Capitalism and Israel

[Nakosis]

During the time of Jesus, was Israel closer to capitalism or socialism?

 

[Harel13]

Israel, or the Province of Judea, was controlled by the Romans at the time. The Romans, to my knowledge, were more capitalistic in economic style, and Judea was basically the same. The slight difference is that when the Jewish sages saw need, they occasionally interfered in the market. For example, they were against monopolies.

 

[epronovost]

During the time of Jesus, was Israel closer to capitalism or socialism?

Neither. These are economic theories of the 19th century. They do not apply to Antiquity. Roman economy is probably best described as some sort of mercantilism, but the basis of the economy of the Empire was agriculture.

 

[Nakosis]

Neither. These are economic theories of the 19th century. They do not apply to Antiquity. Roman economy is probably best described as some sort of mercantilism.

Even mercantilism post dated Jesus by a few hundred years.
Rome was agrarian?
Where wealth was determine by the production of agricultural.
Whether land was privately held, community held, or held by government.

 

[Kenny]

During the time of Jesus, was Israel closer to capitalism or socialism?

Under Roman control... more like dictatorship IMO

 

[74x12]

Israel, or the Province of Judea, was controlled by the Romans at the time. The Romans, to my knowledge, were more capitalistic in economic style, and Judea was basically the same. The slight difference is that when the Jewish sages saw need, they occasionally interfered in the market. For example, they were against monopolies.

As am I. As an American if we returned to the constitution we'd have government like that. It's "For and by the people" so capitalism should bow to the good of the people but socialism is inherently against personal liberty so we can't support that either.

 

[sun rise]

socialism is inherently against personal liberty

That's an oft repeated incorrect statement. There are many versions of socialism that are not dictatorially restricting personal freedom.

Libertarian socialism generally rejects the concept of a state[15] and asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can only be achieved with the abolition of authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.

 

[74x12]

That's an oft repeated incorrect statement. There are many versions of socialism that are not dictatorially restricting personal freedom.

Libertarian socialism generally rejects the concept of a state[15] and asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can only be achieved with the abolition of authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.

Do you support libertarian socialism?

 

[Kooky]

During the time of Jesus, was Israel closer to capitalism or socialism?

Category error.
Judaea and Samarian Israel around 30 AD were pre-industrial agricultural economies with a strong tradition of pastoralism.

Capitalist economies only really become possible with the advent of industrial production, when the production and distribution of goods allow substantial returns on investment that are greater than simply taking and holding fertile land.

 

[Kooky]

As am I. As an American if we returned to the constitution we'd have government like that.

So, a slave based agricultural society ruled by a coalition of slaver aristocrats and merchant elites?

Yea, that checks out.

 

[74x12]

So, a slave based agricultural society ruled by a coalition of slaver aristocrats and merchant elites?

Yea, that checks out.

Slavery was a fact of life in the 18th century and had been for thousands of years; but if you just read the constitution then it isn't allowed. That's why they interpreted a black person as only partially human so that they didn't have to give them full rights as the constitution clearly demanded. But America finally matured out of that nonsense. Besides you only describe a couple out of the original 13 colonies when you say a slave based agricultural society.

The constitution is a great system for America if people stick to it. It's designed to be in place of the king. That is the rule of law replaces the king.

 

[Kooky]

But America finally matured out of that nonsense.

Yes, that was my point. The fixation of modern Americans on a supposed "original reading" of their Constitution, or a return to the glory days of the late 18th century is folly to the highest degree.

The US Constitution was created as a political compact between the various factions of the early colonial elites, with the purpose of keeping the majority population (the unlanded, poor, colored, and female) from exercising political influence while ensuring a dominant position to those same elites for decades to come.

 

[epronovost]

The constitution is a great system for America if people stick to it. It's designed to be in place of the king. That is the rule of law replaces the king.

The US constitution of 1787 is still in effect today (with about 27 amendments, maybe 28 if the ERA is finally included). Note that the concept of "rule of law" and jurisprudence is actually derived from the Roman Empire which was, of course, a brutal tyranny. The principle of the "rule of law" isn't systematically opposed to the principles of monarchy, just not a certain type of absolutist monarchy.

