• 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

Colt

Well-Known 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 share holders are rewarded for their investment. Workers can buy shares if they like instead of spending money on frivolous nonsense as sooooo many Americans do!

Business owners and innovators often worked, saved capital and enlisted other citizens and lenders to underwrite their projects. That’s how I started my business in this great capitalist country.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The share holders are rewarded for their investment. Workers can buy shares if they like instead of spending money on frivolous nonsense as sooooo many Americans do!

Business owners and innovators often worked, saved capital and enlisted other citizens and lenders to underwrite their projects. That’s how I started my business in this great capitalist country.
"But I wanna own part of the company
without investing any money or taking
any risk.....wah wah wah!"
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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.
Throwing money and canned food donations at the problem isn't going to solve anything. The underlying causes are systemic.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The share holders are rewarded for their investment. Workers can buy shares if they like instead of spending money on frivolous nonsense as sooooo many Americans do!
Stockholders want maximum profits, and aren't generally concerned with how they're generated. CEOs see it as their duty to maximize profits, which entails minimizing expenses. Employees and benefits are expenses.

Neoliberal economics, dominant since 1980, holds it a moral duty to maximize stockholder and owner profits by minimizing expenses; that supporting non-profitable and social welfare enterprises is unethical, that unions are evil, and that regulations curbing exploitation, environmental, and health hazards must be eliminated for business to flourish.
Business owners and innovators often worked, saved capital and enlisted other citizens and lenders to underwrite their projects. That’s how I started my business in this great capitalist country.
Understood. But capitalists have also declared war on the middle class, and deregulation has enabled consolidation and monopolies, which have gobbled up the myriad small businesses, and business opportunities, that existed in the '50s, '60s and '70s. America is now dominated, politically and economically, by only a handful of largely multinational corporations, with no particular allegiance to the US, and a positive animosity to "the general prosperity."
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Screen Shot 2022-01-15 at 6.41.45 PM.png
Throwing money and canned food donations at the problem isn't going to solve anything. The underlying causes are systemic.
You are absolutely right!
Poverty and Spending Over the Years

We spend more and more and it doesn't change a thing. Throwing more money is not the solution.

"The United States has dramatically increased federal spending fighting poverty over the last 55 years. Total welfare costs have risen from $803 per person in poverty in 1965 to $22,735 per person in 2020. "
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
View attachment 59059
You are absolutely right!
Poverty and Spending Over the Years

We spend more and more and it doesn't change a thing. Throwing more money is not the solution.

"The United States has dramatically increased federal spending fighting poverty over the last 55 years. Total welfare costs have risen from $803 per person in poverty in 1965 to $22,735 per person in 2020. "
Thirty or forty years ago there was a homeless problem, to be sure, but I don't recall being approached at every stop light by beggars, or seeing tent cities in public parks and along roadways. We didn't see full time employees needing food stamps or medicaid, both spouses working to maintain middle-class status, having to take out loans to put our kids through school, or the prospect of medical bankruptcy.
I'm still waiting for the neoliberal tide of Reaganomics to raise my boat.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Thirty or forty years ago there was a homeless problem, to be sure, but I don't recall being approached at every stop light by beggars, or seeing tent cities in public parks and along roadways. We didn't see full time employees needing food stamps or medicaid, both spouses working to maintain middle-class status, having to take out loans to put our kids through school, or the prospect of medical bankruptcy.
I'm still waiting for the neoliberal tide of Reaganomics to raise my boat.
Wages are rising because of the labor shortage.
You're getting your wish...or at least an end to the wait.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Wages are rising because of the labor shortage.
You're getting your wish...or at least an end to the wait.
They're rising only slightly, and certainly not tracking productivity as they did half a century ago. Nor have extortionate housing, drug, healthcare, or educational costs been addressed.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Thirty or forty years ago there was a homeless problem, to be sure, but I don't recall being approached at every stop light by beggars, or seeing tent cities in public parks and along roadways. We didn't see full time employees needing food stamps or medicaid, both spouses working to maintain middle-class status, having to take out loans to put our kids through school, or the prospect of medical bankruptcy.
I'm still waiting for the neoliberal tide of Reaganomics to raise my boat.
I don't think that is the systemic problem. You are mentioning problems - but it isn't the systemic problem. IMV

As you said, throwing money at the problem isn't the solution.
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
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.

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.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
They're rising only slightly, and certainly not tracking productivity as they did half a century ago. Nor have extortionate housing, drug, healthcare, or educational costs been addressed.
Things cost what they cost.
Anyone who can & wants to work can get great pay.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
There is some truth to this but I think you misapplied the principle because he gave the one talent to the one that had the most. You can't gift a measure of love to someone who already has it.
love gives life to all. some squander it away. they don't invest in other. so yes the potential is there but no everyone manifests it.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I don’t think so. But, the problem with this is, people have many different definitions for socialism. In my experience the difference between a Christian and a socialist is this:

Christian says: “How can I help you, what can I do or you?”
Socialist says: “You must do this for me/us”.

I think right and left are only opposite sides of socialism. Right is the national socialists (Nazis), left is the internationalist socialists (globalists). Both of them are socialists.

Often it seems people call wrongly people right, when those people are just people who are against big government that is against the freedom of those people.

“Socialists” may disagree with this, but I think in practice it is bad, legalized theft and against freedom of the people. But, because the word can have many meanings, I think it would be best to not use right left or socialist/capitalist division. Instead better would be to look where person is on No freedom/Freedom axis, does the person support strict government ruling, or free society. Often “capitalists” and “socialists” seem to be both very much against freedom, the means to get the total control is just slightly different, but the result is basically the same.

I hope people in USA vote for those who don’t try to destroy their constitution and freedom.
everyone is generally social, the problem is when someone thinks they deserve more than another based on some physical attribute vs mental/spiritual attribute. exploiting people for gain is a capitalist action, not a socialist one.
 
Top