills as it also was used for basic governmental programs, such as dealing with the poor.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Socialism doesn’t produce, socialism relies first on the success of capitalism and its laborers in order to have wealth to redistribute. Basic infrastructure is a given, that’s not socialism. Socialism attempts to equilibrate and reward unequal efforts.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
All economic systems involve growth since goods & services get exchanged. The only serious questions are which grows the best and which is generally more advantageous for all.

If one is a believer in Judeo-Christian teachings, then the latter is more important than the former. If one is into what's called "social Darwinism", then the former is more important than the latter. Most societies tend to have varying degrees of both, thus what we call "mixed economies" are the norm in today's world.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Socialism doesn’t produce, socialism relies first on the success of capitalism and its laborers in order to have wealth to redistribute. Basic infrastructure is a given, that’s not socialism. Socialism attempts to equilibrate and reward unequal efforts.
But if the workers own the factories and businesses, and run them as co-ops, the wealth they generate accrues directly to them, rather than to a capitalist "owner" who then redistributes it as he wishes, while keeping the lion's share for himself.

Capitalism rewards uneven efforts. There is no equilibration. The wealth generated belongs to the owners of the means of production: the tools, farms and factories. It is generated by the workers, who are then paid whatever will keep them at the job, with the rest remaining in the pockets of the owners who generated nothing.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
You had a black & white TV.
When I was a kid, we could only afford black TV.
(The white cost extra.)

Anyway....
I read that exchange just after hearing a talking head
on NPR criticizing those of us not sky-is-falling alarmed
about the looming new Ameristanian civil war as
"privileging calm".

"Privilege" is now a verb....that's weird.
To privilege calm means you're not doing this....
tenor.gif


They always dis "privilege" as a bad thing.
But I see a big up side to keeping one's head
while others around you are losing theirs.

That was sooo funny... I think something is "funny" :D when there is a truth in it!

With all the "safe zones" that are being created, I wonder what the future will hold for the young ones... like the meme.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That was sooo funny... I think something is "funny" :D when there is a truth in it!

With all the "safe zones" that are being created, I wonder what the future will hold for the young ones... like the meme.
I wonder how soon some will demand a constitutional
amendment for a right to be not offended.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
There is, usually related to trauma. Often, through generational poverty. And poverty has been passed on through the years due to how we play economics, where some people get rich because others don't. Sometimes richness and poorness is a result of personal choices and effort, sometimes it's inherited, but it's always a community concern.

Austin's homeless crisis is so dire, a nonprofit built an $18 million tiny-home village to get the chronically homeless off the streets. Take a look inside Community First Village.
Agreed... that is why we help those in poverty and break the curse.

Of course, in our case, we believe Jesus is another key as when one is "born-again" - it is a new start with a new Father.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Socialism doesn’t produce, socialism relies first on the success of capitalism and its laborers in order to have wealth to redistribute. Basic infrastructure is a given, that’s not socialism. Socialism attempts to equilibrate and reward unequal efforts.
A great viewpoint.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
But if the workers own the factories and businesses, and run them as co-ops, the wealth they generate accrues directly to them, rather than to a capitalist "owner" who then redistributes it as he wishes, while keeping the lion's share for himself.

Capitalism rewards uneven efforts. There is no equilibration. The wealth generated belongs to the owners of the means of production: the tools, farms and factories. It is generated by the workers, who are then paid whatever will keep them at the job, with the rest remaining in the pockets of the owners who generated nothing.

The question would be... was that socialism or a different effort at capitalism.

I bet you a dollar to a donut that a person that isn't producing in that co-op still gets fired and he doesn't get to continue being part of that "re-distribution".
 
Top