Jesus was NOT a capitalist

[ThePainefulTruth]

There are various forms of "socialism", and fortunately many of them are democratically administered. "Socialism" is an economic system that shouldn't be confused with political systems.

Politics and economics are inextricably intertwined. Politics without economics is tyranny, and economics without politics or government is anarchy.
I usually don't like to get into it, but yes, technically any form of government is socialism. A narrower definition has come into play where socialism is government rule over business either by control via regulation or outright ownership. Inevitably, both of those systems place the value of the state over the individual, excepting for the elite, which could be graduated through some thousands, or just one. Either form can sometimes redistribute wealth to keep the people pacified, or not.

Under constitutional capitalism, corporations are treated legally the same as individuals wherever possible. But since the government has the guns, taxes and the law, the people and the corporations are the only check on keeping the government from degenerating into fascism or communism. And if we don't insist on elected officials with integrity, they will inevitably prostitute themselves to the corporations swapping favors for money, or the people, proffering freebies for votes. Setting the government as the watchdog over itself is the surest way to turn the halls of power in to the house of ill repute that Washington became under LBJ.

Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
But he was wrong. Whether they deserve to loose it or not, they will. Our liberty is the only guarantor of whatever security is possible.

 

[metis]

Politics and economics are inextricably intertwined.

Intertwined yes, but they are still not one and the same, and that was my main point.

Either form can sometimes redistribute wealth to keep the people pacified, or not.

Any tax whatsoever is a "redistribution of wealth", and all countries collect taxes one way or the other. A country that uses more capitalism than socialism still collects taxes, and hypothetically they could collect more taxes than a more socialist country. No country today is purely capitalist or purely socialist.

But since the government has the guns, taxes and the law, the people and the corporations are the only check on keeping the government from degenerating into fascism or communism.

Corporations simply do not in any way keep the government from doing that. Fascism and Communism relied exclusively on military force to keep their power.

Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." But he was wrong. Whether they deserve to loose it or not, they will. Our liberty is the only guarantor of whatever security is possible.

Socialism doesn't in any way negate that, so you again have reverted to conflating apples with oranges.

Anyway, my main point was covered in my first comment above as I have to move on because of time constraints.

Take care.

 

[Thief]

So the sun stood still,
And the moon stopped.

Gimme that ol' time religion, it's good enough for me.....

and you might say it again....
with your last breath and the grave awaits

lack of belief would have a consequence
lack of concern by God and heaven

spend your life in denial and heaven will pass over
just as you let go....your last breath

that's my belief

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Intertwined yes, but they are still not one and the same, and that was my main point.

Intertwined means one cannot function without the other. All the colors of the rainbow combine to form white, against a background of black. You can't study one of the colors on a palette of the same color.

Any tax whatsoever is a "redistribution of wealth",

A flat tax is not a redistribution of wealth. Everyone pay's X%, thus no redistribution. Though I favor the FairTax, which is actually more "fair" to the poor. Neither are tariffs.

and all countries collect taxes one way or the other.

I hope you didn't interpret anything I've said and being anti-tax period.

A country that uses more capitalism than socialism still collects taxes, and hypothetically they could collect more taxes than a more socialist country. No country today is purely capitalist or purely socialist.

I've already stipulated that all governments are technically a form of socialism. The goal is to minimize government to its bare essential functions, mainly defense, the law, and collecting taxes to finance those necessary functions.

Corporations simply do not in any way keep the government from doing that. Fascism and Communism relied exclusively on military force to keep their power.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but on the surface of it, I agree.

Socialism doesn't in any way negate that, so you again have reverted to conflating apples with oranges.

Socialism inevitably curries public support via buying votes with never-ending government programs, or it just resorts to force.
That modern academia portrays fascism and anything but socialist is a dead giveaway that they're ignorant or manipulative....or both.

and you might say it again....
with your last breath and the grave awaits

lack of belief would have a consequence
lack of concern by God and heaven

spend your life in denial and heaven will pass over
just as you let go....your last breath

that's my belief

What you believe without foundation in reason is of no consequence, or worse if you follow it blindly.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."-- T.J.
I have faith that if God exists, It will honor my attempts to sincerely pursue the Truth.

