• 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

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
And here we see the Great, American, Conservative Myths:
1. That there are job opportunities for everyone
2. That what jobs there are pay a living wage.
I'm not a conservative.
I observe friends who can't find enuf help for their business.
All contractors are busy, & simply cannot do more work than
is already lined up. Paying more would simply mean getting
workers from competitors. The labor force simply has no
reserve. So if someone wants to enter, great pay awaits.
The keys....
Be honest, diligent, timely, & willing to improve.
 

Clara Tea

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

Republicans convinced the poor to support the rich, claiming that the rich would then raise their wages and improve their conditions (example: medical care).

This is called "trickle down."

Trickle down didn't work when President Ronald Reagan tried it. US steel industries shut down, and the inferior steel manufactured abroad was so bad that bolts were breaking that held engines to airplanes (they had to switch to military grade bolts with ISO-9000 standards). In the mean time, US workers lost their jobs.

President Reagan made it easier to get farm loans, but due to economic shake-ups, farmers were unable to make a living despite working very hard. They lost farms that had been in their families for perhaps 300 years. Ronald Reagan blamed the farmers, claiming that all farmers in America, suddenly, during his term, became stupid, instead of admitting that decisions by Reagan caused economic decline of the US. Banks collapsed under Reagan (and the FSLIC went out of business entirely). Republicans of Congress wanted to collapse the US currency, but

President GHW Bush tried trickle down again, and again it failed. Another recession was born.

President W. Bush tried trickle down yet again, and again it failed. Companies were outsourced overseas, and many had to train their foreign counterparts to take their jobs.
 

Jack11

Member
With huge populations comes socialism. There will be an even bigger slide to socialism as population look to Governments to take care of them. It was predicted decades ago. There is a population problem on the planet its going to take another decade or two before this truth is realized humans are not ready for that truth.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Of course, one could make the argument that the values taught by Jesus would, in application, favor one economic system or one political ideology over another.

I just wanted to point out that this comes down to interpretation. None of that is made explicit in the texts we have themselves. In my personal opinion, I think they're too ambiguous to make these sorts of extrapolations and every interpretation of the sort relies heavily on assumption and personal bias. The fact of the matter is that Jesus never explicitly advocated or condemned either socialism or capitalism.
I hear ya, but it is virtually impossible for me to believe that Jesus would have advocated a dismantling of the mandate to take care of others in need, which is more compatible with compassionate form of socialism than dog-eat-dog capitalism.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
With huge populations comes socialism. There will be an even bigger slide to socialism as population look to Governments to take care of them. It was predicted decades ago. There is a population problem on the planet its going to take another decade or two before this truth is realized humans are not ready for that truth.
This is pretty much what anthropologist Desmond Morris said decades ago, whereas he said not doing as such would lead to massive problems that would undermine stability and lead to more civil wars and wars between nations.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I hear ya, but it is virtually impossible for me to believe that Jesus would have advocated a dismantling of the mandate to take care of others in need, which is more compatible with compassionate form of socialism than dog-eat-dog capitalism.
Somehow, I just don't believe that this Jesus fellow you
keep citing would want private enterprise eliminated, &
replaced with government run means of production.
A great many of his followers think that would be bonkers.
They like economic liberty. They like charity being voluntary.
There's usefulness in having government provide social
benefits. But we needn't go socialist to do that.

A problem I see is that capitalism generates enuf tax
revenue to provide wonderful benefits. But your ilk
keeps voting for politicians who like to start wars, eg,
Hillary, Joe. Wouldn't your Jesus favor a more peaceful
foreign policy? And perhaps not imprisoning so many
people....as Joe & Bill wanted?

Instead of blaming others, eg, Republicans, capitalism,
consider cleaning up your own house, the Democratic
Party. Run some candidates who favor peace.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
So you would be down for privatized companies handling fire fighting while charging extravagant fees to stop your house from burning down? Or a toll booth for every street and road? An admission charge for city parks?

If they anyway pay it, does it really matter how they pay it? The cost exists anyway, if people would pay directly those, by own choice, they could have some influence to the prices and quality of service. Now they have none and the prices are extravagant. The problem with all that government arranges is that government doesn’t protect the interest of the ones that pay it.

But, I understand that there are some services that would be reasonable to arrange collectively. Those are 1) Healthcare 2) Education 3) Basic roads 4) Police/Justice system 5) Fire department. Everything else is not necessary. And for those 5 items the cost shouldn’t be more than 400 $/month/citizen. For that it would be enough to have about 10 % Vat and 10 % income tax, nothing else. I think that could be considered fair and acceptable for all. All that goes over that is tyranny and exploitation and can’t be justified well.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
socialists that exploit others are only socialist in name. in action they are capitalists....

In that case I don’t think there are any real socialists. But, I think socialism as Marx defined is different than what you think, and in my opinion Marx is the one whose definition is the correct one. And by his definition, socialism is not good, it is legalized theft an exploits people.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
But, I understand that there are some services that would be reasonable to arrange collectively. Those are 1) Healthcare 2) Education 3) Basic roads 4) Police/Justice system 5) Fire department.
Then we might be at an agreement for the most part. I'm not anti-capitalist. I just think that our privatized, profit driven healthcare is a predatory racket that gouges and drives many into debt. The rest of the 1st world tends to be shocked by our system.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I cited countries where there was no private ownership of the means of production. The "people" owned it.