 

[74x12]

Yes, that was my point. The fixation of modern Americans on a supposed "original reading" of their Constitution, or a return to the glory days of the late 18th century is folly to the highest degree.

The US Constitution was created as a political compact between the various factions of the early colonial elites, with the purpose of keeping the majority population (the unlanded, poor, colored, and female) from exercising political influence while ensuring a dominant position to the country's elites for decades to come.

Utter vitriol. You're basically undermining your own country. If you destroy and denigrate the constitution this country will fall. And it will be your fault. For this you yourself will suffer if you even survive.

The constitution doesn't really address those topics if you just read it for what it is. That's why we never changed a word of it. We've added amendments but never changed a word. Nor should we. Because it's not racist.

 

[sun rise]

Do you support libertarian socialism?

I'm sympathetic to some of the ideas without supporting that program. And as wikipedia notes, libertarian socialism is not one unified idea:

Past and present political currents and movements commonly described as libertarian socialist include anarchism (anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism,[217] collectivist anarchism, mutualism[218] individualist anarchism)[219][220][221][222] as well as autonomism, communalism, libertarian Marxism (council communism and Luxemburgism)[35] participism, revolutionary syndicalism and some versions of utopian socialism.[223]

I'm concerned about an old "joke" that is true "the chief cause of problems is solutions".

But the current American system is government of corporate leaders and those they've bought, by corporate special interest and for corporate self-interest including handouts. A counter-force is needed.

 

[74x12]

The US constitution of 1787 is still in effect today (with about 27 amendments, maybe 28 if the ERA is finally included). Note that the concept of "rule of law" and jurisprudence is actually derived from the Roman Empire which was, of course, a brutal tyranny. The principle of the "rule of law" isn't systematically opposed to the principles of monarchy, just not a certain type of absolutist monarchy.

The rule of law was developed after the Roman empire by thinkers mainly from Britain, France etc. who theorized a better form of government. Certainly they were influenced by concepts deriving from classical antiquity and Roman law. Yes the Romans ruled through laws but that's not the concept of the rule of law by itself. They still had Caesars. But they did give western civilization some good things as well as evil things.

The real origins of the concept of the rule of law is actually the Torah itself. The original form of Jewish government was that the 12 tribes(13 if you include them all) would be ruled not by a king but by the Torah or the law itself.

 

[74x12]

I'm sympathetic to some of the ideas without supporting that program. And as wikipedia notes, libertarian socialism is not one unified idea:

Past and present political currents and movements commonly described as libertarian socialist include anarchism (anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism,[217] collectivist anarchism, mutualism[218] individualist anarchism)[219][220][221][222] as well as autonomism, communalism, libertarian Marxism (council communism and Luxemburgism)[35] participism, revolutionary syndicalism and some versions of utopian socialism.[223]

I'm concerned about an old "joke" that is true "the chief cause of problems is solutions".

But the current American system is government of corporate leaders and those they've bought, by corporate special interest and for corporate self-interest including handouts. A counter-force is needed.

Well here is my main problem. The current form of socialism taking shape in the world is not libertarian in nature. Not at all. Yet people keep supporting it.

 

[epronovost]

The real origins of the concept of the rule of law is actually the Torah itself. The original form of Jewish government was that the 12 tribes(13 if you include them all) would be ruled not by a king but by the Torah or the law itself.

Unfortunately, that's purely mythological. The Jews were never completely united under a single entity venerating the same deity and under the same book.

 

[Kooky]

Utter vitriol. You're basically undermining your own country.

First of all, it's not my country - and second of all, I wouldn't care even if it was.

If you destroy and denigrate the constitution this country will fall. And it will be your fault. For this you yourself will suffer if you even survive.

It is not destruction nor denigration to look at the historical record with a clear mind and recognize a piece of parchment for what it is, and examine the reasons why it was created with a clear and critical eye.

 

[Kooky]

Unfortunately, that's purely mythological. The Jews were never completely united under a single entity venerating the same deity and under the same book.

They were also ruled by kings for most of their existence as a polity (or polities, more accurately), but I can understand why Americans looking to the Bible as a model of good governance would like to omit that little detail.