 

[metis]

Intertwined means one cannot function without the other.

That's not the point, which was that they simply are not one and the same, therefore a socialist economy can be matched with democracy, dictatorship, monarchy, etc.

A flat tax is not a redistribution of wealth.

It actually is because the wealthy will pay more even though it's not by %.

Neither are tariffs.

They actually are because money is changing hands whereas some companies will pay more than others, plus the money collected will go to pay for other programs.

The goal is to minimize government to its bare essential functions, mainly defense, the law, and collecting taxes to finance those necessary functions.

But your list of "necessary functions" may not be the same as someone else's which can of course be decided through the vote in terms of what a country wants. IOW, you are not a dictator.

Socialism inevitably curries public support via buying votes with never-ending government programs, or it just resorts to force.

That modern academia portrays fascism and anything but socialist is a dead giveaway that they're ignorant or manipulative....or both.

That's just a nonsensical stereotype of educators as they tend to be all over the board on topics like this.

Most societies have enacted socialist programs, such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid-type programs, because it helps to solve problems. Maybe do the research and check the history of why the U.S. and most countries in the world that chose to enact programs like these. The idea that most who have wanted these programs are either ignorant, greedy, or both, is simply an arrogant and condescending stereotype.

 

[Thief]

What you believe without foundation in reason is of no consequence, or worse if you follow it blindly.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."-- T.J.
I have faith that if God exists, It will honor my attempts to sincerely pursue the Truth.

incorrect assumption on your part
and you did not offer a rebuttal of reason

just nay saying

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

incorrect assumption on your part
and you did not offer a rebuttal of reason

After several attempts at breaking down that brick wall with reason I decided to take another tack. I knew it was might nigh hopeless, but I've given it my best shot. As for my assumption, faith, as the religions butcher the word, eschews reason. Otherwise the blind faithers would realize that ALL miracles and divine revelations are entirely based on hearsay, with nothing to latch onto by way of reasoning.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That's not the point, which was that they simply are not one and the same, therefore a socialist economy can be matched with democracy, dictatorship, monarchy, etc.

Yes and a capitalist economy can be matched with a fascist state, but in both cases, the state will inevitably, always, devolve into an elitist, oppressive state. Power does corrupt, as we've seen in the US.

It actually is because the wealthy will pay more even though it's not by %.

An equal percentage is the breaking point. If everyone paid an equal amount, it would redistribute it to the wealthy.

They actually are because money is changing hands whereas some companies will pay more than others, plus the money collected will go to pay for other programs.

Which is nothing more than saying that any system can be twisted to fit a certain agenda.

But your list of "necessary functions" may not be the same as someone else's which can of course be decided through the vote in terms of what a country wants. IOW, you are not a dictator.

The necessary functions are those which promote individual liberty and the rule of law, not items I've cherry picked. Socialism, due to the aforementioned lure of power, will inevitably devalue both. Capitalism is the only economic system that fits well with freedom, though it still isn't perfect either, just less vulnerable.

That's just a nonsensical stereotype of educators as they tend to be all over the board on topics like this.

Care to take a stab at how many social science professors don't know (or admit) that fascism is socialist? Hitler was a huge socialist, but like communism, it's a ready made vehicle for the concentration of power in the state, with despots in charge. Look around.

Most societies have enacted socialist programs, such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid-type programs, because it helps to solve problems.

No, it inevitably causes problems with increasing bureaucracies and out-of-control prices. Price fixing doesn't work for anything. It's just another issue to demagogue and which gives the power to the tentacles of government which reaches into every facet of our lives, same with the income tax.

Maybe do the research and check the history of why the U.S. and most countries in the world that chose to enact programs like these. The idea that most who have wanted these programs are either ignorant, greedy, or both, is simply an arrogant and condescending stereotype.

