Christianity and Marxism

[aardvarkcore]

So many people are totally opposed to the idea. Karl Marx had some pretty 'onto it' ideas (including his statement "Religion is the opium of the people" which is so often taken out of context).

Why is Christian socialism and Liberation theology often denounced because of its ties with Marxism? Karl Marx was looking to better a world run by exploitation of the working class ... which still happens in developing countries (ie. sweatshops; where alot of our clothes come from).

[Zeluvia]

Yeah, well you let a country get run by the working class, you get GW Bush for president...

every system has it's downsides = )

[aardvarkcore]

I'm not saying we should have our countries run by the working class, what I'm saying is that as soon as Christians seek to help the working class they are denounced because of the ties with marxism, take liberation theology for instance, it is criticised purely because of its use of marxist ideals (that the Church in the book of Acts followed anyway).

[guacamole]

Marxism is decried in broad circles, at least in the States, because of how easily it has lent itself to totalitarianism.

[Jim_Casy]

I'm not saying we should have our countries run by the working class, what I'm saying is that as soon as Christians seek to help the working class they are denounced because of the ties with marxism, take liberation theology for instance, it is criticised purely because of its use of marxist ideals (that the Church in the book of Acts followed anyway).

First, let me clarify that I am a Catholic who is deeply influenced by Marxism, and I do think that the country should be run by the working class (and no, I don't mean simply voting for X or Y ruler, but really and truly a country of self-governed people. As a Christian, I find capitalism to be fundamentaly incompatible with Christianity, not to mention that I find capitalism and democracy to be incompatible as well; the legitimacy of modern war (for the most part an outgrowth of capitalist economics) is also highly questionable, to put it mildly.

Second, I don't think Marxism's most valuable contribution to Christians is just an exhortation to "help the working class" - that sounds too much like "charity" and not enough like "justice"; the most valuable contribution Marx can offer to Christians today is a modern way to think about idolatry. John Kavanaugh's book Following Christ in a Consumer Society uses a "Christian-Marxist matrix" to examine how commodity fetishism and alienation mirror Christian criticisms of idolatry - a very useful approach, IMO. No one today seriously challenges the sovereignty of God with a "pagan god", but rather with the Powers and Prinicipalities of the age.

However, as much as I find Marxism useful, the Church in the Acts was not using "marxist ideals", but religious communist proto-monastic ideals - pooled resources and holding all possessions in common; they lacked any notion of class or history, etc. I'm not saying that the two ideals are mutually exclusive, simply that they aren't the same.

[FletchersBoy]

I agree with Jim pretty much.

The real problem with Marxism is basically the materialist dialectic it poses. "The struggle and unity of opposites". While this may or may not be a true philosophical assesment of the cosmos, it is inherently an anti-communist ideal, which is ironic considering Marx, Engels and Lenin and all those who followed them say it's the scientific basis of the whole communist ideal. Basically, it states that while there is a struggle and unity of opposites, energy is created, and this energy propels all things forward into the future. The obvious problem is that if one class wins a class war against another, then political, social and ingenuitive energy will slow or even halt. This is why the closer a nation got to "true" communism the more it fell behind the "free"capitalist world in the stakes for better living standards.

Which is why I'm a commie "revisionist". :-) It's a better system by far than a capitalist "free-for-all" type world where wage disparity destroys true freedom and opportunity and the rapacious race to own everything destroys the very planet we should call home. But, having said that, the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a complete pipe dream. While we need to be socialist, we need a freed market.

Also, I believe that the scriptures are clearly advocating and describing in history various forms of socialism as the way of God's people. (It could be argued that the earliest church was the archetypical "primitive communist" society as well). But, clearly the scriptures also teach a certain amount of private ownership and freedom in the marketplace at times. It's all about balance.

[nomad]

Not only has it appeared to lend itself well to totalitarianism, but in general marxist states have oppressed and restricted Christianity. Sometimes, it can be seen as just another part of a political struggle, because of the strength of the church in the states where it arose (Russia especially, and Cuba, but just as much in other western european states as well...), but other times, this can't really explain it (China, Vietnam, other southeast asian communist states did not have many christians at the time).

While you may determine that theoretical marxism might be compatible with Christianity, 100 years of history shows that practical marxists did not choose to be. And it has left a bad taste because of it.

I can't really argue the merits of marxism vs. capitalism vs. communism vs. socialism vs. whatever else kind of tradeoffs of public and private goods there are, so I won't enter that part of the discussion.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Not only has it appeared to lend itself well to totalitarianism, but in general marxist states have oppressed and restricted Christianity. Sometimes, it can be seen as just another part of a political struggle, because of the strength of the church in the states where it arose (Russia especially, and Cuba, but just as much in other western european states as well...), but other times, this can't really explain it (China, Vietnam, other southeast asian communist states did not have many christians at the time).

While you may determine that theoretical marxism might be compatible with Christianity, 100 years of history shows that practical marxists did not choose to be. And it has left a bad taste because of it.

I can't really argue the merits of marxism vs. capitalism vs. communism vs. socialism vs. whatever else kind of tradeoffs of public and private goods there are, so I won't enter that part of the discussion.

The incompatability of Marxism and Christianity was due to the fact that the Church at the time was quite willing to tolerate injustice and oppression by the ruling classes against the working classes. Their reply was that God appoints rulers and that to struggle against this oppression was sinful.

The Church was as much a part of the conservative establishment as the industrialist. It had become a tool of the establishment to keep the worker content and docile. Marx's statement that it was the opiate of the people meant basically that it help alleviate their suffering - albeit with fantasy and not reality (ie, through suffering we are purified). He argued that this opiate was nolonger serving a useful purpose and was now increasing suffering rather than relieving it.

Had the Church instead condemned the brutal explioitation of the working classes and worked to correct the horrendous injustices that were being committed, it is more likely that Marx would have embrased Christianity as an expression of what man should strive to be. However, had the Church done that, it is unlikely that there would be as many cathedrals or "Christians" to support them. History teaches that when you oppose the interests of the monied classes, your extinction is all but assured.

[nomad]

The incompatability of Marxism and Christianity was due to the fact that the Church at the time was quite willing to tolerate injustice and oppression by the ruling classes against the working classes. ...

That may be true in some parts of the world (Europe, including Russia, especially), but it doesn't really explain the targeting of Christianity in other parts of the world (China certainly did not have a national church that was an endemic part of any oppression that existed, for instance). In those case, it may have been a more general hatred of religion in general, but that doesn't really help the case, does it?

And I don't even agree with this statement, but I will leave it for now, since I do not have the kind of in-depth knowledge of the history to be able to rebut this properly. However, I do think that blaming the Christian church for the rise of Communism definitely does not apply everywhere, even though Christianity was oppressed everywhere Communism rose.

[FirstSunday33ad]

That may be true in some parts of the world (Europe, including Russia, especially), but it doesn't really explain the targeting of Christianity in other parts of the world (China certainly did not have a national church that was an endemic part of any oppression that existed, for instance). In those case, it may have been a more general hatred of religion in general, but that doesn't really help the case, does it?

And I don't even agree with this statement, but I will leave it for now, since I do not have the kind of in-depth knowledge of the history to be able to rebut this properly. However, I do think that blaming the Christian church for the rise of Communism definitely does not apply everywhere, even though Christianity was oppressed everywhere Communism rose.

You misunderstand. Capitalism was responsible for the rise of Communism (or to be more correct, socialism).

Also, I was being unfair to Christianity as well in not providing a complete reason for its rejection of Marx. These in particular were:

1) Marx rejected morality on the grounds that it was an invention by the ruling classes to oppress the working class. The proof was in that they did not follow the very moral rules they preached.

2) Marx believed in "by any means necessary" which permitted terrorism and murder if it was in the cause of the revolution. The Church rejected such thinking as evil

3) Marx advocated violent revolution believing that this was the only way to overcome capitalism. The Church naturally rejected such a message.

4) Marx believed all men were at heart selfish and could only be motivated by self-interest. The Church held that all men were children of God and could therefore be motivated to good through faith.

These (and others) were fundementals that drove a wedge between Marx and religion.

[Jim_Casy]

You misunderstand. Capitalism was responsible for the rise of Communism (or to be more correct, socialism).
Technically, capitalism isn't a person or an agent, so it isn't "responsible" for anything. That being said, Marx did see capitalist relations holding the possible embryo of a communist future.

Also, I was being unfair to Christianity as well in not providing a complete reason for its rejection of Marx.
Alright. No one here has to be a Marxist, but at least read Marx before you decide to criticize him - it'll make your criticism carry more weight.

Second, Marxism is different than the ideas and beliefs of Marx, so holding up supposed beliefs of Marx as reasons why Christianity and Marxism are irreconcilable is fruitless. Many Christian thinkers have used Freudian methods and concepts to Christian ends, even though Freud was hostile to religion.

1) Marx rejected morality on the grounds that it was an invention by the ruling classes to oppress the working class.
Nope. That's a vulgar "revolutionary" notion that falls far short of Marx's criticism. This line of thinking was explicitly rejected in The German Ideology, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right and Theses On Feuerbach. Marx did not reject morality, but said that it was historically situated and recognized that people have different (often opposing) interests. Seeing as how Marx left a life of relative privilege to take up the cause of the poor, being exiled from land after land and dying penniless in a foreign country, I think it'd be hard to say that "Marx rejected morality".

The proof was in that they did not follow the very moral rules they preached.
But often they did - that's the point. The ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class - that doesn't mean that the ruling class makes two sets of ideas, following one and propagating the other among the lower classes. Rather it means that ruling class ideas reflect the interests of the ruling class, that ideas are not neutral. This is why liberation theologians promote theology written by the oppressed as opposed to using theological concepts conceived by the oppressors among the oppressed. How can a wealthy white male intellectual hear what the gospel is saying to the teenage mother of color? The Bible was written by the oppressed and is best interpreted by the oppressed.

2) Marx believed in "by any means necessary" which permitted terrorism and murder if it was in the cause of the revolution. The Church rejected such thinking as evil
Er, citation please. In any case, "ends justifying means" is the modus operandi of modern states, not an invention of Marx. I'd reject this justification on moral grounds, whether offered by a capitalist or a socialist, but Marxists tend to reject these methods because of the incompatibility of means and ends - you can't make a social revolution using non-social methods.

3) Marx advocated violent revolution believing that this was the only way to overcome capitalism. The Church naturally rejected such a message.
Again, wrong. Both Marx and Engels saw revolution via the ballot box as possible in countries with universal suffrage, listing the US and England as candidates. Also, even when revolutions turn bloody, violence is not the agent of change (what makes a revolution), but rather a consequence of protection against reactionary forces - the structural violence of capitalist relations becomes overt violence when its power is threatened.

4) Marx believed all men were at heart selfish and could only be motivated by self-interest. The Church held that all men were children of God and could therefore be motivated to good through faith.
Marx rejected any a priori ideological concept of "human nature", selfish or not. This "all men were at heart selfish" doctrine is the linch-pin of capitalist ideology following Hobbes; socialists are called "unrealistic" for not accepting it, so I doubt that it's a irreconcilable difference between Marx and the Church.

[Sheepdog]

Marx was a tool. Every effort to "give power to the people" has ended up centralizing power and eroding personal freedoms. And it must, the only way you can manage an entire society is to tell people how to and how not to live their lives. Socialism works alright on a small scale (e.g. roaming gypsies, homeless tent cities), but on a national scale you have to "give power to the people" by giving all the power and freedoms to the government, and have it act as a proxy to the people.

The flaw is, as Reagan put it, is that government isn't the solution. Government is the very problem. Centralizing power only perpetuates corruption and weakens the protections against tyranny.

I'll come back when I have more time, as I believe I can make a case against Marxism and for that matter socialist-style interventionism from the Christian perspective.

[Jim_Casy]

Marx was a tool. Every effort to "give power to the people" has ended up centralizing power and eroding personal freedoms. And it must, the only way you can manage an entire society is to tell people how to and how not to live their lives.
If "the only way to manage an entire society is to tell people how to and how not to live their lives", either we are living in an unmanaged society (which I doubt) or personal freedoms are being eroded under this system, too. Second, even if "every effort to X has ended up Y" (a point I will not concede), it's illogical to assume that all efforts necessarily will - all actions have their contexts. Third, power is not "given" to "the people", but emanates from people.

Socialism works alright on a small scale (e.g. roaming gypsies, homeless tent cities),
If you consider gypsies and homeless tent cities to be "socialism", we are probably talking about two different things. What is your definition of socialism?

but on a national scale you have to "give power to the people" by giving all the power and freedoms to the government, and have it act as a proxy to the people.
Maybe you do, but that doesn't make sense to me. Who or what is "the government" if not the method by which people coordinate and further their interests?

The flaw is, as Reagan put it, is that government isn't the solution. Government is the very problem.
I'm sure he was just pulling your leg; Reagan wasn't anti-government at all. In any case, I'd take Paul (and Thomas Aquinas) over Reagan any day as an authority on the question of government.

Centralizing power only perpetuates corruption and weakens the protections against tyranny.
You're the one who said that managing an entire nation requires someone telling people how to live, not me. I think people can figure things out on the level on which they occur. There's no need to centralize anything (as if transnational corporations, militaries and bureaucracies weren't centralized authoritarian power structures).

I'll come back when I have more time, as I believe I can make a case against Marxism and for that matter socialist-style interventionism from the Christian perspective.
Well I can make a case against Marxism from a Christian perspective - that's no feat - but I'm more interested in learning what is valuable in Marxist criticism - what insight does it have to offer.