That's not the definition of "socialism"....that's
what you want, ie, your dream of how eliminating
private ownership would play out. But it doesn't
work that way.
I don't think anyone is advocating the elimination of private ownership. Me, I'm advocating more employee-owned, co-operative businesses, and public ownership of the commons.
The "Socialism" we radical leftists, socialist extremists and anarchist militants advocate is patterned on Western Europe, not the USSR, North Korea or Red China.
We advocate reïnstating the regulations, checks and balances we had before the Reagan revolution channeled all the money to the .01%, and industry overseas. Oddly, it's we liberals who want to turn back the clock.
The people owning the means of production doesn't
preclude there being an elite. Nay, it guarantees
there'll be an elite....one with an iron boot on the
necks of the masses. It's just what happens.
Who would this élite be, and what power would it have over the people?
Give us some examples of these iron booted, socialist tyrants, SVP.
Capitalism has a better record than socialism.
Freedom to start & run businesses is fundamental
to liberty. Without that, government controls all.
Capitalism has a history of booms and busts ("business cycle)"), monopoly, government capture and exploitation and wage/power inequality. Prosperity of the few emerges from exploitation of those who create the wealth, either domestically or abroad. Profits go to the owner class, which might -- or might not -- pay a living wage to the workers.
What liberty does a wage-slave have?
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
With huge populations comes socialism. There will be an even bigger slide to socialism as population look to Governments to take care of them. It was predicted decades ago. There is a population problem on the planet its going to take another decade or two before this truth is realized humans are not ready for that truth.
Socialism like we had in the '60s, in the '30s? Socialism as it exists in Western Europe?
What sort of socialism are you talking bout? And who is this "government?" Government as a separate class or entity is a capitalist thing. Socialist governments are workers' committees.
 

Jack11

Member
I am wrong saying socialism - massive social programs funded by Government will be required the larger the population gets.

I don't believe socialism is possible it would require a revolution to take from the rich making it communism good luck with socialism the rich will never have it. The world has never been greedier.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I am wrong saying socialism - massive social programs funded by Government will be required the larger the population gets.

I don't believe socialism is possible it would require a revolution to take from the rich making it communism good luck with socialism the rich will never have it. The world has never been greedier.
And yet both Theodore Roosevelt, his cousin Franklin, and to some extent, Lyndon Johnson managed to do it.
Yes, the economic royalists railed against them. They complained that Teddy "didn't stay bought," and, in the case of FDR, they condemned him as a socialist, enlisted the military and almost puled off a coup d'état.

Nevertheless, regulations were imposed that lasted >45 years before the corporatists managed to make significant inroads against the regulations that had produced the prosperity and strong middle class that characterized America's Golden Age.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...I just think that our privatized, profit driven healthcare is a predatory racket that gouges and drives many into debt....

It can be so in any case, if those who pay it, can’t really control it. The problem seems to be when the system grows too big and powerful. Private company can grow as big, or bigger than government organization. And then people lose opportunity to choose, which is what leads to situation where people pay and don’t get what they should get. This is why I don’t think the problem is really in the way the system is funded, it is in the centralization of power. The smaller all units are, the more choices for people, which then gives the control to the people (true democracy), because then they can change the provider, if it doesn’t do a good job.

Government is essentially monopoly. And monopolies are bad for people, because it allows the provider to do poor job that people must pay, but can’t change.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Government is essentially monopoly. And monopolies are bad for people, because it allows the provider to do poor job that people must pay, but can’t change.
Government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people via democracy, but the problem is that the choices are picked by big money and lobbyists. Also, a large portion of the electorate are either woefully uninformed or misinformed and are easily deceived and manipulated into voting against their own interests.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It can be so in any case, if those who pay it, can’t really control it. The problem seems to be when the system grows too big and powerful. Private company can grow as big, or bigger than government organization. And then people lose opportunity to choose, which is what leads to situation where people pay and don’t get what they should get. This is why I don’t think the problem is really in the way the system is funded, it is in the centralization of power. The smaller all units are, the more choices for people, which then gives the control to the people (true democracy), because then they can change the provider, if it doesn’t do a good job.

Government is essentially monopoly. And monopolies are bad for people, because it allows the provider to do poor job that people must pay, but can’t change.
Yet other countries, with centralized medical care or regulatory control, manage better outcomes at half the price.
As long as healthcare companies and big pharma are allowed to buy the legislators who regulate the industry, prices will remain extortionate.

"Small government" = industry free-for-all.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"Small government" = industry free-for-all.
Only in the minds of socialists who refuse to allow
for useful regulation, eg, preventing monopolies,
consumer protection laws, environmental protection.
Much government activity at all levels can be jettisoned
with either no or positive effects....
- Subsidizing building in flood plains
- Who can use which public bathroom
- Policing the world
- Requiring risky home lending
- Rent control
- Affirmative action
- Banning small houses

But some additional regulation is needed....
- Trust administration
- Police behavior
- Firearm training & storage
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Only in the minds of socialists who refuse to allow
for useful regulation, eg, preventing monopolies,
consumer protection laws, environmental protection.
Much government activity at all levels can be jettisoned
with either no or positive effects....
- Subsidizing building in flood plains
- Who can use which public bathroom
- Policing the world
- Requiring risky home lending
- Rent control
- Affirmative action
- Banning small houses

But some additional regulation is needed....
- Trust administration
- Police behavior
- Firearm training & storage
Frankly I don't see where we're in disagreement here, except maybe the small house thing. If I want to move into a garden shed, why shouldn't I?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Frankly I don't see where we're in disagreement here, except maybe the small house thing. If I want to move into a garden shed, why shouldn't I?
I sense a much greater desire for government control.
I prefer that if employees want more say in a company,
they can....
- Start their own.
- Buy stock in the company.
 
Top