Yeah, and Cuba has a swell medical system. The mainstream media lies--it's at the heart of the Establishment's tell-a-lie-long-enough strategy. Look at how it was exposed with climategate, but emotions always override reason on the blind-faith left the same as it does with reason and religion. In fact, socialism is the new religion, the parallels are legion. The left uses the religious quality of charity to justify making it mandatory. And when you try to ween them off, the bile makes you wonder if it was there all along, or was created because generosity became mandatory, and sloth a right.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Jesus was undoubtedly a full fledged socialist which is why he should be opposed and sought as an enemy to mankind.

 

[idav]

let's go for it
use His own words if you can

Jesus was an authoritarian socialist.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Jesus was undoubtedly a full fledged socialist which is why he should be opposed and sought as an enemy to mankind.

in the event that you're serious:
Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible, however accurately or inaccurately) advocated voluntary charity. Socialism employs mandatory theft by force which is then termed (via political correctness) to be charity.
And I view Jesus as a misguided hero. He attempted to overthrow the corrupt priesthood in the Temple, but when God was a no show, many of his followers (including Judas?, & Peter???) turned on him and the Romans crucified him for it. The he had the chutzpah to wonder why God "betrayed" him.
Jesus, son, God doesn't intervene and never has since the Big Blow. In his defense, I will point out that people back them didn't have the Internet or Einstein. On the flip side, they didn't have the mainstream media Mark Zukerberg either. Hmmm, I guess things haven't really changed much.

 

[Sha'irullah]

in the event that you're serious:

I am being sarcastic but serious to some extent.

Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible, however accurately or inaccurately) advocated voluntary charity. Socialism employs mandatory theft by force which is then termed (via political correctness) to be charity.
And I view Jesus as a misguided hero. He attempted to overthrow the corrupt priesthood in the Temple, but when God was a no show, many of his followers (including Judas?, & Peter???) turned on him and the Romans crucified him for it. The he had the chutzpah to wonder why God "betrayed" him.
Jesus, son, God doesn't intervene and never has since the Big Blow. In his defense, I will point out that people back them didn't have the Internet or Einstein. On the flip side, they didn't have the mainstream media Mark Zukerberg either. Hmmm, I guess things haven't really changed much.

Wrong in the first sentence. Socialism is idealistic and require voluntary cooperation.

In practice this never happened because it is LUDICROUS. Read the works of famous socialists and you will understand. Look at history and you will laugh. I oppose socialism on the basis that it is a failure of a system not that it sounds ludicrous (which it does).

Even people like Marx theorized the grand scheme of the poor revolting against the rich owners and subverting society into a free stateless society. Anarchism for example was identical in meaning to communism and socialism.

All three held the major principle of a "stateless society" and even when reading the works of Luxemberg to Bakunin you will find this as a common thread. You are confusing socialist theory with socialism in practice.

Hint: IT NEVER ENDS UP BEING STATELESS!

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am being sarcastic but serious to some extent.



Wrong in the first sentence. Socialism is idealistic and require voluntary cooperation.

In practice this never happened because it is LUDICROUS. Read the works of famous socialists and you will understand. Look at history and you will laugh. I oppose socialism on the basis that it is a failure of a system not that it sounds ludicrous (which it does).

Even people like Marx theorized the grand scheme of the poor revolting against the rich owners and subverting society into a free stateless society. Anarchism for example was identical in meaning to communism and socialism.

All three held the major principle of a "stateless society" and even when reading the works of Luxemberg to Bakunin you will find this as a common thread. You are confusing socialist theory with socialism in practice.

Hint: IT NEVER ENDS UP BEING STATELESS!

Yeah, that's communism's STATED goal, but even if they were serious, the establishment/elite will always take over, no exceptions. And in the event that you're serious that there are some socialists somewhere who believe in voluntary cooperation: 1) it's news to me, care to share?; 2) all the socialists I know want to keep the mandatory part and are constantly whining about expanding it; 3) Do you know of an example where they even came close to starting a voluntary socialist country. Yes, there are voluntary communes and such but they are inevitably small and rely on a larger government entity to maintain order.