By the way, not all socialists are Marxists. In Marx's time (as now), socialism was often associated with religious groups struggling to enact the Sermon on the Mount in a modern industrialized society that had made the pursuit of wealth into another Moloch.

In any case, I'm more curious about your Christian refutation of socialism than a refutation of Marx, if you care to share your thoughts.

[Sheepdog]

If "the only way to manage an entire society is to tell people how to and how not to live their lives", either we are living in an unmanaged society (which I doubt) or personal freedoms are being eroded under this system, too.

Amazing. The thing is, our personal freedoms *are* being eroded in this system.

Second, even if "every effort to X has ended up Y" (a point I will not concede), it's illogical to assume that all efforts necessarily will - all actions have their contexts.

which is why I don't say they necessarily will. if people were inherently good, then i can see socialism working. the problem is as far as I can see, people aren't inherently good.

Third, power is not "given" to "the people", but emanates from people.

some would beg to differ. for my part, I agree. that was the justification behind the American Revolution.

If you consider gypsies and homeless tent cities to be "socialism", we are probably talking about two different things. What is your definition of socialism?

I only proposed those as groups where socialism can work, not that they necessarily are socialist.

Maybe you do, but that doesn't make sense to me. Who or what is "the government" if not the method by which people coordinate and further their interests?

be careful not to be too naive. the government isn't a mindless tool, it is run and managed by people. and those people have their own interests and agenda.

ideally, you are correct. but in practice, the government warrents a healthy distrust.

I'm sure he was just pulling your leg; Reagan wasn't anti-government at all. In any case, I'd take Paul (and Thomas Aquinas) over Reagan any day as an authority on the question of government.

in that case, "He who doesn't work doesn't eat."

At any rate, the context of Reagan's quote was his First Inaugural address, which was a tacit refutation of the policies of the Carter administration that was ousted immediately prior. Carter was heavily interventionist, who we remember for stagflation, the misery index, and the oil crisis of the 70's (to be fair, he inherited the oil crisis, but his policies made it worse).

I wonder how you'd go about proving that "Reagan wasn't anti-government at all." He wasn't entirely antigovernment, to be sure, but he was against what I call incremental socialism. It's a good start.

You're the one who said that managing an entire nation requires someone telling people how to live, not me.

that's the way it has born out historically.

I think people can figure things out on the level on which they occur. There's no need to centralize anything...

really? how pray tell are you going to get people to play along with the socialist system you seek to set up? i know i sure as heck won't participate in a socialist system voluntarily. many people will, others won't. how are you going to deal with people who will not give up their individual prosperity and freedom for the general good?

shame them into becoming socialists? propagate the bigotry colloquially called class envy? seriously, i don't see how you can bring about socialism in full at a large scale without imposing it by government fiat, at some point or another.

(as if transnational corporations, militaries and bureaucracies weren't centralized authoritarian power structures).

you forgot to add labor unions. and bureaucracies? i thought you said government is just the manner in which people get things done.

all the above power structures require accountability and deserve our healthy distrust. you see, i don't think you understand what you are arguing against. i want a smaller government with more sovereignty in local governments. i never said i trusted large corporations, either. indeed, a case can be made that national and transnational corporations couldn't persist without "corporate welfare" and other interventions from nations.

Well I can make a case against Marxism from a Christian perspective - that's no feat - but I'm more interested in learning what is valuable in Marxist criticism - what insight does it have to offer.

By the way, not all socialists are Marxists. In Marx's time (as now), socialism was often associated with religious groups struggling to enact the Sermon on the Mount in a modern industrialized society that had made the pursuit of wealth into another Moloch.

i am using the terms as they are modernly understood. i am well aware of the existence of Christian socialism.

In any case, I'm more curious about your Christian refutation of socialism than a refutation of Marx, if you care to share your thoughts.

That, specifically, I have already done. I'll have to find the original post, but I'll probably do a major rewrite anyways.

[Sheepdog]

(including his statement "Religion is the opium of the people" which is so often taken out of context).

i've wondered about this. the way i understood the compaint was that religion acts as a drug that makes the masses feel good or relieves pain, but does nothing to actually cure their illness/injury. what was the context of the quote, then?

[FirstSunday33ad]

i've wondered about this. the way i understood the compaint was that religion acts as a drug that makes the masses feel good or relieves pain, but does nothing to actually cure their illness/injury. what was the context of the quote, then?

The context was that religion filled a need in relieving the oppressed class (the peasant and the serf) of their collective misery by consoling them with the fantasy of a heavenly reward after death.

Marx stated that with the rise of rationalist capitalism which held the belief that God was an absentee landlord and the earth was man's to dominate and control, religion was no longer capable of reliving this suffering and another course was necessary.

BTW - the "real" revolutionary was Che. Reagan was a reactionary mass murderer responsible for the oppression, suffering and deaths of tens of thousands in Central America.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Technically, capitalism isn't a person or an agent, so it isn't "responsible" for anything. That being said, Marx did see capitalist relations holding the possible embryo of a communist future.


Alright. No one here has to be a Marxist, but at least read Marx before you decide to criticize him - it'll make your criticism carry more weight.

Second, Marxism is different than the ideas and beliefs of Marx, so holding up supposed beliefs of Marx as reasons why Christianity and Marxism are irreconcilable is fruitless. Many Christian thinkers have used Freudian methods and concepts to Christian ends, even though Freud was hostile to religion.


Nope. That's a vulgar "revolutionary" notion that falls far short of Marx's criticism. This line of thinking was explicitly rejected in The German Ideology, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right and Theses On Feuerbach. Marx did not reject morality, but said that it was historically situated and recognized that people have different (often opposing) interests. Seeing as how Marx left a life of relative privilege to take up the cause of the poor, being exiled from land after land and dying penniless in a foreign country, I think it'd be hard to say that "Marx rejected morality".


But often they did - that's the point. The ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class - that doesn't mean that the ruling class makes two sets of ideas, following one and propagating the other among the lower classes. Rather it means that ruling class ideas reflect the interests of the ruling class, that ideas are not neutral. This is why liberation theologians promote theology written by the oppressed as opposed to using theological concepts conceived by the oppressors among the oppressed. How can a wealthy white male intellectual hear what the gospel is saying to the teenage mother of color? The Bible was written by the oppressed and is best interpreted by the oppressed.


Er, citation please. In any case, "ends justifying means" is the modus operandi of modern states, not an invention of Marx. I'd reject this justification on moral grounds, whether offered by a capitalist or a socialist, but Marxists tend to reject these methods because of the incompatibility of means and ends - you can't make a social revolution using non-social methods.


Again, wrong. Both Marx and Engels saw revolution via the ballot box as possible in countries with universal suffrage, listing the US and England as candidates. Also, even when revolutions turn bloody, violence is not the agent of change (what makes a revolution), but rather a consequence of protection against reactionary forces - the structural violence of capitalist relations becomes overt violence when its power is threatened.


Marx rejected any a priori ideological concept of "human nature", selfish or not. This "all men were at heart selfish" doctrine is the linch-pin of capitalist ideology following Hobbes; socialists are called "unrealistic" for not accepting it, so I doubt that it's a irreconcilable difference between Marx and the Church.

Maybe if you take the chip off your shoulder we can talk. I was a Marxist before you were born junior, so don't lecture me. K?

[FletchersBoy]

I was probably a Marxist before both of you. :D

I used to hold office in a Communist Party, and boy do I regret it, and indeed it even grieves me. I was so doctrinaire, ready to give analysis on any given current event.

Communism is intellectually, philosophically flawed and must self-destruct under it's own system. While it did some good, and I'm still quite a socialist, I believe that only the Revisionists are the ones with any real chance of making a difference today.

[Jim_Casy]

Maybe if you take the chip off your shoulder we can talk. I was a Marxist before you were born junior, so don't lecture me. K?
I'm sorry if I came across as "chippy". I simply disagreed with your representation of Marxism and explained why I disagreed with each point (I don't see what is chippy about that). If you disagree with my disagreement, say so, explain, and possibly cite sources.

I don't care to lecture you, but you're not the only one reading your posts; I felt that it was important to correct potential misunderstandings of Marxism in a forum where most people have little knowledge of Marx aside from villainized caricatures.

Of course I'd be happy to talk with you (or anyone else) about any aspect of Marx, faith, socialism, etc., but I have no interest in having thoughtful responses dismissed simply because you were a Marxist "before I was born".

[FletchersBoy]

The basic problem here is, as I see it, that Marxism is founded upon dialectical materialism- an atheist ideology. After all, we all know the classic Marxist axiom "religion is the opiate of the masses". A wiser man said that "if religion is the opiate of the masses, then atheism is the opiate of the comfortable bourgois classes". Another version says that atheism is the opiate of the morally corrupt.

Anyway- the point being, is that "pure" Marxism in order to be consistant must remain atheist. There can be no dialectical materialism without materialism which is an atheist philosophy. Without the materialist basis of the dialect, there can be no Marxism. (You need to have the "struggle and unity of opposites" to have a working theory of Marxist class war).

[Jim_Casy]

The basic problem here is, as I see it, that Marxism is founded upon dialectical materialism- an atheist ideology... There can be no dialectical materialism without materialism which is an atheist philosophy.
I disagree on a few points.
First (and most pedantic), Marx never used the phrase "dialectical materialism" - Marx only mentions a "materials conception of history" and the use of dialectical reasoning. I'm not sure that Marx's thought necessarily leads to the tradition that uses that label "dialectical materialism" - in fact, I know of many Marxists that do not use that label and have developed much more organic criticisms that seem to reflect Marx's criticism of his own period.

Second, I disagree that Marx's "materialism" is intrinsically atheistic; I think you're thinking of a bourgeois metaphysical materialism, which makes the assertion that nothing non-physical exists, that matter is the sole basis of life and thought. Marx criticized this view in Theses on Feuerbach as being blind to its own metaphysical claims - "matter" is as much an ideological concept as "spirit", so you can't simply replace one with another and presume to have "the Truth" any more than the mystic these materialists ridicule.

Marx's "materialism" makes no such metaphysical claims but simply uses the term "materialism" to indicate that concrete existence as experienced (as opposed to ideas and concepts) is the starting point of his investigations. I can go into this more, but I don't want to bore people; I just wanted to differetntiate Marx's materialism from, say, Carl Sagan's metaphysical materialism.

After all, we all know the classic Marxist axiom "religion is the opiate of the masses".
And I don't think that it could be argued that religion hasn't been used as an opiate for the masses, even in Jesus' day - criticism of the Pharisees and the moneychangers in the Temple, tithing mint and herb, but ignoring the weightier issues. In modern history, the cases of such abuse are even more undeniable. So, no, even though I don't think the idea that "religion is the opiate of the masses" is a necessary part of Marxist method, I do think that even a cursory glance at history would show that the claim is not unwarranted.

A wiser man said that "if religion is the opiate of the masses, then atheism is the opiate of the comfortable bourgois classes".
True. Marx said as much in his Theses on Feuerbach, where he criticized the materialists of his day.

Anyway- the point being, is that "pure" Marxism in order to be consistant must remain atheist. There can be no dialectical materialism without materialism which is an atheist philosophy.
It may be true that Marxist theory and praxis is intrisically atheistic, but this is far from certain and I have my doubts.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Marx saw all concepts and ideologies as historically dependent, including the concept of God, and that many of the properties attributed to God and events blamed on God have their roots in our history; therefore, he theorized that a world which lacked our alienation wouldn't have a reason to project these properties and blame on an external concept, and thus would even lack the concept of "God"; this is not at all the same thing as Feuerbach and Freud (and more recently Dawkins) simply saying that "God is a figment of our imagination".

Without the materialist basis of the dialect, there can be no Marxism.
This is true, provided we don't conflate Marx's "materialism" with a metaphysical materialism, (such as he criticized in his Theses on Feuerbach), but rather understood "the materialist conception of history" as a methodological approach opposed to methods flowing from philosophical Idealism.

Before we criticize this, I think we should keep in mind that the Church, too, has struggled repeatedly with Idealism in its own theology from the very beginnings of theology; I think this is very appropriate for a faith rooted in the Incarnation. This is why I think that Marx may have something to offer modern Christians in elucidating modern idolatries - something that some Christians have had problems discerning. In many ways, Marx echoes the prophets condemnation of idolatry, Mammon and Moloch in their current form.

[FreezBee]

First (and most pedantic), Marx never used the phrase "dialectical materialism" - Marx only mentions a "materials conception of history" and the use of dialectical reasoning. I'm not sure that Marx's thought necessarily leads to the tradition that uses that label "dialectical materialism" - in fact, I know of many Marxists that do not use that label and have developed much more organic criticisms that seem to reflect Marx's criticism of his own period.

Second, I disagree that Marx's "materialism" is intrinsically atheistic; I think you're thinking of a bourgeois metaphysical materialism, which makes the assertion that nothing non-physical exists, that matter is the sole basis of life and thought. Marx criticized this view in Theses on Feuerbach as being blind to its own metaphysical claims - "matter" is as much an ideological concept as "spirit", so you can't simply replace one with another and presume to have "the Truth" any more than the mystic these materialists ridicule.

Marx's "materialism" makes no such metaphysical claims but simply uses the term "materialism" to indicate that concrete existence as experienced (as opposed to ideas and concepts) is the starting point of his investigations. I can go into this more, but I don't want to bore people; I just wanted to differetntiate Marx's materialism from, say, Carl Sagan's metaphysical materialism.

