Does atheism lead to socialism?

1213 said:

And for me, the problem with socialism in practice is that there is a group that forces people to give money to them so that they then can give small amount of that to someone who needs.

Click to expand...

There you go again. What is this group? How do they manage to get their hands on all the profits?
THERE IS NO 'GROUP'!
How the profits of a 'socialist' business are used is decided by the whole company, not by a managerial class. It's a democracy; a co-op.

Maybe the original idea of socialism is good, but it is in practice always system that is not based on freedom and love, but a system where elite takes money from others (makes more poor people) and then gives little help for those who are already poor.

Click to expand...

Who is this élite? You evidently have an example in mind. What is it?

Socialism is based on freedom, equality and compassion. Socialist policies seek to eliminate poor people.
It's capitalism that worships greed. It's capitalism that wants to eliminate social programs to help the poor. In capitalism it's sink or swim. If you can't afford education, healthcare, food or housing, nobody's going to give it to you. If you don't work, you don't eat. -- No Christian values here.

In the so called 'socialist' countries healthcare is available to everyone, and bankrupts noöne; there is no student debt, there are not beggars on every street corner or tents lining the sidewalks. Poor people are a capitalist plague.

It is a system to transfer wealth to a different group. I hate it, especially because it really doesn’t help poor people.

Click to expand...

What is this "different group?"
In pure socialism there's only one group and no poor. In 'democratic socialism' there are social programs to help the poor, and the whole system is designed to eliminate poverty.
Not so capitalism. In capitalism you're free -- to starve on the street or die of a treatable disease. Capitalism is anti-social. Wealth inequality is built into it.

Real help would be to make so that the poor could become prosperous. Socialism doesn’t offer anything that would improve anyone’s situation, except the leaders of the system. That is why I like more of free capitalist system, where people can with their own work prosper.

Click to expand...

What universe do you live in? Socialism is all about eliminating poverty. Socialism helps the disadvantaged, assists people to improve themselves, and makes sure everyone has at least the essentials. Why do you think they call it "social?"
Capitalism helps those who can pay for it. The old, the disadvantaged, the unskilled, disabled, the 'surplus' -- these must depend on charity. Capitalism will not forcibly redistribute a hard worker's wealth to help them.

Valjean said:

We have plenty of parties already -- List of political parties in the United States - Wikipedia , they're just not proportionately represented.

What's your take on a proportionally represented, parliamentary style system; or on a ranked choice voting that would at least allow you to vote for the candidate you prefer, without wasting your vote?

Click to expand...

But they arent represented in context to "Social democracy (labour party)" its all centralized stuff within Democratic or Republican party, the two extremes of two party system. It is terrible. Hardly democratic. Its just a way for lobbyists and fake politicians to get influence

But socialism i cant stand due to authoritarian rhetoric from its follower. Just look what they are trying to do to entertainment industry, and people wonder why people fled the crappy system from communist regimes in the past?

But i dont object to socialist party existing in a democratic voting system, i just wouldnt go near it is all

Valjean said:

We have plenty of parties already -- List of political parties in the United States - Wikipedia , they're just not proportionately represented.

What's your take on a proportionally represented, parliamentary style system; or on a ranked choice voting that would at least allow you to vote for the candidate you prefer, without wasting your vote?

Click to expand...

Also i looked at that link. What friggin morons? What kind of idiot want to vote on progressives. Oh yeah, eugenics was a great thing in late 1800s, something progressives supported. Its like me making a right wing group called "Freedom party", its a cult that doesnt mean anything of cult members joining.

Atleast Liberal and Conservative means something. Liberal means liberate, Conservative means to conserve something. Issues you support or not, thats it. I hate the "Progressive" cult worship in USA. Just has zero meaning to actually anything

1213 said:

Yes, it is possible that other religions don’t support the ideas of “love your enemy” and “love your neighbor”. But, what do you think, if person says he is a Christians, which in Bible means a disciple of Jesus, doesn’t actually believe Jesus and don’t live as Jesus taught? Maybe they had a theistic country, but they surely didn’t seem to believe God, when they didn’t live by God's word.

Click to expand...

But very few people do live like that -- the Hippies and communards of the ''60s, perhaps. Whenever it's been tried on a large scale, implementing Christian values -- or Islamic values, for that matter -- it's led to tyranny, war and destitution. That's why our founding fathers sought a separation of church and state, and a secular government. They remembered the Religious Wars, and saw the remnants of religious repression all around them.

1213 said:

Yes, although collectivist oligarchy is probably more fitting term.

Click to expand...

Isn't "collectivist oligarchy" an oxymoron?

1213 said:

Causality does not equal causation.

Click to expand...

Huh?

Lars said:

But they arent represented in context to "Social democracy (labour party)" its all centralized stuff within Democratic or Republican party, the two extremes of two party system. It is terrible. Hardly democratic. Its just a way for lobbyists and fake politicians to get influence

Click to expand...

