posted 08-14-1999 06:55 PM                 

Marc:
My question is that if there are good socialists, why do we villainize the system as an abstraction? Why don't we say that Stalin's socialism was evil, or that Mao's socialism was evil? That way, we can also say that U.S. Grant's capitalism was evil and Bismarck's capitalism was evil. By changing this to a discussion of particulars, we could perhaps have an intelligent, slightly-less-paranoid discussion of economic systems that perhaps could incorporate the good parts of each.

Bill:
If everyone started out with the same opportunities, man, I'd be right with you. But as it stands, we don't. Like I've said before, I work with the poor of East Tennessee, and to be quite frank, anyone who says that they've had the same opportunities that most people have had has never been out here for very long. My point is that, in the real world that we live in, in which people do not come into things with the same hand of cards, socialism might actually be an equalizer so that each human being can realize her or his potential. I'm not saying that it's definitely better. I'm just saying that it might work better than what we've got right now.

posted 08-16-1999 10:19 PM                

I had blue collar parents. I worked full time while getting my first degree, it took me ten years attending college at night. I never got a scholorship or special treatment. I had to pay for every credit and book I bought through college. Now that I earn more than the average person, I am taxed more by our socialist government to give it to people who do not choose to work to raise themselves up.

Do I begrudge a helping hand being given to those who need it? Of course not. But I do strongly object to basic socialist doctrine that the government knows better than I do how to spend my money, that the government knows better than I do how to allocate my resources and that the government will take away my right to make those choices.

posted 08-17-1999 04:03 PM                

Psypher

posted 08-19-1999 04:15 PM                 

Ken01

posted 08-23-1999 03:04 PM                 

What you described is Stalinism, a form of socialism which I find abhorrent. Anarchist collectivism, a socialist system advanced by Noam Chomsky among others, presupposes that the workers want to share ownership in factories and farms, that they would preferto reap what their work hours produce. The presupposition that the capitalist system must drop, in my opinion, is that the owners and the managers somehow are more entitled to more of the take than are the workers. Personally, a division of income simply sounds better to me. Besides that, it seems to jive more with the theme of economic justice that goes through Scripture.

posted 08-23-1999 04:03 PM                

Socialism
A system of social and economic organization that would substitute state monopoly for private ownership of the sources of production and means of distribution, and would concentrate under the control of the secular governing authority the chief activities of human life. The term is often used vaguely to indicate any increase of collective control over individual action, or even any revolt of the dispossessed against the rule of the possessing classes. But these are undue extensions of the term, leading to much confusion of thought. State control and even state ownership are not necessarily Socialism: they become so only when they result in or tend towards the prohibition of private ownership not only of "natural monopolies", but also of all the sources of wealth. Nor is mere revolt against economic inequality Socialism: it may be Anarchism (see ANARCHY); it may be mere Utopianism (see COMMUNISM); it may be a just resistance to oppression. Nor is it merely a proposal to make such economic changes in the social structure as would banish poverty. Socialism is this (see COLLECTIVISM) and much more. It is also a philosophy of social life and action, regarding all human activities from a definite economic standpoint. Moreover modern Socialism is not a mere arbitrary exercise at state-building, but a deliberate attempt to relieve, on explicit principles, the existing social conditions, which are regarded as intolerable. The great inequalities of human life and opportunity, produced by the excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of a comparatively small section of the community, have been the cause and still are the stimulus of what is called the Socialistic movement.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia On Line

What you refer to are the couple of exmaples in the NT where people sold all they had and distributed to those that needed. That by definition is communism or communal living which is not a viable way to run a government or a country.

posted 10-11-1999 10:31 AM                 

Did anybody hear about this big concert that was broadcast over the internet in support of the United Nations..?
the url to the site is http://www.netaid.org .
Sure seems like the World Government thing of the United Nations is woring in all aspects..!!