Yes, quite true :thumb:

The word 'materialism' is used in a variety of ways that don't mean the same.

[FletchersBoy]

Thanks for replying.

For a start, I think we need to distinguish between Marxism and Marx. Often the two are not the same thing. Just because Marx did not use the phrase "dialectical materialism" doesn't mean it's not a portion of Marxism, as clearly the co-founder of Marxism, Frederick Engels, clearly teaches a materialist dialectic in his work "The Dialectics of Nature" (eg. the dialectics of natural, or material things).

Engels said "Motion is the mode of existence of matter. Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, or motion without matter, nor can there be." and "Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics (dialectical thought), is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature."

In other words, Engels clearly teaches dialectical materialism.

The term "dialectical materialism" was coined by Kautsky, and is clearly a summary phrase for the observations and conclusions of Marx and Engels. No pure Marxist ever seemed to disagree with him- but it's true that Revisionists do. Marxist political parties and their platforms all teach dialectical materialism. All materialist philosophy is atheist or at least deist by definition or it ceases to be a pure form of materialism.

It's true that religion teaches that the material world has laws and so forth, so it does not reject materialism, but rather it does not say that the material (natural) is the sum of all things. In other words, we would say that Marx, Engels, Lenin and the like had a truncated view of the universe, restricted by their philosophical rejection of God, which was trendy in the 19thC European intelligentia.

Also, I don't think Marx was right about his criticque of religion- it is not, by defintiion, the opiate of the masses, only a false observation of religion could be. True religion is not an opiate, but rather an energy and a positive moral driving force. What Marxists tend to forget is that atheism is often merely a Newtonian type reaction to false religion. Marx was attempting to be definitive but clearly showed his atheistic bias and made an incorrect comment.

[Hitch]

So many people are totally opposed to the idea. Karl Marx had some pretty 'onto it' ideas (including his statement "Religion is the opium of the people" which is so often taken out of context).

Why is Christian socialism and Liberation theology often denounced because of its ties with Marxism? Karl Marx was looking to better a world run by exploitation of the working class ... which still happens in developing countries (ie. sweatshops; where alot of our clothes come from).

The Scriptures clearl;y and repeatedly show that God's Law ensures the rights of private porperty. Especially land and tools,or in a more modern sense ,natural resources and the means of production.

[Jim_Casy]

The Scriptures clearl;y and repeatedly show that God's Law ensures the rights of private porperty. Especially land and tools,or in a more modern sense ,natural resources and the means of production.

It's interesting that you find this so clear. First of all, how are you defining "private property", and second, where do you see such a strong scriptural basis for it?

As as Christian socialist, it seems clear to me that the Bible explicitly rejects the modern notion of private property - the land belongs to God alone and cannot be sold in perpetuity. Your hammer or sofa can be sold in perpetuity because you made it; you are only a tenant on the land, not an owner. You have rights of usufruct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct), rights of usage, but no property rights.

In fact, the Bible states that a jubilee honoring the year of the Lord should be declared every 49 years, and that all people should have the right to redeem land lost since the last jubilee, and if they aren't able to redeem it themselves, the land "must be released and returned to its original owner" (Leviticus 25:28). Later in this passage it says that debts are also to be forgiven on jubilee and interest is never to be taken at any time.

I suppose that one might say that these are historical examples rather than directives for our time and place (though I don't think we've "outgrown" the concept of jubilee); even so, the existence of these passages seem to count against the claim that the Bible supports modern notions of private property.

To beat the dead horse, these limits to "private property" have been expressed through the history of the church from the beginning until the Protestant Reformation. I seem to remember that it was Calvin who lifted the traditional ban on usury, and the notion of rights of private property developed in secular philosophy centuries after that. Whether or not you accept the traditional teaching of Catholic or Orthodox church on this interpretation, history shows that this was the predominate Christian interpretation until fairly recently. That's why I find it hard to see how the concept of "private property" is biblical.

As for "ownership" the "means of production", I believe that property comes from labor, not from someone simply claiming property. As such, when more than one person labors on a project, the project contains marks of all workers' labor, making it a piece of common or social property, not the property of one individual. The vast majority of modern "means of production" are cooperative and the product of many people, thus I think that they should be controlled by those whose labor makes the product possible.

If you want to work by yourself and call all your own shots and keep all profits to yourself, then I could see that your "means of production" could be some legitimate form of "private property"; otherwise, private ownership of the means of production seems to be a problematic concept.

Thanks for your response!

[Hitch]

It's interesting that you find this so clear. First of all, how are you defining "private property", and second, where do you see such a strong scriptural basis for it?

10And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.

11And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. This couldnt be more clearly aligned with private property and does an interesting job of contrasting the direct rule of god through his Law, with that of an earthly(civil) king. It is also explicit wrt private ownership of the land and the tools of production



And here the 'prince' is expressly forbidden to take lands ;

16Thus saith the Lord GOD; If the prince give a gift unto any of his sons, the inheritance thereof shall be his sons'; it shall be their possession by inheritance.

17But if he give a gift of his inheritance to one of his servants, then it shall be his to the year of liberty; after it shall return to the prince: but his inheritance shall be his sons' for them.

18Moreover the prince shall not take of the people's inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession; but he shall give his sons inheritance out of his own possession: that my people be not scattered every man from his possession. And the passage as a whole is meaningless outside normal ideas of private property.

It is also expressly forbidden for the judge to allow paritality toward the poor or the rich. Even a slave could aquire and own,that is control, land and tools and livestock.Equal protection under the Law is explicit.


As as Christian socialist, it seems clear to me that the Bible explicitly rejects the modern notion of private property - the land belongs to God alone and cannot be sold in perpetuity. Your hammer or sofa can be sold in perpetuity because you made it; you are only a tenant on the land, not an owner. You have rights of usufruct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct), rights of usage, but no property rights.God owns the atoms in the air as well as the hammer so this notion really has no value

In fact, the Bible states that a jubilee honoring the year of the Lord should be declared every 49 years, and that all people should have the right to redeem land lost since the last jubilee, and if they aren't able to redeem it themselves, the land "must be released and returned to its original owner" (Leviticus 25:28). Later in this passage it says that debts are also to be forgiven on jubilee and interest is never to be taken at any time.

I suppose that one might say that these are historical examples rather than directives for our time and place (though I don't think we've "outgrown" the concept of jubilee); even so, the existence of these passages seem to count against the claim that the Bible supports modern notions of private property.

To beat the dead horse, these limits to "private property" have been expressed through the history of the church from the beginning until the Protestant Reformation. I seem to remember that it was Calvin who lifted the traditional ban on usury, and the notion of rights of private property developed in secular philosophy centuries after that. Whether or not you accept the traditional teaching of Catholic or Orthodox church on this interpretation, history shows that this was the predominate Christian interpretation until fairly recently. That's why I find it hard to see how the concept of "private property" is biblical.

As for "ownership" the "means of production", I believe that property comes from labor, not from someone simply claiming property. As such, when more than one person labors on a project, the project contains marks of all workers' labor, making it a piece of common or social property, not the property of one individual. The vast majority of modern "means of production" are cooperative and the product of many people, thus I think that they should be controlled by those whose labor makes the product possible.

If you want to work by yourself and call all your own shots and keep all profits to yourself, then I could see that your "means of production" could be some legitimate form of "private property"; otherwise, private ownership of the means of production seems to be a problematic concept.

Thanks for your response!
More later

take care

H

[Jim_Casy]

Thanks for replying.
And thank you for your response.
I feel like I've already addressed most of these issues and had hoped that you'd respond to the points I made. I'm sure we'll get through it.

For a start, I think we need to distinguish between Marxism and Marx. Often the two are not the same thing.
True. I am arguing that Marx can offer a lot to modern Christians. I'm not concerned with more doctrinaire schools, especially those serving a more electoral/political movement.

Just because Marx did not use the phrase "dialectical materialism" doesn't mean it's not a portion of Marxism, as clearly the co-founder of Marxism, Frederick Engels, clearly teaches a materialist dialectic in his work "The Dialectics of Nature" (eg. the dialectics of natural, or material things).
a) I never said that Marxism wasn't some form of materialism, and certainly didn't say that Marxism isn't dialectical (it is). I said that Marxist "materialism" is not metaphysical materialism, whereas people who use the term "dialectical materialism" frequently do make metaphysical assumptions that are not part of Marx's mode of analysis. My point has been that Marx has a lot to offer modern Christians; I'm not so certain that the "dialectical materialism" of Kautsky or Lenin does.

b) I wouldn't use "Dialectics of Nature" as an example of Marxism, but rather as an exploration in dialectical reasoning in natural science. In my opinion, it's a marked departure from Marx's work and focus (how is this work to be of use in the emanicipation of the working-class?), and makes the same ideologically laden metaphysical statements that Marx critized in Theses on Feuerbach.


The term "dialectical materialism" was coined by Kautsky, and is clearly a summary phrase for the observations and conclusions of Marx and Engels.
Rather than being a "summary phrase", it seems that the term is the selected results of Marx's modes of inquiry reified into a system of philosophy. From there, it became a doctrine, requiring belief, bestowing identity, and urging political subordination. The Marxism you're describing should be subjected to Marxist analysis.

No pure Marxist ever seemed to disagree with him- but it's true that Revisionists do. Marxist political parties and their platforms all teach dialectical materialism. All materialist philosophy is atheist or at least deist by definition or it ceases to be a pure form of materialism. (emphasis mine)
What role does "purity" play when discussing the concepts in a method of social analysis? You seem to be hedging the data rather than examining the soundness of your concepts of "Marxism" and "materialism". That's an idealist approach, more akin to someone defending a dogma than someone examining a social concept.

I've already explained what I see as the difference between Marx's materialism and metaphysical materialism an yet you keep reiterating the point that "all materialist philosophy is atheist... by definition". Marx's materialist conception of history is not a materialist philosophy, but a materialist method. What is the definition of this materialism of Marx's you claim is inherently atheistic?

the material (natural) is the sum of all things.
This is a metaphysical assumption, not at all what the materialist conception of history is about. In fact, I already addressed this understanding in a previous post and pointed to Marx's work to support my position. This is a position Marx rejected in his early work.

Marx, Engels, Lenin and the like had a truncated view of the universe, restricted by their philosophical rejection of God, which was trendy in the 19thC European intelligentia.
And again, Marx's materialism isn't a "philosophical rejection of God", but a methodological approach which does not presuppose God's existence or non-existence (a very different thing). Marx examined religious expressions like other social phenomena, looking for roots, patterns, meaning, and function.

I don't think Marx was right about his criticque of religion- it is not, by defintiion, the opiate of the masses, only a false observation of religion could be...
Marx was attempting to be definitive but clearly showed his atheistic bias and made an incorrect comment.
Why do you assume that Marx was being definitive rather than descriptive, or even just lyrical? His critique of religion is much more than "opium of the masses", so I don't see why the "opium of the masses" comment should be judged as a definivite statement.

True religion is not an opiate, but rather an energy and a positive moral driving force.
These two are not mutually exclusive.

What Marxists tend to forget is that atheism is often merely a Newtonian type reaction to false religion.

Perhaps some Marxists' atheism is a Newtonian type reaction to false religion, but then their atheism would have bourgeois, rather than Marxist, roots.

[FletchersBoy]

True. I am arguing that Marx can offer a lot to modern Christians. I'm not concerned with more doctrinaire schools, especially those serving a more electoral/political movement.

OK- this I can wholeheartedly agree with. As a former card-carrying member of a Stalinist party, I think I can see a kindred here. I too think that much of Marxism is empirically true and thus very useful as an analytical tool for seeing the various political and economic forces at work.
I also agree that doctrinaire Marxism, which treats the words of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao or whoever as though scripture (in the manner of a fundamentalist no less) as a total waste of air. :smile: Been there, done that.


a) I never said that Marxism wasn't some form of materialism, and certainly didn't say that Marxism isn't dialectical (it is). I said that Marxist "materialism" is not metaphysical materialism, whereas people who use the term "dialectical materialism" frequently do make metaphysical assumptions that are not part of Marx's mode of analysis. My point has been that Marx has a lot to offer modern Christians; I'm not so certain that the "dialectical materialism" of Kautsky or Lenin does.

OK- so you're advocating a mixed material/metaphysical dialectic?

b) I wouldn't use "Dialectics of Nature" as an example of Marxism, but rather as an exploration in dialectical reasoning in natural science. In my opinion, it's a marked departure from Marx's work and focus (how is this work to be of use in the emanicipation of the working-class?), and makes the same ideologically laden metaphysical statements that Marx critized in Theses on Feuerbach.

Good observation.

Rather than being a "summary phrase", it seems that the term is the selected results of Marx's modes of inquiry reified into a system of philosophy. From there, it became a doctrine, requiring belief, bestowing identity, and urging political subordination. The Marxism you're describing should be subjected to Marxist analysis.

I agree- but when you do that, you end up rejecting much of Marxism.

What role does "purity" play when discussing the concepts in a method of social analysis? You seem to be hedging the data rather than examining the soundness of your concepts of "Marxism" and "materialism". That's an idealist approach, more akin to someone defending a dogma than someone examining a social concept.