Two extremes?! Read some history. They're practically indistinguishable.

But socialism i cant stand due to authoritarian rhetoric from its follower. Just look what they are trying to do to entertainment industry, and people wonder why people fled the crappy system from communist regimes in the past?

Click to expand...

But socialism is anti-authoritarian. It's all about equality and democratic decision making.
?? --More info on the entertainment exodus, please.
What communist regimes in the past?

Does thinking for self lead to socialism.

A theist. Natural human first thinking about humanity. Equal science status a human in an equal environmental support.

A one of status same for everyone.

A theist...a thinker.

Lars said:

Also i looked at that link. What friggin morons? What kind of idiot want to vote on progressives.

Click to expand...

You want to roll back the 20th century?
You don't think we have a fairer, more just, safer, more prosperous and comfortable society today than we did a century or so ago?
That's progress! Progressives brought it about. Conservatives fought it at every turn.

Oh yeah, eugenics was a great thing in late 1800s, something progressives supported. Its like me making a right wing group called "Freedom party", its a cult that doesnt mean anything of cult members joining.

Click to expand...

Huh?
How are you defining "progressives," and why eugenics? Selective breeding does work, but coercion and forced sterilization was a right-wing thing. It violated the human rights and dignity that's always been the bailiwick of progressives.
LOL -- parties call themselves whatever they think will appeal to the people. I'd look behind the official names. As often as not parties bear no resemblance to their titles.

Atleast Liberal and Conservative means something. Liberal means liberate, Conservative means to conserve something. Issues you support or not, thats it. I hate the "Progressive" cult worship in USA. Just has zero meaning to actually anything

Click to expand...

Again, define "progressive."
Weren't emancipation of slaves, women's suffrage, civil rights, the eight hour day, minimum wage, universal education, social security, &c all progressive, liberal ideas? Didn't conservatives oppose all of them?

Valjean said:

You want to roll back the 20th century?
You don't think we have a fairer, more just, safer, more prosperous and comfortable society today than we did a century or so ago?
That's progress! Progressives brought it about. Conservatives fought it at every turn.
Huh?
How are you defining "progressives," and why eugenics? Selective breeding does work, but coercion and forced sterilization was a right-wing thing. It violated the human rights and dignity that's always been the bailiwick of progressives.
LOL -- parties call themselves whatever they think will appeal to the people. I'd look behind the official names. As often as not parties bear no resemblance to their titles.

Again, define "progressive."
Weren't emancipation of slaves, women's suffrage, civil rights, the eight hour day, minimum wage, universal education, social security, &c all progressive, liberal ideas? Didn't conservatives oppose all of them?

Click to expand...

Republicans back then probably supported civil rights i would imagine. Equal opportunity i am in favor of

Lars said:

Republicans back then probably supported civil rights i would imagine. Equal opportunity i am in favor of

Click to expand...

But who's talking about Democrats or Republicans? Their positions on issues shift all the time.
I thought we were talking about liberals and conservatives, or left vs right wing politics.

Valjean said:

But who's talking about Democrats or Republicans? Their positions on issues shift all the time.
I thought we were talking about liberals and conservatives, or left vs right wing politics.

Click to expand...

Yeah. But i still dont think progressives were good even back in 1800s.

I can understand Social Democrats since that has some valid case to a democracy

Valjean said:

...
Isn't "collectivist oligarchy" an oxymoron?

Click to expand...

No, it means that there is a small group that owns everything and forces others to one cohesive group that is more important than individuals.

Collectivism is a value that is characterized by emphasis on cohesiveness among individuals and prioritization of the group over the self.
Collectivism - Wikipedia

Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people.
Oligarchy - Wikipedia

Oligarchical collectivism is the economic and political system of Oceania and the other superstates in the dystopia Orwell depicts in 1984. It refers to a system ruled by a small group of elites, an oligarchy, in which the society is collectivist in the sense that ownership is state-controlled rather than private.
https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-is-oligarchical-collectivism-in-1984-and-how-532007

One example of this is how the elite forces everyone to take vaccine, “because of security and common good”. Basic human rights are revoked because of “it is necessary for the group”. All this is done by a small elite group that benefits from that other people that are basically like serfs or slaves for them. And now that they have been easily so successful, the totalitarian fascism probably will only intensify.

Valjean said:

…Socialist policies seek to eliminate poor people.

Click to expand...

I can believe they want to eliminate the poor people. And even if they would want to help poor people, socialism itself has nothing good to offer to the poor, they can only make sure that they stay poor and more people become poor.

Valjean said:

…It's capitalism that worships greed.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I have no reason to believe that.

Valjean said:

…If you don't work, you don't eat. -- No Christian values here.

Click to expand...

"If anyone will not work, neither let him eat."
2 The. 3:10

Valjean said:

…In the so called 'socialist' countries healthcare is available to everyone, and bankrupts noöne; there is no student debt, there are not beggars on every street corner or tents lining the sidewalks. Poor people are a capitalist plague.