posted 10-31-1999 12:25 PM                

Several of you who seem to be interested in numerical indices and Scripture might like to know that F. W. Grant and Samuel Rideout came to the same conclusions about the numerical order of things at the turn of the century. F. W. Grant was in the process of writing a commentary of the whole Bible and Samuel Rideout was working on an index of Scripture for the entire Bible. When Grant came to believe that he was going to die before his work was complete, he found out about Rideout's work and partitioned the younger man to complete the commentary. Rideout agreed and their works were combined into 'The Numerical Bible by F. W. Grant' (he did not die before the work was completed. It is still available in 8 volumes from Loizeaux Brothers. It is not a study in numerology, (such as E. W. Bullinger's Number in Scripture) but is an organization of Scripture using numerical indexing from the overall outline to the individual verse/line. It also has Grant's commentary in footnotes throughout the text. I have used it in study for several decades with much gain.

posted 10-31-1999 12:28 PM                

I am reluctant to go back to August's posts; but, what is "Christian Communism?" Is not a primary tenet of communism an atheistic philosophy?

posted 11-03-1999 06:16 PM                 

Welcome to Christwatch.com Hope to see alot of your postings and be sure to invite others to participate..

Vic

posted 01-09-2000 12:04 PM                 

It sure seems like Clinton, the friend of the people , is really trying to get us into that socialist society. Reading some of the Executive orders that he has drummed up is pretty scary. We, as a people here in the United States are really pretty blind or have our heads in tha sand about what is going on. At the stroke of a pen, we could loose our rights for owning guns, property and alot of other stuff. The New World Big Brother World is almost here..

posted 01-10-2000 08:16 PM                

"It sure seems like Clinton, the friend of the people , is really trying to get us into that socialist society."

Wow! Where have you been. I knew that before he became elected president. Just look at his appointments and you can see that. Look at Robert Rush's book "Tales of a New America." Quite honestly I am totally amazed at how the american people fell for this not just once but both times. and if we do it again with Gore, We will no longer libve in America as we know it today.

You also said:

"Reading some of the Executive orders that he has drummed up is pretty scary. We, as a people here in the United States are really pretty blind or have our heads in tha sand about what is going on."

You are absolutely right. I am not as upset about President clinton as I am with the News Media and the American People. It just seems incompreheible that we would allow this guy to be president twice!

You also said:

"At the stroke of a pen, we could loose our rights for owning guns, property and alot of other stuff. The New World Big Brother World is almost here.."

People don't realize how close we are to loosing these rights. Someone once told me the second ammendment was made to ensure the first ammendment. Interesting point. But how interesting they are both under attack right now.

Blessings to you.

posted 01-12-2000 07:01 PM                 

Personaly, I like Alan Keyes.. He tells it like it is.. So he is sure to not win..

As far as our media goes, rumor has it that the heads of the networks (abc, nbc, cbs) are all members of the CFR.. No wonder there is a bias...

Vic

------------------
-------
Jesus is still God and always will be.. Only through His blood can you have hope of Salvation.

posted 01-12-2000 08:31 PM                

"Well, if Gore wins, we are in trouble..!!
Personaly, I like Alan Keyes.. He tells it like it is.. So he is sure to not win.."

I have said almost a year ago that he will not get the democratic nomination. I still believe that. Although Bradly will not be better. At least I think he is honest.

But I agree. I do like Allen Keys, and for the same reasons you state. George Bush worries me. I guess my real pick at this time is Orin Hatch. I really don't see anyone with the experience that he has and he is pretty upfront. Not a staunch conservative by any means, but very fair and level headed.

"As far as our media goes, rumor has it that the heads of the networks (abc, nbc, cbs) are all members of the CFR.. No wonder there is a bias..."