I can't help that. I was a Stalinist for almost three decades- and I'm only in my forties! :teeth:

Here's how the story is told: The idea touted by many Marxists is that all adulteration of the model leads in the end to the triumph of capitalism/imperialism and thus is counter-revolutionary. By surrendering or revising the models presented in the various Marxist works, one is allowing the uninhibited cancer of capitalism to exist in the economy by the establishement of a petty bourgeoisie or worse and this is assisted by outside imperialist forces which will eventually re-enslave the workers and overthrow the workers state. (Which, ironically, many analysts says happened to the Iron Curtain nations through the revisionism enshrined at the 20th CPSU Congress, making Lenin almost a prophet- so they claim.)

Anyway, that's how *they* think. I don't agree at all (anymore).

I've already explained what I see as the difference between Marx's materialism and metaphysical materialism an yet you keep reiterating the point that "all materialist philosophy is atheist... by definition". Marx's materialist conception of history is not a materialist philosophy, but a materialist method. What is the definition of this materialism of Marx's you claim is inherently atheistic?

The method is not atheistic, but you will find an abundance of Marxist literature that teaches that the method is only workable with the denial of God. Whether or not we agree with them was not what I referring to. We have no doubt that Marx was an atheist, that's for sure, and his reliance on atheist philosophies and rebuttal of theistic ideals is well known.


This is a metaphysical assumption, not at all what the materialist conception of history is about. In fact, I already addressed this understanding in a previous post and pointed to Marx's work to support my position. This is a position Marx rejected in his early work.

But his later work?

And again, Marx's materialism isn't a "philosophical rejection of God", but a methodological approach which does not presuppose God's existence or non-existence (a very different thing). Marx examined religious expressions like other social phenomena, looking for roots, patterns, meaning, and function.

...but his conclusion was that theism was an opiate.

Why do you assume that Marx was being definitive rather than descriptive, or even just lyrical? His critique of religion is much more than "opium of the masses", so I don't see why the "opium of the masses" comment should be judged as a definivite statement.

It's a matter of intepretation to you, I guess. To me, he's being very dedactive.

These two are not mutually exclusive.

Marxism and religion can only co-exist if one takes a revisionist approach- which I do.

Perhaps some Marxists' atheism is a Newtonian type reaction to false religion, but then their atheism would have bourgeois, rather than Marxist, roots.

Atheism is indeed the opiate of the comfortable bourgeois.

[Super Cow]

The problem with communism and socialism (regardless of whatever Marx actually said) is twofold:

People with no incentive to produce will not produce. Therefore, any total and complete redistribution of wealth from the producers to the people drags down the productivity of the society as a whole. In the end, excessively taxing the rich does make the rich and poor closer to each other in terms of their standard of living, but does little to actually help the poor.

The balance is that unchecked capitalism does not prevent unfair exploitation and breaches in fair business practices. A free market will start to fail if the poor do not have access to a fair judiciary.

Because it is not natural to work for something only to have to give it away, communism can only be enforced by totalitarianism and dictatorships. Therefore, the dictatorship's absolute power breeds corruption and fairness also breaks down, with less chance of recovery than the free market concept.

Globalism is probably the ultimate solution. In a pure global free market (in contrast to the regional free markets we have now), imbalances eventually correct themselves. Technology is driving us towards this now. The outsourcing that occurs to other countries actually will have a long-term balancing effect as competition drives businesses to cheaper labor markets. Initially, the cheap labor is exploited, but competition drives more businesses into these markets, and eventually competition raises wages in these countries. (As long as they are not run by dictatorships -- see above)

It's the transition that is painful for some individuals in the process.

[Jim_Casy]

The problem with communism and socialism (regardless of whatever Marx actually said) is twofold:

People with no incentive to produce will not produce.
Perhaps, but are there incentives to produce other than the threat of starvation and homelessness? That's what we're talking about.

Therefore, any total and complete redistribution of wealth from the producers to the people drags down the productivity of the society as a whole.
And this is where classic Marx would agree with you - the social relations of capitalism are obsolete and are fettering the productive potential of society, i.e. the product of those who produce (working class) is redistributed to those who don't produce (owning class). This fettering of productivity, Marx said, creates conditions for vast social change - social revolution - in which the productive potential of society is realized.


In the end, excessively taxing the rich does make the rich and poor closer to each other in terms of their standard of living, but does little to actually help the poor.
Taxation, excessive or not, isn't an issue in a socialist system; private property is superceded and people produce what they need themselves rather than taxing a rich person in order to buy goods from another worker.


The balance is that unchecked capitalism does not prevent unfair exploitation and breaches in fair business practices. A free market will start to fail if the poor do not have access to a fair judiciary.
What's "unfair exploitation" and what are "fair business practices"? Who decides and where do the rules come from? You're right that capitalism isn't sustainable in a closed system, but it's only been recently that the market has come across limits to growth that couldn't be trancended by moving capital to another, less-fouled market.


Because it is not natural to work for something only to have to give it away, communism can only be enforced by totalitarianism and dictatorships.
You're describing the alienation of labor under capitalism (the dictatorship of capital); people produce things according to the needs of capital (not their own needs), and then are required to give away the fruits of their labor in exchange for a fraction of the value they produced in subsistence - all as a matter of survival - alienated labor, not the labor of a free person.


Globalism is probably the ultimate solution... The outsourcing that occurs to other countries actually will have a long-term balancing effect as competition drives businesses to cheaper labor markets. Initially, the cheap labor is exploited, but competition drives more businesses into these markets, and eventually competition raises wages in these countries. (As long as they are not run by dictatorships -- see above)
First of all, if I say that history doesn't support the notion that globalization helps the poor, you'll say it is because of dictatorships. If this is so, why do American businesses set up in countries with dictatorships? Our "free market" goods are produced by an economy that profits from "unfreedom", so I'm not sure we can judge the effectiveness of the "free market".

Second, our goverment has a track record of support dictatorships over democracies internationally, specifically because they make business much easier and more profitable. This to me just demonstrates that capitalism and "free markets" depend upon inequality to remain profitable.

In short, capitalism and democracy are ultimately incompatible. Pick one and take a stand. Personally, my conscience and faith compel me to choose people over markets, imago dei over homo economus, and the hand of God over the "invisible hand". Therefore, I'm a socialist.

[nickcopernicus]

The basic problem here is, as I see it, that Marxism is founded upon dialectical materialism- an atheist ideology.
Nick:
I am continually baffled at the public ignorance of atheism. I'm sorry Fletchersboy, the only ideal in an atheist "ideology" is the "ideal" that there is no god.
Would you say that Ayn Rand and Marx held similar views....I mean, them being atheist an all their philosophies must have matched up at least a little. Well?

FletchersBoy
...Another version says that atheism is the opiate of the morally corrupt.
Nick:
:ahem:
FletchersBoy
Anyway- the point being, is that "pure" Marxism in order to be consistant must remain atheist. There can be no dialectical materialism without materialism which is an atheist philosophy. Without the materialist basis of the dialect, there can be no Marxism. (You need to have the "struggle and unity of opposites" to have a working theory of Marxist class war).
Nick:
I'm sorry, sir, but there is no such thing as an atheist "philosophy."
You may want to look into post-modernism, naturalism, physicalism, nihilism, existentialism, Ayn Rand's objectivism, New Age and even some Pantheistic Monism for a few philosophies that someone who happens to be an atheist may share. But none of them are "atheist philosophies."

[Super Cow]

Perhaps, but are there incentives to produce other than the threat of starvation and homelessness? That's what we're talking about.

True, but it's not universal. Some people will produce for personal integrity, to feel useful, or to just plain avoid boredom. Others will be quite happy to have others work for them and take only what they need. Some will go so far as to pretend they are disabled or unable to produce, just so they don't have to.

And this is where classic Marx would agree with you - the social relations of capitalism are obsolete and are fettering the productive potential of society, i.e. the product of those who produce (working class) is redistributed to those who don't produce (owning class). This fettering of productivity, Marx said, creates conditions for vast social change - social revolution - in which the productive potential of society is realized.

You are missing one thing. The working class exists primarily because someone gives them a job. The only way to make jobs available is to switch from being the working class to being in the owning class. Therefore, without owners, there are no workers and everybody starves. In a communist system, it is the government who is the owner, and whoever is the controller of the government in this system becomes the dictator and becomes by definition the non-producer.

In any event, the workers need the owners to survive, or they need to become owners. But regardless, most owners are also producers, as the livelihood and profitability of their own well-being rests on their own decision making abilities. The difference is that the more successful they are, the more workers they help to also make a living.

Taxation, excessive or not, isn't an issue in a socialist system; private property is superceded and people produce what they need themselves rather than taxing a rich person in order to buy goods from another worker.

People cannot produce what they need themselves, at least not in today's population levels. Specialization is required for productivity, and for people to have what they need, they need to trade with others who have different specialized skills. In order for them to develop specialized skills, they need to be taught them from others. If they aren't fortunate enough to have a parent who can teach them the skills they are destined for poverty unless schools are available. This is why you need capitalism, because government cannot provide things as efficiently on its own.

Perhaps, but are there incentives to produce other than the threat of starvation and homelessness? That's what we're talking about.

True, but it's not universal. Some people will produce for personal integrity, to feel useful, or to just plain avoid boredom. Others will be quite happy to have others work for them and take only what they need. Some will go so far as to pretend they are disabled or unable to produce, just so they don't have to.

And this is where classic Marx would agree with you - the social relations of capitalism are obsolete and are fettering the productive potential of society, i.e. the product of those who produce (working class) is redistributed to those who don't produce (owning class). This fettering of productivity, Marx said, creates conditions for vast social change - social revolution - in which the productive potential of society is realized.

You are missing one thing. The working class exists primarily because someone gives them a job. The only way to make jobs available is to switch from being the working class to being in the owning class. Therefore, without owners, there are no workers and everybody starves. In a communist system, it is the government who is the owner, and whoever is the controller of the government in this system becomes the dictator and becomes by definition the non-producer.

In any event, the workers need the owners to survive, or they need to become owners. But regardless, most owners are also producers, as the livelihood and profitability of their own well-being rests on their own decision making abilities. The difference is that the more successful they are, the more workers they help to also make a living.

What's "unfair exploitation" and what are "fair business practices"? Who decides and where do the rules come from? You're right that capitalism isn't sustainable in a closed system, but it's only been recently that the market has come across limits to growth that couldn't be trancended by moving capital to another, less-fouled market.

Easy. You make a contract and stick to it. You don't force people to do things under duress. You don't steal and you don't make working conditions unlivable. You enforce reasonable laws.

You're describing the alienation of labor under capitalism (the dictatorship of capital); people produce things according to the needs of capital (not their own needs), and then are required to give away the fruits of their labor in exchange for a fraction of the value they produced in subsistence - all as a matter of survival - alienated labor, not the labor of a free person.

Nonsense. People can choose what they want to do. They can be the owner and take all the risk and receive all the reward, or they can take a portion of the reward and allow somebody else to take the bulk of the risk.

First of all, if I say that history doesn't support the notion that globalization helps the poor, you'll say it is because of dictatorships. If this is so, why do American businesses set up in countries with dictatorships? Our "free market" goods are produced by an economy that profits from "unfreedom", so I'm not sure we can judge the effectiveness of the "free market".

They set them up in these countries because they are available and allowed to do so. If the entire world was a free market with pure capitalism, there would not be any incentive to do this. If people could move around the world at will and have the same freedom everywhere, then the market would take care of itself and everyone would have the same free market opportunities. If this were the case then libertarianism would be the purest and most perfect governmental stance. On the other hand, you will never get to this ideal by forcing socialism or communism on all countries just because some people can exploit corruption in a corrupt government.

Second, our goverment has a track record of support dictatorships over democracies internationally, specifically because they make business much easier and more profitable. This to me just demonstrates that capitalism and "free markets" depend upon inequality to remain profitable.

That's another issue entirely. Our government supports dictatorships for their own selfish interests and for stability in obtaining resources. Businesses are more profitable because they can bribe dictators and gain an unfair market advantage. Global capitalism and global free markets would level the playing field much more efficiently. Yes, Wal-Mart might make less money, but they would still be profitable. But the small business with less resources to go overseas would be more competitive too.

In short, capitalism and democracy are ultimately incompatible. Pick one and take a stand. Personally, my conscience and faith compel me to choose people over markets, imago dei over homo economus, and the hand of God over the "invisible hand". Therefore, I'm a socialist.

I disagree entirely. Capitalism and totalitarianism are incompatible. Businesses that choose to do business with dictatorships have nothing to do with capitalism and they break the capitalist model by doing so.

[Jim_Casy]

People with no incentive to produce will not produce.
Perhaps, but are there incentives to produce other than the threat of starvation and homelessness? That's what we're talking about.
True, but it's not universal. Some people will produce for personal integrity, to feel useful, or to just plain avoid boredom. Others will be quite happy to have others work for them and take only what they need. Some will go so far as to pretend they are disabled or unable to produce, just so they don't have to.
Then I fail to see how "incentive" is a problem in socialism. I myself am one of those who'd work daily on various productive projects if money weren't an issue. I'd agree with the notion of "personal integrity" if by this we mean simply "true to one's self", i.e. aligned with our nature as we're meant to be. I wouldn't require that people "pretend" to be disabled to stop working. If someone is tired, let them rest. If they are uninspired or "lazy", that is a mental and spiritual condition that the whip cannot cure.

Given modern levels of productivity, the vasty majority of work can be eliminated or made less onerous while raising the standard of living for the working majority. Just a look around the modern economy would verify this. Making people work drugery for 40+ hours a week isn't because we need to be produce enough to survive - it's because we're producing profits for others.