If there is a voluntary socialist country, lemme know and I'll be packin' my bags tomorrow--and I'll even learn a new language even though I'm debilitatingly English only. I've always thought it'd be interesting to find out what's it's like to be a couch potato on the dole.

Please hurry!

 

[Sha'irullah]

Yeah, that's communism's STATED goal, but even if they were serious, the establishment/elite will always take over, no exceptions. And in the event that you're serious that there are some socialists somewhere who believe in voluntary cooperation: 1) it's news to me, care to share?; 2)

Most people who claimed socialism in America say socialism was never practiced because it was hijacked. I do not find this true. Socialism has always been about a stateless or libertarian society but this never happened.

I think it is utterly nonsensical and silly but I am a capitalist so go figure.

all the socialists I know want to keep the mandatory part and are constantly whining about expanding it; 3) Do you know of an example where they even came close to starting a voluntary socialist country. Yes, there are voluntary communes and such but they are inevitably small and rely on a larger government entity to maintain order.

This is my issues, I have never found a socialist entity that has been achieved and as far as I know it will never be achieved. Freer the market the freer the people.

If there is a voluntary socialist country, lemme know and I'll be packin' my bags tomorrow--and I'll even learn a new language even though I'm debilitatingly English only. I've always thought it'd be interesting to find out what's it's like to be a couch potato on the dole.

Please hurry!

Well there is California. All you need is 8 children and a darker skin color and you have free money all the time. I'll be honest and say that this is a very racist state as well. Socialism works better than way apparently

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Most people who claimed socialism in America say socialism was never practiced because it was hijacked. I do not find this true. Socialism has always been about a stateless or libertarian society but this never happened.

You keep moving the goalposts. Socialism, government control/ownership of the nation's industry and property by force, has been socialism in practice since day one. Any pie-in-the-sky goals of a stateless society is used to preoccupy the useful idiots. The only stateless society is anarchy. And a libertarian society requires capitalism not socialism.

I think it is utterly nonsensical and silly but I am a capitalist so go figure.

I understand your confusion.

This is my issues, I have never found a socialist entity that has been achieved and as far as I know it will never be achieved. Freer the market the freer the people.

A socialist utopia, yeah. But almost all governments, from monarchies to communism, are socialist by the above definition of actual socialism in practice.

Well there is California. All you need is 8 children and a darker skin color and you have free money all the time. I'll be honest and say that this is a very racist state as well. Socialism works better than way apparently

But it's not voluntary. Again, it's the tyranny of the majority exploited by the elite establishment. Freedom means individual freedom, not free bread and circuses for the mob. And yes, the Democrat party has been the party of racism throughout it's history. As LBJ said when selling his War on Poverty and Great Society programs to a couple of racist governors who no doubt were old school KKK racists, "I'll have those n*****s voting Democrat for the next 200 years". 50 years and counting. He and Democrats like him, along with the race war lords, have been keeping blacks down on the plantation better that the traditional racists ever thought possible, and they submit voluntarily.

 

[Sha'irullah]

You keep moving the goalposts. Socialism, government control/ownership of the nation's industry and property by force, has been socialism in practice since day one. Any pie-in-the-sky goals of a stateless society is used to preoccupy the useful idiots. The only stateless society is anarchy. And a libertarian society requires capitalism not socialism.

I have no idea what you're arguing about at this point. Neither of us is moving anything. I am just separating socialism in practise from socialism in theory. That's it.

I understand your confusion.



A socialist utopia, yeah. But almost all governments, from monarchies to communism, are socialist by the above definition of actual socialism in practice.

Monarchies aren't stateless entities though. They are the opposite

But it's not voluntary. Again, it's the tyranny of the majority exploited by the elite establishment. Freedom means individual freedom, not free bread and circuses for the mob. And yes, the Democrat party has been the party of racism throughout it's history. As LBJ said when selling his War on Poverty and Great Society programs to a couple of racist governors who no doubt were old school KKK racists, "I'll have those n*****s voting Democrat for the next 200 years". 50 years and counting. He and Democrats like him, along with the race war lords, have been keeping blacks down on the plantation better that the traditional racists ever thought possible, and they submit voluntarily.