Click to expand...

In that case Finland is not a socialistic country.

But, I also want to say, I think it is good, if people help others. I think free capitalism gives the best opportunity for people to help themselves and others.

Valjean said:

I think it's you who have a distorted view of capitalism. Capitalism is a system where the means of production and profits therefrom are privately owned and accumulated. In capitalism there's a small owner class and a large class of wage laborers. Capitalism is about accumulation of wealth -...

Click to expand...

In free capitalism workers can found own company, if they think the owner that they are working for is not good. Accumulation often happens because people are lazy and allow some people to get more. And many times, it is enforced by corrupted government that benefits from rich companies and therefore rules for their benefit. And then it actually is not anymore free capitalism but oligarchy.

Valjean said:

True. Now they're prosperous they don't need to appeal to invisible gods for their salvation. They've saved themselves.

Click to expand...

Still a short moment. If they don’t repent, they will soon be in bankruptcy. Reason why things are still relatively good looking is that they can loan money.

Valjean said:

...Aren't peace, love, equality and love of neighbor both Christian, Humanist, Hippie and progressive values?
Aren't "greed is good," dog-eat-dog competition, every man for himself, and Devil take the hindmost not free-market, capitalist values?

Click to expand...

Why would those be capitalistic values? It may be that some capitalists have those values, but it has nothing to do with capitalism itself.

But, love is obviously a Christian value. And when people love others, they do freely good to others. And that is ok. Socialism itself has no love. And because it legalizes theft in practice and is against freedom and human rights (to own for example), it is not loving.

1213 said:

One example of this is how the elite forces everyone to take vaccine, “because of security and common good”. Basic human rights are revoked because of “it is necessary for the group”. All this is done by a small elite group that benefits from that other people that are basically like serfs or slaves for them. And now that they have been easily so successful, the totalitarian fascism probably will only intensify.

Click to expand...

Getting the vaccine is not even remotely the same as
government (ie, the people) owning the means of production,
thereby eliminating free economic association.

1213 said:

I think the difference to Jesus is in that things should be based on love and that person is righteous.

Click to expand...

So, why do you think that a society and its government cannot also be righteous? Are we to get rid of all laws and just have everyone just fight for themselves and jot expect any moral behavior whatsoever?

1213 said:

And for me, the problem with socialism in practice is that there is a group that forces people to give money to them so that they then can give small amount of that to someone who needs.

Click to expand...

Can't you see the stereotype you're using here? Governments are like people, especially since they are made up of people.

1213 said:

Maybe the original idea of socialism is good, but it is in practice always system that is not based on freedom and love, but a system where elite takes money from others (makes more poor people) and then gives little help for those who are already poor.

Click to expand...

Love is not just a personal thingy as a loving society makes certain that the needy and dispossessed are helped. To negate that is to lead to anarchy, which eventually leads to tyranny.

Again, I am certain that Jesus would be appalled at what you are proposing as it would lead to a dog-eat-dog society based on social darwinism, and we've seen that "picture" before.

metis said:

So, why do you think that a society and its government cannot also be righteous? Are we to get rid of all laws and just have everyone just fight for themselves and jot expect any moral behavior whatsoever?

Click to expand...

I think righteous people don’t want to rule others. Power positions seem to lure only people who are not good for that. And even if person would be ok, power corrupts. I think The Lord of The Rings is a good story about how dangerous power is for people. The more powerful position people create, the more dangerous it is. I think it would be best, if all people would have power only for their own life. Human governments don’t bring anything good that we could not have without them, but without them, we could not have wars.

metis said:

...anarchy, which eventually leads to tyranny....

Click to expand...

I think they are the opposite, but, after anarchy, it is possible that there comes a tyranny. But similarly, after tyranny, there can be anarchy.

However, I am not exactly saying that we should have anarchy. I think people should be free and independent and make decisions of their own life, not others.

1213 said:

Human governments don’t bring anything good that we could not have without them, but without them, we could not have wars.

Click to expand...

Again, anarchy never has and never will work as it would lead to total chaos, which would then lead to an extreme totalitarian state. Anarchy never has worked and it never will.

1213 said:

I think they are the opposite, but, after anarchy, it is possible that there comes a tyranny. But similarly, after tyranny, there can be anarchy.

Click to expand...

See above.

What you are proposing, if adopted, would be about as unChristian as imaginarily conceivable as it would be a power play with massive numbers losing, dying, and suffering. Do you honestly believe Jesus would want that?

metis said:

Again, anarchy never has and never will work as it would lead to total chaos, which would then lead to an extreme totalitarian state. Anarchy never has worked and it never will. ...

Click to expand...

What I say is not really anarchy, it is only rejecting the government structure, the idea that some people should have right to rule over everyone else. I think it would be a true democracy, when people would be free to make all own life decisions, without some government deciding for everyone else. And I think that was what was in the beginning, before people demanded a king to rule them.