You are missing one thing. The working class exists primarily because someone gives them a job. The only way to make jobs available is to switch from being the working class to being in the owning class.
This is illogical nonsense. You say that (a)the working class exists because someone gives them a job. Then you say that (b)in order to make jobs available, one must switch from being working class to being owning class. Statement (b) presupposes the existence of a working class from which one can switch to an owning class, while statement (a) insists that the working class is created by the owning class offering jobs.

It's obvious from this analysis that it is the owning class which needs the working class for its survival, not vice versa. One must create property before it can be owned.

Therefore, without owners, there are no workers and everybody starves.
No. Without workers to produce the things of life, both classes starve. The owning class can make a group of workers starve by without from the the means to produce (these 'means' also being the product of someone else's labor), but such a situation is not sustainable. The converse (workers producing for their own needs) is not only sustainable, but fair.

In a communist system, it is the government who is the owner, and whoever is the controller of the government in this system becomes the dictator and becomes by definition the non-producer.
You're arguing against something I'm not proposing - I'm not for "government ownership" of anything, but you raise an interesting point.

If you remove the Redscare bogeyman word and replace "government" with "governance" (as in executive decision-making power), your argument applies equally with corporations:
"it is the corporation who is the owner, and whoever is the controller of the corporation in this system becomes the dictator and becomes by definition the non-producer".
I would agree with this sense of modern dictatorship.

In any event, the workers need the owners to survive, or they need to become owners.
Agreed, comrade :wink: - my position is that workers must become owners of their workplaces, and the means of production as a whole.

But regardless, most owners are also producers, as the livelihood and profitability of their own well-being rests on their own decision making abilities.
If this is the case, then even the decision-making of a "government owned" is considered "work", and thus they are no more "non-producers" as "most owners" you claim are "also producers". I disagree with this and agree with your previous condemnation of (government) dictatorships - the separation of people into working and owning classes is by nature undemocratic and unjust.

Taxation... isn't an issue in a socialist system; private property is superceded and people produce what they need themselves rather than taxing a rich person in order to buy goods from another worker.
People cannot produce what they need themselves, at least not in today's population levels.
Not individually, of course not. "From each according to their ability to each according to their need". I produce things (in cooperation with others) that other people need, and they produce things I need. In an economy based upon human needs unfettered by the need to reproduce capital, taxation is obsolete. That was my point - taxation is a band aid to a broken and irational economy. I was arguing against the common myth that socialism has something to do with "high taxation".

If they aren't fortunate enough to have a parent who can teach them the skills they are destined for poverty unless schools are available. This is why you need capitalism, because government cannot provide things as efficiently on its own.
But it is the government (or rather, we acting through the institution of government) which provides school for this person, not "capitalism". How is this an example of how "capitalism" provides things more efficiently than "the government"?

A free market will start to fail if the poor do not have access to a fair judiciary.
What's "unfair exploitation" and what are "fair business practices"? Who decides and where do the rules come from?
Easy. You make a contract and stick to it. You don't force people to do things under duress. You don't steal and you don't make working conditions unlivable. You enforce reasonable laws.
None of these are mutually exclusive. People can make contracts under duress, and above you said that without owners offering jobs to the working class, the working class would starve. How is this not a contract made under duress?

And again, who decides what working conditions are "unlivable"? Who decides what laws are "reasonable"? Your definition is entirely circular - fair business practices are those according to reasonable laws, etc.

You're describing the alienation of labor under capitalism (the dictatorship of capital); people produce things according to the needs of capital (not their own needs), and then are required to give away the fruits of their labor in exchange for a fraction of the value they produced in subsistence - all as a matter of survival - alienated labor, not the labor of a free person.
Nonsense. People can choose what they want to do. They can be the owner and take all the risk and receive all the reward, or they can take a portion of the reward and allow somebody else to take the bulk of the risk.
Really? How exactly do I choose to be an owner instead of a worker? As the difference between the working and owning classes is the ownership of the means of production, here you're like saying that I simply choose to own. Nonsense.

why do American businesses set up in countries with dictatorships?
They set them up in these countries because they are available and allowed to do so. If the entire world was a free market with pure capitalism, there would not be any incentive to do this.
Allowed by whom? It's not the market which bans businesses from exploiting labor in dictatorships, so why do you assume that more "free market" policies would solve the problem it benefits from now?

If people could move around the world at will and have the same freedom everywhere, then the market would take care of itself and everyone would have the same free market opportunities.
So, you're for open borders and no immigration law? Assuming that workers can afford to move to another country in search of work, this seems to be what you're proposing. If not, explain what you mean. If so, I agree, comrade - allow free movement across the borders. Workers of the world unite!

On the other hand, you will never get to this ideal by forcing socialism or communism on all countries just because some people can exploit corruption in a corrupt government.
(a) I'm not proposing government controlled socialism, nor forcing this system on the masses; socialism cannot be obtained by fooling of forcing people to adopt it.
(b) Again, replace "government" with unelected "corporate governance": "some people can exploit corruption in a corrupt corporation." I'd agree. Giving power to a centralized board of directors is ripe for abuse.

That's another issue entirely. Our government supports dictatorships for their own selfish interests and for stability in obtaining resources.
No, it's not another issue entirely. This is the market we live in, not some clean, abstract market in the mind of economists.

Businesses are more profitable because they can bribe dictators and gain an unfair market advantage.
I'd agree and say that the same process occurs here - businesses bribe our government to gain unfair advantage, too. In a situation like this, doesn't make sense that property and labor laws are going to reflect the interests of those with money? And how then can we talk about "fair business practices" and "reasonable laws" when the creation of these laws is influenced by corporate money?

Global capitalism and global free markets would level the playing field much more efficiently.
How so? It seems to me that capitalism tends toward conglomeration and monopoly, only to be broken up by an outside force. Capitalism isn't based on balanced competition, but on annhilating competition and increasing market share - that's the logic of the system.

And you expect that this system will level the playing field more?

Businesses that choose to do business with dictatorships have nothing to do with capitalism and they break the capitalist model by doing so.
Perhaps according to your beliefs as to how capitalism should be, but reality shows that businesses do business with dictatorships all the time. In fact, much of what we consume was imported from such conditions. It seems that "capitalizing" on global conditions is part and parcel of capitalism, rather than being a perversion of it.

I'm glad you're morally horrified by these business practices. At least we can agree on that.

[BronzeArcher]

Why is Christian socialism and Liberation theology often denounced because of its ties with Marxism?

Though this won't be a thorough answer, I think of Michael Moore's Sicko and his puzzlement (at least in the movie) about American discourses about universal healthcare. My suggestion is that Christian socialism and lib theo are rendered dangerously suspect by default because of powerful pro-capitalist discourses. Free markets, private property, deregulation, individualism--these are doctrines of powerful faith; one only need to begin denying some of them to encounter ferocious responses. Less so on some regulation areas, such as environmental concerns or concerns about products from China.

Personally, I find neoliberal governmentality to have very powerful explanatory power and scope.

[Super Cow]

Then I fail to see how "incentive" is a problem in socialism. I myself am one of those who'd work daily on various productive projects if money weren't an issue. I'd agree with the notion of "personal integrity" if by this we mean simply "true to one's self", i.e. aligned with our nature as we're meant to be. I wouldn't require that people "pretend" to be disabled to stop working. If someone is tired, let them rest. If they are uninspired or "lazy", that is a mental and spiritual condition that the whip cannot cure.

I agree except for the last sentence. There is no need for a whip to cure the uninspired and lazy. (Which, by the way is only a problem if both characteristics occur in the same person. Many uninspired people work hard, and many lazy people find ways to be productive through their creativity.) There is no need to whip these people into shape. If they are only given what they work for, then the problem works itself out.

Given modern levels of productivity, the vasty majority of work can be eliminated or made less onerous while raising the standard of living for the working majority. Just a look around the modern economy would verify this. Making people work drugery for 40+ hours a week isn't because we need to be produce enough to survive - it's because we're producing profits for others.

Perhaps, but it takes the owner to either (a) advance productivity through creativity or modernization in order for it to be possible to raise the standard of living, or (b) know how to utilize the ideas of the working class he supports in order to do the same.

If the working class individual knew how to make his idea profitable, he would not need the owner and would do it on his own. If the owner exploits it unfairly without rewarding the individual with the idea, then he is not following capitalistic ideas and future ideas will not come to him as easily.

This is illogical nonsense. You say that (a)the working class exists because someone gives them a job. Then you say that (b)in order to make jobs available, one must switch from being working class to being owning class. Statement (b) presupposes the existence of a working class from which one can switch to an owning class, while statement (a) insists that the working class is created by the owning class offering jobs.

No, because there are thousands of small businesses that are run successfully by one person. That person is an owner, and can make a living without employing anyone. At some point there is a level of productivity that he cannot achieve without employing others, but it's a perfectly reasonable end result of capitalism if everyone were owners of their own small business, trading goods and services with each other and making a middle-class income.

To put it another way, if everyone in the world suddenly decided to quit and start their own businesses, they could compete with Wal-Mart and GE and Microsoft, because they would instantly level the playing field.

It's obvious from this analysis that it is the owning class which needs the working class for its survival, not vice versa. One must create property before it can be owned.

The owning class can exist without the working class, as I have demonstrated. The working class disappears unless someone becomes an owner. (Farmers are owners BTW)

No. Without workers to produce the things of life, both classes starve. The owning class can make a group of workers starve by without from the the means to produce (these 'means' also being the product of someone else's labor), but such a situation is not sustainable. The converse (workers producing for their own needs) is not only sustainable, but fair.

No, owners can exist as one man businesses or partnerships with no workers.

You're arguing against something I'm not proposing - I'm not for "government ownership" of anything, but you raise an interesting point.

If you remove the Redscare bogeyman word and replace "government" with "governance" (as in executive decision-making power), your argument applies equally with corporations:
"it is the corporation who is the owner, and whoever is the controller of the corporation in this system becomes the dictator and becomes by definition the non-producer".
I would agree with this sense of modern dictatorship.

I have never been given a paycheck by either a worker or the government. Without corporations this would be a third world continent.

Agreed, comrade :wink: - my position is that workers must become owners of their workplaces, and the means of production as a whole.

I agree entirely. Have you become such an owner to be an example to the rest of us?

If this is the case, then even the decision-making of a "government owned" is considered "work", and thus they are no more "non-producers" as "most owners" you claim are "also producers". I disagree with this and agree with your previous condemnation of (government) dictatorships - the separation of people into working and owning classes is by nature undemocratic and unjust.

I agree with your first sentence. (In many cases) However, in a free society, it is the people themselves that separate themselves into these classes, not some outside entity. If I choose to run a business, I can do so. If I choose to work for someone else, I can do so. How is that unjust or undemocratic?

Your position is illogical in that you say that everyone needs to become owners of their own workspace, but you do not understand human nature. Not everyone wants to be responsible for their own workspace. In fact, fewer people want that responsibility than want to be workers. Because of that, Marxism resorts to the need for governance in order to put the workers on the equal level, which reverts the governing body to being the owner. In the end, your solution eliminates all owners out of the general population and forces everyone to become the working class, against their will. This seems to be much more unjust.

But it is the government (or rather, we acting through the institution of government) which provides school for this person, not "capitalism". How is this an example of how "capitalism" provides things more efficiently than "the government"?

If the government was more efficient than capitalism in this area, then nobody would bother to pay more to send their kids to private schools. And further to that point, I don't think that teachers being some of the lowest paid professionals in society is somehow a tribute to the efficiency of government run institutions.

None of these are mutually exclusive. People can make contracts under duress, and above you said that without owners offering jobs to the working class, the working class would starve. How is this not a contract made under duress?

Because in a free society, the working class has options to work for a different owner or become one themselves. Most of them choose the easy path of taking crap from their existing employer for much longer than is justified.

And again, who decides what working conditions are "unlivable"? Who decides what laws are "reasonable"? Your definition is entirely circular - fair business practices are those according to reasonable laws, etc.

The individual decides all of these in a free and open society. If health or safety issues are present, I have no problem with a reasonable judiciary or government institution doing some minimal regulation. That's what laws are for, and democracy elects people to make those laws.

Really? How exactly do I choose to be an owner instead of a worker? As the difference between the working and owning classes is the ownership of the means of production, here you're like saying that I simply choose to own. Nonsense.

Anyone who does the research can become an owner. Do a service for somebody. I get pamphlets in my mailbox all the time for people wanting to landscape or mow my lawn, do contracting work for me, or promote a service on public access cable. If the neighbors teenage kid can come over, knock on my door and offer to mow my lawn for $20, I have no problem believing any adult can come up with an idea.

Allowed by whom? It's not the market which bans businesses from exploiting labor in dictatorships, so why do you assume that more "free market" policies would solve the problem it benefits from now?

Through competition and reasonable laws. As long as I have the choice to quit and work for someone else who will pay me more, the problem will balance out. If someone is forcing me to work with a rifle at my back, or a woman is forced to prostitute herself for fear of brutality from a pimp, then that is exploitation and should be punished.

So, you're for open borders and no immigration law? Assuming that workers can afford to move to another country in search of work, this seems to be what you're proposing. If not, explain what you mean. If so, I agree, comrade - allow free movement across the borders. Workers of the world unite!

I moved from Canada to the U.S. following all appropriate immigration laws. If the entire world had freedom and capitalism, then I would be totally for open borders an no immigration laws. As long as half the world has dictatorships, Marxism and socialist policies, or extremist fundamentalism bent on destruction, then you must have closed borders to protect the livelihood of your citizens.