I couldn't agree more. Although I believe that is not the reason why they back Bill Clinton. They back Bill clinton becasue he is money to them. Look at all the books and such that have come out about him. Books like The aganda, Bloodsport etc. They knew when he was running all the scandels that had and would continue to surface. They knew it was money in the bank for them.
they would never run out of material. they would beat him down for sales then resurect him everytime so he would always be around to make them money. Face it, Bush and Dole would have been boring. Nothing really scandalis about them. Some on Iran contra- but that was a dead horse, but Bill Clinton, there would always be something. That is why, I believe they like him. With his lifestyle and coruptness he is money in the bank for them.

posted 01-16-2000 06:59 PM                

"If everyone started out with the same opportunities, man, I'd be right with you. But as it stands, we don't. Like I've said before, I work with the poor of East Tennessee, and to be quite frank, anyone who says that they've had the same opportunities that most people have had has never been out here for very long. My point is that, in the real world that we live in, in which people do not come into things with the same hand of cards, socialism might actually be an equalizer so that each human being can realize her or his potential. I'm not saying that it's definitely better. I'm just saying that it might work better than what we've got right now."

posted 01-17-2000 08:02 AM                

Socialism does work. Can you honestly say that poverty is a problem in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands?

These are some of the most productive and wealthy countries in the world.

Many would fight you if you said their Volvo was somehow inferior.

But it is not a panacea. Nothing is. Every solution must be tailored to the situation.

I grew up in the poverty area of E. Tenn. I have seen the lack of opportunity. I have also seen the enormous benefit that TVA, a socialist program has brought to the area.

The county I grew up in had no phone service till the late 30's when a government subsidized cooperative was established to bring in service. Private companies did not consider it profitable so "forget 'em"

But private endeavor can also be gratly beneficial. Dollywood (God bless her!) has been an great economic stimulus to the area.

------------------
"mercy triumphs over judgement" James 2:13b NRSVA

posted 01-17-2000 08:06 AM                

I am not sure where to put it as no section seems appropriate.

I would gladly participate as the "resident dissident." LOL LOL

------------------
"mercy triumphs over judgement" James 2:13b NRSVA

posted 01-17-2000 09:00 PM                

"Socialism does work. Can you honestly say that poverty is a problem in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands?"

Do you really think that socialism is the answer there in these counties? It is true that they are prosperous, but not because of socialism, but in spite of it. There are many industries and agricuture do well in overcoming the high taxation in these countries. If you think our taxes here are high (For the average person about 55% of income) Look at these countries you have mentioned. Heavily taxed. Your are right. the government does very well for itself.

"But it is not a panacea. Nothing is. Every solution must be tailored to the situation."

I can't agree with you more, and although Socialism is an evil in my book, to be honest no system captilistic or socialistic, has much to offer if there is no moral guidance.

"I grew up in the poverty area of E. Tenn. I have seen the lack of opportunity. I have also seen the enormous benefit that TVA, a socialist program has brought to the area."

I have worked with people in poverty for over 16 years now, and I have come to the conclusion that the biggest henderence to improving lives have been the government. It has in my estimation developed and thrives on keeping people in poverty. You are right when you say they have had programs that have done good, but most have done nothing more than make people more dependent on them and in effect those in poverty have lost their independence.

"But private endeavor can also be gratly beneficial. Dollywood (God bless her!) has been an great economic stimulus to the area."

I agree. Although I am not a Bush supportor, I do like the idea ocompassionate convervatism. I would like to know a little more about what he means. But I am developing my own ideas of what it should be.

posted 01-19-2000 09:30 PM                

"I am reluctant to go back to August's posts; but, what is "Christian Communism?" Is not a primary tenet of communism an atheistic philosophy?"

Comunism as we know it today is an atheistic philosophy. But originally it basically was that all would share in common all that they possesed. I believe that Christian communism was taken from the book of Acts the 4th chapter. If you look at verse 34 to the end of the chapter it seems like there was a type of communism where all willingly shared all their belongings. Even sold their possesions and sort of put it all "in a pot" so all could have equally. The problem with it was it never worked. We see the first signs of it deteriorating in chapter 5 the first 5 or 6 verses. Later on we see Paul taking collections to support the church in Jerusalem. The idea of communisim sounds great, but it never seems to work. Look at the poverty of all the former communist nations. all struggle because of that system. Even those like Cuba who ae still communist ae very poverty stricken.

Christian communism may sound great, but it doesn't work.

All in all, if we follow Jesus teachings, and all of us share with those less fortunate we have blessings. But to think that all can be equal in ecconomics is wrong. Jesus said the poor will always be with us. And I think they are a test as to how we will treat them.

Blessings to you.