Agreed

 

[metis]

Socialism, due to the aforementioned lure of power, will inevitably devalue both.

The Scandinavian countries seem to be doing quite well.

Care to take a stab at how many social science professors don't know (or admit) that fascism is socialist?

They simply are not one and the same as fascism is a political system and socialism is an economic system:

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce... -- Fascism - Wikipedia

...versus:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. Social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms... -- Socialism - Wikipedia

And when you try to ween them off, the bile makes you wonder if it was there all along, or was created because generosity became mandatory, and sloth a right.

You seem to be referring more to what is commonly called "Communism".

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I have no idea what you're arguing about at this point. Neither of us is moving anything. I am just separating socialism in practise from socialism in theory. That's it.

It's hard to tell whether you're talking about actual socialism or the utopian mushroom version they give to the mob instead of bread.

Monarchies aren't stateless entities though. They are the opposite

I never said they were stateless, they certainly aren't, but it is socialism because the government owns/controls everything. Of course your local I*y L*****e suck-a$$ political science advocate will go apoplectic at the very suggestion. Try it sometime, it's worth it. 8|

Agreed

The Scandinavian countries seem to be doing quite well.

More MSM propaganda. I just heard recently that Norway is in financial trouble, or Sweden, I forget which and neither is doing that great in any case. You just can't keep spending more money, letting people slough off, and then open the back door to free-loading conquistadors shouting "Sharia Now, Allah Acqbar!!!"

They simply are not one and the same as fascism is a political system and socialism is an economic system:

As I said you can't separate the two. Monarchies to commie states are all socialist because they all control and/or own everything. The US became a fascist state in the 30s and it's been getting worse every since. Now Trump is trying to reverse some of it, but the Establishment isn't going to give up it's money and power without a massive fight.

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce... -- Fascism - Wikipedia

It's right there at the end, "control of industry and commerce". You can't separate them. Wikipedia is the exception for putting those two characteristics together in one sentence.

...versus:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them.

There they are together again. And as usual they give lip service to "democratic control". Most dictators have sham elections, or take control soon after they're elected. It's inevitable. And because the mob is composed mostly of emotional, useful idiots, the history is never learned by succeeding mobs, until they run the country into the ground like Venezuela. Of course most such banana republics don't have far to fall.

You seem to be referring more to what is commonly called "Communism".

Again, the only real difference between socialism and communism is control vs ownership by the state.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It's hard to tell whether you're talking about actual socialism or the utopian mushroom version.

Both, I was just making a distinction, that's all. Your initial post would have offended many actual socialists who are only acknowledging the Utopian Hippie Dippie Theoretical one. I just wanted a clear distinction to be made.

I am not arguing for any positions just ensuring your first post was accurate in description.

I never said they were stateless, they certainly aren't, but it is socialism because the government owns/controls everything. Of course your local I*y L*****e suck-a$$ political science advocatge will go apoplectic at the very suggestion. Try it sometime, it's worth it. 8|

Obviously so but not all monarchies practice wealth distribution. Although the Scandinavian ones come to mine. Which is actually awkward because free-market capitalism came about as a theory under monarchism in terms of laissez-faire. Some Libertarians like myself view limited constitutional monarchism as a way of protecting the capitalist economy

I also noticed the Socialist backlash in your later post. I warned ya . Been arguing against this nonsense for years and I now go by a script. I live in California where I have to put socialists in their place on a daily

View attachment 18414

SALUTATIONS!

 

[Thief]

After several attempts at breaking down that brick wall with reason I decided to take another tack. I knew it was might nigh hopeless, but I've given it my best shot. As for my assumption, faith, as the religions butcher the word, eschews reason. Otherwise the blind faithers would realize that ALL miracles and divine revelations are entirely based on hearsay, with nothing to latch onto by way of reasoning.

as for me.....not much on believing in miracles as a foundation for belief

but the is a reality all around us
it has a cohesive fix to it
and I believe in cause and effect

the universe is the effect God is the Cause