To put it another way. If Mexico had the same work corruption laws, minimum wage and judicial enforcement, then it wouldn't matter if the border was open, because people wouldn't be fleeing northward in droves. You don't see Canadians sneaking across the border do you? It's because conditions are reasonably enforced and there is no need.

(a) I'm not proposing government controlled socialism, nor forcing this system on the masses; socialism cannot be obtained by fooling of forcing people to adopt it.
(b) Again, replace "government" with unelected "corporate governance": "some people can exploit corruption in a corrupt corporation." I'd agree. Giving power to a centralized board of directors is ripe for abuse.

Good luck to you trying to get people to adopt socialism without force or abuse.

I'd agree and say that the same process occurs here - businesses bribe our government to gain unfair advantage, too. In a situation like this, doesn't make sense that property and labor laws are going to reflect the interests of those with money? And how then can we talk about "fair business practices" and "reasonable laws" when the creation of these laws is influenced by corporate money?

I agree entirely. Start a campaign to make the 40-50% of the people who never vote realize their power and vote for the 3rd party candidates and we could bounce the current oligarchy out of office.

How so? It seems to me that capitalism tends toward conglomeration and monopoly, only to be broken up by an outside force. Capitalism isn't based on balanced competition, but on annhilating competition and increasing market share - that's the logic of the system.

And you expect that this system will level the playing field more?

No, I only expect capitalism to level the opportunities, not the wealth or the playing field. Laws should be in place to limit the bullying and abuse by large corporations. Being a monopoly is not a problem, because people chose to make the company one with their wallets. The problem is when the monopoly stifles innovation by others with bullying tactics.

We have monopoly laws because abuse is too easy. Abuse is also too easy when governments exhibit too much control over our lives. Sometimes the two need to fight each other to maintain balance.

Perhaps according to your beliefs as to how capitalism should be, but reality shows that businesses do business with dictatorships all the time. In fact, much of what we consume was imported from such conditions. It seems that "capitalizing" on global conditions is part and parcel of capitalism, rather than being a perversion of it.

I'm glad you're morally horrified by these business practices. At least we can agree on that.

I am talking about pure capitalism, not the abuse thereof.

[Sheepdog]

Excellent postings, Super Cow.

Good luck to you trying to get people to adopt socialism without force or abuse.

This is the key flaw in socialism. You might be able to get some people to sign on to socialism. Perhaps many people.

But, what happens when the socialist sees his capitalist neighbor earning more by the sweat of his own brow than the socialist reaps from the common fund? The socialist does one of two things, historically: (1) makes the state come in and forcibly redistributes the capitalist's wealth. Or (2), becomes a capitalist himself so that he can prosper too.

This is one of the reasons why you don't see socialism succeeding without government enforcement. One successful capitalist spoils the socialist bunch. Which, incidentally, is also why the likes of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union employed secret police, controls on speech, and lock downs on the press. If one person realizes how the socialist state is holding them down, their disenchantment will spread among the populace. Next thing you know, you are shooting at and killing people for trying to climb over the Berlin Wall.

Casey speaks of how 40+ hours of drudgery a week in modern societies is unnecessary. What he doesn't realize is that it is because of capitalism that we've gotten to that point in the first place. Henry Ford succeeded largely because he reduced the work day to 8 hours and doubled the base wage at hire. He realized that it was in his interest to have happy workers, and exploiting them would be to his own detriment.

[Whipartist]

So many people are totally opposed to the idea. Karl Marx had some pretty 'onto it' ideas (including his statement "Religion is the opium of the people" which is so often taken out of context).

Why is Christian socialism and Liberation theology often denounced because of its ties with Marxism? Karl Marx was looking to better a world run by exploitation of the working class ... which still happens in developing countries (ie. sweatshops; where alot of our clothes come from).

Karl Marx hated God and wished to usurp His authority. It's expressed emphatically in the poetry he wrote. Communism is a system of govenment in which the few powerful global elite have enslaved everyone else and keep them around as expendable pets.

There is some evidence that Karl Marx was actually a Satanist. It's not conclusive but it's out there.

Christian socialism is absurd. Without private property there is no ability for anyone to give charity. The Christian ideal is able to fit within any overarching political system. Christ's Kingdom is not of this earth and will only ultimately be established at His return. Prior to that, any idea of a "Christian" Nation or a "Christian" Government is only speculation.

[Jim_Casy]

Karl Marx hated God and wished to usurp His authority. It's expressed emphatically in the poetry he wrote.
If it is "expressed emphatically" in Marx's poetry, why don't you link to a citation?

Communism is a system of govenment in which the few powerful global elite have enslaved everyone else and keep them around as expendable pets.
According to you, perhaps. In any case, this isn't what I'm debating, so it's pretty irrelevant to the thread.

There is some evidence that Karl Marx was actually a Satanist. It's not conclusive but it's out there.
Wow.

In any case, socialism has nothing to do with Marx's private opinions. Argue substantively against Marx, from your own reading or as presented in this thread, or move to another thread - we have enough strawmen and don't need anymore, thank you.

[/QUOTE]Christian socialism is absurd. Without private property there is no ability for anyone to give charity.[/QUOTE]
You're correct, in a sense. Without private property, there would be no need of charity. Justice and brotherhood would replace charity.

And Christian socialism isn't absurd - it predates secular socialisms by centuries and is well grounded in Christian thought and practice.

The Christian ideal is able to fit within any overarching political system.
Any political system? Then the "Christian ideal" shouldn't have a problem fitting within socialism, just as it fit within capitalism or feudalism.

So, what's your point?

[Whipartist]

If it is "expressed emphatically" in Marx's poetry, why don't you link to a citation?

Sure, here's an article that contains some of his poetry. http://www.forerunner.com/predvestnik/X0013_Karl_Marx.html

He once stated, "I long to take vengeance on the One Who rules from above."

Wow.

In any case, socialism has nothing to do with Marx's private opinions. Argue substantively against Marx, from your own reading or as presented in this thread, or move to another thread - we have enough strawmen and don't need anymore, thank you.

Ok, does Marxism have anything to do with Marx's private opinions?

You're correct, in a sense. Without private property, there would be no need of charity. Justice and brotherhood would replace charity.

Yet "justice and brotherhood" are not strictly Biblical words. Not as you are using them anyway.

And Christian socialism isn't absurd - it predates secular socialisms by centuries and is well grounded in Christian thought and practice.

It is absurd as any form of "Christian Government." Christ didn't come to establish human governments.

Any political system? Then the "Christian ideal" shouldn't have a problem fitting within socialism, just as it fit within capitalism or feudalism.

Absolutely. But then don't call it "Christian." For then it would only be Christians being Christians underneath a secular socialistic government.

So, what's your point?

That it wouldn't be "Christian Socialism." There is no such thing. It would merely be socialism with Christians existing underneath it's control. It would be no more "Christian" than any other form of government.

If a group of Christians decide to sell their posessions and use the money to support eachother through life's trials, then that's called "the church." But as Paul stated, each should give as they've each decided in their heart, not from compulsion. 2Cor. 9:7.

[Jim_Casy]

Sure, here's an article that contains some of his poetry. http://www.forerunner.com/predvestnik/X0013_Karl_Marx.html

He once stated, "I long to take vengeance on the One Who rules from above."
That Forerunner article seems pretty sensationalistic, but even poorly written articles can contain a kernel of truth, so I'll look into it.

Oulanem (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1837-pre/verse/verse21.htm) is a play, not a poem. At first glance, I don't see anything about a black mass or anything advocating Satanism, but I'll read more later.

socialism has nothing to do with Marx's private opinions
Ok, does Marxism have anything to do with Marx's private opinions?
No, not at all. If a Marxism is to be Marxist at all, it cannot be based upon anyone's private opinion, Marx included; it has to derive its character from the concrete historical/social conditions being analyzed.

Marx is to Marxism as Descartes is to Cartesianism or Socrates is to Socratic method, i.e., it is a theory and practice independent of one's individual findings; it is not as Mohammad is to Islam (with its Hadith) or some other non-religious teaching where truth or falsity is determined by congruence with the teachings of a founder. Marxists surpass Marx all the time, all while using Marxist method.

So, no, neither socialism in general nor Marxism in particular depend upon the truth or falsity of Marx's private opinions, and in fact, neither reference his private opinions at all.

Christian socialism is absurd. Without private property there is no ability for anyone to give charity.You're correct, in a sense. Without private property, there would be no need of charity. Justice and brotherhood would replace charity.Yet "justice and brotherhood" are not strictly Biblical words. Not as you are using them anyway.
Perhaps they are not strictly Biblical words as I am using them, but they are meant as such by those who move from the Christian socialist tradition (as distinct from someone such as myself, who is simply a socialist and a Christian). My use of terms such as "justice and brotherhood" are not excluded by Biblical senses of the words, but rather share a certain kinship.

And Christian socialism isn't absurd - it predates secular socialisms by centuries and is well grounded in Christian thought and practice.It is absurd as any form of "Christian Government." Christ didn't come to establish human governments.
First of all, socialism is primarily an economic system, not a system of government; I don't see this as a matter of forming a "Christian government" so much as leavening the political economy with Christian humanism.

Second, there are traditional principles within the Christian to determine the legitimacy of a given government (usually surrounding notions such as "the common good"). So, while it's true "Christ didn't come to establish human governments", Christians do have a moral perspective on government.

The Christian ideal is able to fit within any overarching political system.Any political system? Then the "Christian ideal" shouldn't have a problem fitting within socialism, just as it fit within capitalism or feudalism.Absolutely. But then don't call it "Christian." For then it would only be Christians being Christians underneath a secular socialistic government.
The Christian socialist tradition I'm referring to doesn't promote secularism, nor does it see people, Christians or not, as being underneath any government. Socialism includes the socialization of governance as well, or it is not socialism.

If a group of Christians decide to sell their posessions and use the money to support eachother through life's trials, then that's called "the church."
Sadly, it seems that few others share that definition of "the church", but that's another topic for another thread.

But as Paul stated, each should give as they've each decided in their heart, not from compulsion. 2Cor. 9:7.
That's a lovely sentiment, but it only seems relevant if we are currently not being compelled to give to others; our whole economic system is built upon such compulsion.

On the other hand, I agree that compulsion shouldn't be used, which is why I'm a libertarian socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) and a Christian. Socialism is meant to ameliorate or eliminate economic compulsion, something which I don't imagine is even possible under modern capitalism (http://home.comcast.net/%7Eromccain/cap.html).

One good site on Christian Socialism is Anglo-Catholic Socialism (http://www.anglocatholicsocialism.org/).
William Morris (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/) is another good person to read - his Useful Work versus Useless Toil (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1884/useful.htm) is a good place to start.
Two other influences on my political leanings are the Cooperative Commonwealth (http://home.comcast.net/%7Eromccain/intro.html) model and Participatory Economics (http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/zpareconfaq.htm) (or parecon for short).

[Whipartist]

No, not at all. If a Marxism is to be Marxist at all, it cannot be based upon anyone's private opinion, Marx included; it has to derive its character from the concrete historical/social conditions being analyzed.

Marx is to Marxism as Descartes is to Cartesianism or Socrates is to Socratic method, i.e., it is a theory and practice independent of one's individual findings; it is not as Mohammad is to Islam (with its Hadith) or some other non-religious teaching where truth or falsity is determined by congruence with the teachings of a founder. Marxists surpass Marx all the time, all while using Marxist method.

So, no, neither socialism in general nor Marxism in particular depend upon the truth or falsity of Marx's private opinions, and in fact, neither reference his private opinions at all.

While I understand what you are saying, I don't think it is true. The connection between the founder of a movement and the movement itself is somehow obvious to me. While the correspondence is not 1 to 1, often the personal elements are hard to remove from the movement as a whole for years afterwards. That's what I've tended to find in my own study of ideologies.

Perhaps they are not strictly Biblical words as I am using them, but they are meant as such by those who move from the Christian socialist tradition (as distinct from someone such as myself, who is simply a socialist and a Christian). My use of terms such as "justice and brotherhood" are not excluded by Biblical senses of the words, but rather share a certain kinship.

The tendency of those who rely on nonBiblical words as primary inorder to bolster their own "Christian" views on any subject, is that they are infact relying on other ideas than simply Christian ones, and merely marrying Christianity to those ideas. That said, your views seem to be independent of that remark. I have no problem with a Christian who is a socialist or a libertarian. I simply object to calling those theories Christian, which you are not doing.

First of all, socialism is primarily an economic system, not a system of government; I don't see this as a matter of forming a "Christian government" so much as leavening the political economy with Christian humanism.

I agree with that sentiment. The form of capitalism rampant in our world today is killing people and destroying their lives, the environment and moral order.

Second, there are traditional principles within the Christian to determine the legitimacy of a given government (usually surrounding notions such as "the common good"). So, while it's true "Christ didn't come to establish human governments", Christians do have a moral perspective on government.

Absolutely correct.

Sadly, it seems that few others share that definition of "the church", but that's another topic for another thread.

Thanks. Yes Western culture has choked this out of us.

That's a lovely sentiment, but it only seems relevant if we are currently not being compelled to give to others; our whole economic system is built upon such compulsion.

Would you care to elaborate? You might find I agree.

On the other hand, I agree that compulsion shouldn't be used, which is why I'm a libertarian socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) and a Christian. Socialism is meant to ameliorate or eliminate economic compulsion, something which I don't imagine is even possible under modern capitalism (http://home.comcast.net/%7Eromccain/cap.html).

I'll look into those sites.

One good site on Christian Socialism is Anglo-Catholic Socialism (http://www.anglocatholicsocialism.org/).
William Morris (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/) is another good person to read - his Useful Work versus Useless Toil (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1884/useful.htm) is a good place to start.
Two other influences on my political leanings are the Cooperative Commonwealth (http://home.comcast.net/%7Eromccain/intro.html) model and Participatory Economics (http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/zpareconfaq.htm) (or parecon for short).

[Jim_Casy]

So, no, neither socialism in general nor Marxism in particular depend upon the truth or falsity of Marx's private opinions, and in fact, neither reference his private opinions at allWhile I understand what you are saying, I don't think it is true. The connection between the founder of a movement and the movement itself is somehow obvious to me. While the correspondence is not 1 to 1, often the personal elements are hard to remove from the movement as a whole for years afterwards. That's what I've tended to find in my own study of ideologies.
I think that it's good to be criticial and suspicious, even when one-to-one correspondence isn't apparent - for instance, many theologians have used Heidegger's philosophy to articulate their theology, though it's well-known that Heidegger was at least a nominal Nazi.

On the other hand, I think that the methods and insights of people with which we disagree should be thoroughly examined. Personally, as an arrogant Catholic, I believe that all truth is compatible with the faith, no matter how un-Christian the source. Truth is truth.

The tendency of those who rely on nonBiblical words as primary inorder to bolster their own "Christian" views on any subject, is that they are infact relying on other ideas than simply Christian ones, and merely marrying Christianity to those ideas.
True, to a degree. However, this is the criticism given to liberation theologians who use Marxist terminology. In the cases I've seen (like Gutierrez and Sobrino), they aren't clothing Marxism with Christian garb, but rather they are responding theologically to the criticisms given by Marxism.

As Gutierrez said, Marx didn't create class war, he simply pointed out where it already exists. Likewise, Christians aren't advocating class war and rejecting the equality of all God's children; they are pointing to an ongoing class war that's an obstacle to reconciliation, a reconciliation that can't be reached simply by stating that all are God's children. First, we must leave our gift at the altar and reconcile with our brother before we offer our gift to God.

When criticizing Christians who use non-Christian terms, be sure you understand what they are saying rather than rejecting the statement as "non-Christian".

I don't see this as a matter of forming a "Christian government" so much as leavening the political economy with Christian humanism.
I agree with that sentiment. The form of capitalism rampant in our world today is killing people and destroying their lives, the environment and moral order.
I'm reminded of the words of Christian socialist Rev F. Hastings Smyth on Christians in our economy:
"[Our present economic system] is organized from its foundation up in such a way that if individuals or groups within it were suddenly to turn 'good', in the sense of consistently conducting their businesses on the principle of 'cooperation;' if they consistently were to behave as if their sole intention, rather than primarily to make a profit for themselves, were to give themselves and their action to society in every possible respect: immediately their own businesses, and finally, if there were enough people so minded, the entire system, would collapse. Economic chaos would ensue. Thus, in an un-Christian economy, Christians are compelled to practice in un-Christian ways; or else they are compelled to become revolutionary menaces to that same evil economy."

Sadly, it seems that few others share that definition of "the church", but that's another topic for another thread.
Thanks. Yes Western culture has choked this out of us.
Not just "Western" culture - the Church seeded and nurtured Western culture. It was capitalist and commercial cultural forms that thus transformed society, re-making the world in its image.

But as Paul stated, each should give as they've each decided in their heart, not from compulsion.That's a lovely sentiment, but it only seems relevant if we are currently not being compelled to give to others; our whole economic system is built upon such compulsion.
Would you care to elaborate? You might find I agree.
The verse you quoted says that gifts given to the saints should be given freely and without compulsion. This is a fine sentiment to have, but in our world, people are being compelled to give anyway. The main difference between a dictatorship of capital and a dictatorship of the proletariat is to whom one is compelled to give - to "the common good", or to owners of capital.

Unlike centuries ago when one could herd or grow their own means of subsistence, our generation is separated from the means of production. Unless one has these means, one is dependent upon someone else (someone who has means) in order to get the necessities of life. No one would agree to the conditions of crappy, dangerous, demeaning work if they had another option. Therefore, it seems that capitalism depends upon disparity in wealth, class hierarchy, and the existence of an impoverished working class to maintain profitability. When such desperate conditions can't be found in the US, companies move production to sweatshops in dictatorships to keep profits up.

That being said, I'm against compulsion in both moral and expedient senses. Cooperation dependent upon freedom, solidarity and self-interest is more sustainable than compulsion, not to mention that needless compulsion is a violation of human dignity - an offense against the imago Dei. In the expedient sense, I'm persuaded by Marx's argument that the modern social production makes compulsion unnecessary anyway - without the crises of overproduction and waste to produce profit, there's more than enough to meet the needs of everyone on earth. Remember, Marx's communist slogan (borrowed from the Christian socialists before him) was "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - not according to his work. Marx's vision of this ideal (a vision I share) was presented in his critique of the Gotha Program:
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

I'll look into those sites.
I hope you find them interesting. I'd be happy to discuss anything you see.

[Whipartist]

I hope you find them interesting. I'd be happy to discuss anything you see.

Thanks, I appreciate your reply. I've been diverted in my interests and swamped with work, but am keeping an open mind as to where what you're saying can fit in with things. I might continue the discussion in the future.

[journeyman]

i agree with much of this.There is a long history in Europe of the left being anti-clerical. IO surfaces today with many in the now right-wing Labour party being militantly atheist, liking Da Vinci Code for instance, (which as i understand it is supposed to be a work of fiction.)
This seems to me a pity, (as one having had symathy with democratic socialism,) as it ignores the progressive role played by quakers , methodists etc,
in Europe it matters not as the left seems to me dead in the short and medium term.
i think all people, left-wing or not ,should understand that real christianity is progressive/ radical in the broad not political sense.
Christianity is out of kilter with a concentration on matierial acquisition, having a bias or special appeal to the poor.

In particular, remember the early chjristians would not go fighting if it meant killing other Christians. Bearing in mind the command that Christians love one another this must surely be right. Under the Great Commision , we are commanded to make disciples all over the world. This means there will be Christians in every country, and so we cannot attack any country, for fear of killing fellow Christians.
When we start taking this on board, then we give practical support to"Thy kingdom come, on earth has in heaven"

[apostoli]

Hi All,

So many people are totally opposed to the idea. Karl Marx had some pretty 'onto it' ideas (including his statement "Religion is the opium of the people" which is so often taken out of context).

Why is Christian socialism and Liberation theology often denounced because of its ties with Marxism? Karl Marx was looking to better a world run by exploitation of the working class ... which still happens in developing countries (ie. sweatshops; where alot of our clothes come from).Imu, Christian socialism and liberation theology are not denounced because of its ties with Marxism, but because they are anti-types of Christ's and the apostolic teaching! Another reason is that the exploitation of the working classes, especially in the developing nations, is predominately led by supposedly Christian nations who follow a course of secular economic imperialism - which is also alien to Christ's and the apostolic teaching.

In any case Christian socialism and liberation theology probably have more to do with the fifteenth century radical cleric Müntzer. Who Engel's lauds in "The Peasant War in Germany" and whom Marx quotes in "On the Jewish Question".

Rather than Marxism, one might better consider Owenism, which pre-dates Marx's ideas. It is worth reading up on Robert Owen and the catastrophic failure of secularist experiments in social organisation for the betterment of the under classes.

-------------------------

Reading through this thread I've noted a particularly North American (USA) perspective on Marx. And possibly worse, what I perceive as a typically American paranoia, or a rose colored view, concerning socialism and communism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-American. However, having worked for international American companies at an executive level for many years I do have an insight that others may not - at the last company, the CEO gave himself a USD56 million bonus, was sacked six months later for inflating the books (with more millions received to pay out the contract). The result: 20,000+ people worldwide were made redundant to pay for his golden handshakes.

Assuming the American corporate elite and middle class I've encountered, are representative of a USA higher education experience and social viewpoint, I do perceive amongst Americans a particularly insular view of world history, economics and social organisation. In terms of social responsibility, I detect a general viewpoint of (in polite terms) "I personally am doing fine, why should I care about you!". Aka, it's a dog eat dog world. Hence, I perceive (from USA news programs) an attachment by the disenfranchised (economic and social minority groups) within the USA towards radical movements.

Egalitarian societies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Sweden, demonstrate that co-operative societies loosely based on the ideals of the socialist economy can be and are successful. Of interest the oldest political party in Australia, formed in 1901, and now in power, is chiefly an organised labour movement. At least until the 1950s (when Communist paranoia swept the country via the propaganda of the conservative party) the ALP, from it's inception, has shown a balance between practical christianity, utopian theory (eg: Owenism) and radical social concepts (eg: Marx, Lenin etc). In its early days it is said to have been influenced by the guidance of the Catholic church.

The Kibutz movement in Israel is an example of both the success and failure of Marxist communalism. It's initial success stemmed from collective decision making towards the goal of the common good. It's ultimate failure stemmed from denying individualism. In a documentary I saw recently, the initial crack came when one mother wanted to raise her child herself. Previously the community raised the children. From this simple human need, an accelerator effect came into play leading to a psychological need to own personal property (a no no in the overall plan), which ultimately lead to consumerism and a market economy within the commune.

The fatal flaw in Marx's philosophy is found in the Communist Manifesto (1848) where it says “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. Imo, in the case of Marx this is an insular view of a Prussian experience (which was his focus). As a generalisation it is a Euro-centric view of feudal systems transplanted into an industrial setting (which automatically excludes the then, non-industrial nations of Russia and China), and is not validated by world experience.

World history demonstrates that existing society is based on a battle over scarce resources and the security of a community - ie: retaining/defending or acquiring arable land and ready access to materials for production of toil easing product and/or comfort product. The first being neccessities for the perpetuation of any society, whether it be class based or not. Examples of intervention failures: the thirteenth century incursion by the Mongals into China to acquire market/trading rights; the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the resulting trade embargo by the western imperialist network enforced as a means of maintaining monopoly over resources, which ultimately led to the Pacific war of WWII; the rejection of the Wilson plan by European nationalists in 1918, which caused the economic collapse of Germany in the 1920s, the rise of Nazism in the 1930s, the Jewish holocaust and WWII in Europe. The Roosevelt update of the Monroe Doctrine which resulted in political and economic support of corrupt regimes across Latin America for most of the last century. The Eisenhower Doctrine, for the stabilisation of the middle east, to secure American oil interests. The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan which led to America's involvement in Vietnam and Cambodia. George Bush jnr's intervention in Afganistan and Iraq.

Finally: What is often forgotten about Karl Marx, is that his descendency, on both sides of his family, was from a long line of Rabbi. His father, for opportunistic reasons, converted to the Prussian Lutheran church. It is suggested by some writers that Karl's father was a secularist influenced by the writings of Voltaire and Rousseau (?) Though brought up Lutheran, Karl was in his adult life an atheist and so offers nothing that would encourage anyone to following in the footsteps of Christ!

Whats more. Marx was decidedly anti-sematic! In "On the Jewish Question" (1843) he argues that the modern commercialized world is the triumph of Judaism, a pseudo-religion whose god is money. Personally, I disagree with Marx on this score. In my view, it is not people of a particular religion that oppress those less fortunate than themselves but people who make money or a particular ideology their God!

As an American secularist and slave owner once wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." If TJ and his cohorts had meant what they had said then a vast majority of the world would have, imo, far better off and we'd have no need for the idle ramblings of Marx or Engels but as was observed in 1776, TJ et al were hypocrites...

We hold (they say) these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal. In what are they created equal? Is it in size, understanding, figure, moral or civil accomplishments, or situation of life? Every plough-man knows that they are not created equal in any of these....That every man hath an unalienable right to liberty; and here the words, as it happens, are not nonsense, but they are not true: slaves there are in America, and where there are slaves, there liberty is alienated. If the Creator hath endowed man with an unalienable right to liberty, no reason in the world will justify the abridgement of that liberty, and a man hath a right to do everything that he thinks proper without control or restraint; and upon the same principle, there can be no such things as servants, subjects, or government of any kind whatsoever. In a word, every law that hath been in the world since the formation of Adam, gives the lie to this self-evident truth, (as they are pleased to term it) ; because every law, divine or human, that is or hath been in the world, is an abridgement of man's liberty. (The Gentleman's Magazine, August 1776, vol. 46, pp. 403–404)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

Peace

[journeyman]

Great posting!!
I have great symathy with all but the sniffy remarks from wikipedia on the Declaration of Independence.
The influence of Christianity in the Declaration is transparent.
In my reading of Christianity , all people are of equal and of at least inestimable value in the sight of God, and nothing we can do can remove us from this prospect.
On literature, i propose to readJohn Ruskin, "Unto this Last". (I have yet to acquire it.)
My pot-boiling book, acquired during a visit to his Museum in Coniston, includes a great para in which is highlighted"there is no property but life"-food for thought?(James S Dearden-=John Ruskin p35)
can you advise me please?:i returned to this site not to talk politics, but "natural" science from a Christian perspective. First reactions seemed to me a bit sniffy. I was wondering whether this is because i allowed myself to be called"left-leaning"-do you think i ought to get it changed, bearing in mind the strange hatred of some American Christians to anything they call "liberal"?

[Jim_Casy]

It's nice to see people continuing the conversation. My time is pretty limited these days, but hopefully I can keep up.

There is a long history in Europe of the left being anti-clerical. IO surfaces today with many in the now right-wing Labour party being militantly atheist...
This seems to me a pity, ... as it ignores the progressive role played by quakers , methodists etc,
I agree. It is a pity. Many of the progressive movements in US history have had their roots in religious movements. To ignore this fact is to miss an important historic truth.

i think all people, left-wing or not ,should understand that real christianity is progressive/ radical in the broad not political sense.
Christianity is out of kilter with a concentration on matierial acquisition, having a bias or special appeal to the poor.
I agree.

Imu, Christian socialism and liberation theology are not denounced because of its ties with Marxism, but because they are anti-types of Christ's and the apostolic teaching!
I'm not sure I follow you here. I can see Marxism being described as an "anti-type" of Christ's teaching, since it's a humanist social theory which doesn't rely on a concept of God, but I cannot see how Christian socialism and/or liberation theology are "anti-types". IMO, Christian socialism is an attempt to take the Sermon on the Mount seriously.


In any case Christian socialism and liberation theology probably have more to do with the fifteenth century radical cleric Müntzer.
I disagree that Christian socialism has much to do with Müntzer, but such an assertion begs the question - Christian socialism and liberation theology probably have more to do with the Müntzer than what? And if Christian socialism is based on Müntzer, what inspired Müntzer?

Rather than Marxism, one might better consider Owenism, which pre-dates Marx's ideas. It is worth reading up on Robert Owen and the catastrophic failure of secularist experiments in social organisation for the betterment of the under classes.I agree that Owenism is a good subject of study (I have utopian sympathies myself), but why are you recommending it when Owen is blatantly secular and you regard these secularist experiments as a "catastrophic failure"?


Egalitarian societies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Sweden, demonstrate that co-operative societies loosely based on the ideals of the socialist economy can be and are successful. ...the ALP, from it's inception, has shown a balance between practical christianity, utopian theory (eg: Owenism) and radical social concepts (eg: Marx, Lenin etc). In its early days it is said to have been influenced by the guidance of the Catholic church.
Sounds like a good blend to me. Personally, I like the work of William Morris, who bridges the gap between the cooperative movement and revolutionary Marxists, appealing to the Anglo-Catholic Socialism of his time. My own socialism is also heavily informed by Catholic Social Teaching.


The fatal flaw in Marx's philosophy is found in the Communist Manifesto (1848) where it says “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”.
A fatal flaw? I think that the analytical method to study class struggle is Marx's main gift to social science.

Imo, in the case of Marx this is an insular view of a Prussian experience (which was his focus). As a generalisation it is a Euro-centric view of feudal systems transplanted into an industrial setting (which automatically excludes the then, non-industrial nations of Russia and China), and is not validated by world experience.
First of all, both Russia and China were class societies, so the dictum of class struggle stands. Second, he explicitly mentions these societies in the manifesto, so I don't see in what world they were excluded from his vision.

World history demonstrates that existing society is based on a battle over scarce resources and the security of a community - ie: retaining/defending or acquiring arable land and ready access to materials for production of toil easing product and/or comfort product. The first being neccessities for the perpetuation of any society, whether it be class based or not.
This is explicitly mentioned in the manifesto as well. Engels' footnote in the English edition (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm)reads as thus: "The history of all hitherto existing society(2) is the history of class struggles.

2. That is, all written history. In 1847, the pre-history of society, the social organisation existing previous to recorded history, all but unknown. Since then, August von Haxthausen (1792-1866) discovered common ownership of land in Russia, Georg Ludwig von Maurer proved it to be the social foundation from which all Teutonic races started in history, and, by and by, village communities were found to be, or to have been, the primitive form of society everywhere from India to Ireland. The inner organisation of this primitive communistic society was laid bare, in its typical form, by Lewis Henry Morgan's (1818-1861) crowning discovery of the true nature of the gens and its relation to the tribe. With the dissolution of the primeval communities, society begins to be differentiated into separate and finally antagonistic classes. I have attempted to retrace this dissolution in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State,"
The Marxist concept of class struggle fits what you are saying - in primitive situations of scarcity, people are relatively equal. It's only with the development of surplus that groups form to dominate the surplus, thus creating antagonism between classes.

Examples of intervention failures: ...
This is a list of examples of class struggle. It seems again that you are arguing Marx's point.

Finally: What is often forgotten about Karl Marx, is that his descendency, on both sides of his family, was from a long line of Rabbi. His father, for opportunistic reasons, converted to the Prussian Lutheran church.
First, Marx's rabbinical heritage is common knowledge among Marxists; it's not forgotten. Second, I wouldn't call his father's conversion "opportunistic" - that's kind of insensitive.

Though brought up Lutheran, Karl was in his adult life an atheist and so offers nothing that would encourage anyone to following in the footsteps of Christ!
And yet, many Christians find his thought useful in articulating a Christian walk, just as others find Freud useful or Aquinas found Aristotle useful. I'm one such Christian - my faith feeds my politics and my politics feeds my faith.


Personally, I disagree with Marx on this score. In my view, it is not people of a particular religion that oppress those less fortunate than themselves but people who make money or a particular ideology their God!
I don't think Marx is disagreeing with you, so I'm not sure how you're pointing to another "flaw" of Marx.

If you want to critique the usefulness of Marx or the compatibility of Marxism with Christianity, we should at least be talking about the same thing. An acknowledgment of class struggle is a component of Marxism; Marx's supposed anti-semitism is not. The priority given to the concrete and historical is a component of Marxism; his father's "opportunism" or his atheism is not. I'll be happy to discuss and debate any aspect of Marxist theory, but I'd rather it truly be Marxist theory rather than some propagandistic straw man.

I don't claim to be an "orthodox Marxist", just a comrade who can appreciate Marx's relevance. On the other hand, critics on this thread seem short on accurate portrayals of Marxism. Therefore, I will continue to correct common misunderstandings and promote Marxian concepts that I find useful to a Christian approach to social justice.


In my reading of Christianity , all people are of equal and of at least inestimable value in the sight of God, and nothing we can do can remove us from this prospect.
Bingo! I wholeheartedly agree!


On literature, i propose to read John Ruskin, "Unto this Last". (I have yet to acquire it.)
My man William Morris was greatly influenced of John Ruskin as well. I think both have a lot to offer us (post)moderns.

[Ryokan]

I don't know. I guess I take a different tact. I don't see Marxism and Christianity as incompatible, but I don't see Marxism as a particularly useful ideology, or a useful tool for explaining history or economics.

[apostoli]

Hello Jim,


I don't claim to be an "orthodox Marxist", just a comrade who can appreciate Marx's relevance. On the other hand, critics on this thread seem short on accurate portrayals of Marxism. Therefore, I will continue to correct common misunderstandings and promote Marxian concepts that I find useful to a Christian approach to social justice.Good thing. As I said in my earlier post people often have either a paranoid or rose colored view of Marxist theory. My understanding may not be perfect but I attempt to have a pragmatic view of economic and social theory.

Imu, Christian socialism and liberation theology are not denounced because of its ties with Marxism, but because they are anti-types of Christ's and the apostolic teaching!I'm not sure I follow you here. I can see Marxism being described as an "anti-type" of Christ's teaching, since it's a humanist social theory which doesn't rely on a concept of God, but I cannot see how Christian socialism and/or liberation theology are "anti-types". IMO, Christian socialism is an attempt to take the Sermon on the Mount seriously.Imu, Christian socialism/marxism as depicted on the news and documentaries concerns itself with the voilent overthrow of suppressive regimes - the uprising of the proletariate. Jesus and the apostoles preached the exact opposite

Also consider Marx's view of christian socialism...

"In political practice, therefore, they join in all corrective measures against the working class; and in ordinary life, despite their high falutin' phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to barter truth, love, and honor, for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits. [2]

As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has clerical socialism with feudal socialism.

Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the state? Has it not preached in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat."

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, REACTIONARY SOCIALISM (1848)
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

many Christians find [Marx's] thought useful in articulating a Christian walk, just as others find Freud useful or Aquinas found Aristotle useful. I'm one such Christian - my faith feeds my politics and my politics feeds my faith.In my case scripture, social history and practical economics feed my politics. Unlike Marx et al, I perceive a symbiosis of the classes (even should they become antagonistic). When the classes work co-operatively, class of itself does not lead to antagonism (cp 1 Tim 6:1-8). On the other hand, exploitation of position by either, the capitalist or the proletariate, will lead to social disharmony (1 Tim 9-10;). Imo, class structure=social organisation, is the foundation of human socialisation (1 Cor 12:14-17).

Consider the primitive society of the hunter-gatherer, for example the Australian Aborigine. On face value each family/tribal unit is classless. However, internally these units survive by enforcing a class structure, each tier of which having benefits not available to another. Goods are individual property not communal eg: My spear is my spear. Don't touch!

I agree that Owenism is a good subject of study (I have utopian sympathies myself), but why are you recommending it when Owen is blatantly secular and you regard these secularist experiments as a "catastrophic failure"?Imo, learning from other peoples mistakes helps guide us to a different future. Owen's experiments failed because they were secular. There was no incentive for the participants to unify. His scheme (like the Kibutz) assumed that people would work for the common good. However, there was no reward for over achieving and no punishment for bludging. Everyone ended up going fishing ;-)

Imo, a better system rewards according to "value" contribution to the society (1 Tim 5:17). And those with a surplus to need, voluntarily contribute (1 Tim 6:17-19) to the well being of those (who from no fault of their own) cannot directly contribute to the society. The bludgers get kicked out of the society or admonished to change their ways (put into forced labor) (cp. 1 Tim 5:3-16).


The section of the Manifesto, CRITICAL-UTOPIAN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM is of interest. Concerning Owen and others it says "they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social gospel." I'd suggest this would be Marx's view of the christian hope of a new world order


The fatal flaw in Marx's philosophy is found in the Communist Manifesto (1848) where it says “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”.A fatal flaw? I think that the analytical method to study class struggle is Marx's main gift to social science.What the Manifesto has to say, in its detail, reveals what I consider flaws. Possibly the reasoning was relevant to mid nineteenth century Prussia (?) but I don't see any validity in modern economies.

Imo, the reasoning is flawed in as much as it does not recognise the ability of the proletariate to rise above the bourgeoisie without antagonistic struggle (eg: by education). It is also flawed in as much as it by neccessity ignores the symbiosis of capital and labour. Aka: organised labour has the capacity to supply capital and at times, through either withdrawal of services or as a consequence of a shortage of labour, labour can dictate the usage of capital.

Imo, the silliness of Marx and Engels is they presume violent conflict as a necessity. An opposing view is passive resistence. For example: assume a strike is called, and the boss calls in scabs. If the community is united, these scabs couldn't buy anything (food,housing,transport) within the community. So the boss would have to bear the additional costs etc. Ultimately the boss has to give into the worker.

Think it would never work! It did in nineteenth century Ireland. There is many a person who doesn't know the origin of word boycott.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Boycott

Imo, another silliness of Marx and Engels is their view of capital. All systems ultimately resort to some form of a capital system, whether it be represented as money or goods or services (eg: use of the communal tractor was promised to Yusof, but if you give me a bag of potatoes you can take it).

Imo, in the case of Marx this is an insular view of a Prussian experience (which was his focus). As a generalisation it is a Euro-centric view of feudal systems transplanted into an industrial setting (which automatically excludes the then, non-industrial nations of Russia and China), and is not validated by world experience.First of all, both Russia and China were class societies, so the dictum of class struggle stands. Second, he explicitly mentions these societies in the manifesto, so I don't see in what world they were excluded from his vision.In my reading the manifesto is focused on industrialised societies. The economy of Russia was not subject to urbanisation and labour surpluses, different issues prevailed.

The "class struggle stands" in Russia - but only in regards to the "have land" vs "have not land". Different issues to industrialised nations. The reality is the "have nots" by acquisitioning land would have been forced into a capital supply chain and ultimately the economy would collapse (eg: Zimbabwe) or national famine would prevail (eg: Russia under Stalin and Zimbabwe under Magabe).

The Marxist concept of class struggle fits what you are saying - in primitive situations of scarcity, people are relatively equal. It's only with the development of surplus that groups form to dominate the surplus, thus creating antagonism between classes.Imo, Engel's viewpoint is Euro-centric and at odds with what I related. Consider my above example concerning the Australian Aborigine. Also, in terms of economic theory, in times of scarcity social units become more unequal. In times of surplus things tend to equal themselves out. eg: there is no need for conflict between societies when surplus exist - trade is an option.

World history demonstrates that existing society is based on a battle over scarce resources and the security of a community - ie: retaining/defending or acquiring arable land and ready access to materials for production of toil easing product and/or comfort product. The first being neccessities for the perpetuation of any society, whether it be class based or not.Examples of intervention failures: ... This is a list of examples of class struggle. It seems again that you are arguing Marx's point.I don't see any of my examples as examples of class struggle. I see them as "competing national interests".

The Mongolian example concerned access to a closed market not a class struggle.

Ostensively most of the USA policies mentioned were for the collective defense of all classes within the USA, or based on a collective opposition to an ideology that a collective of various classes (rich and poor) in another country (eg: vietnam) also opposed.

Vietnam is an interesting case. I view the conflict as a nationalist rather than a social movement. Somewhat similar to that which arose in Malaysia and Indonesia. Each of these countries has embraced capitalism in an attempt to better the conditions of the poor.

Peace

[apostoli]

hello journeyman;

I have great symathy with all but the sniffy remarks from wikipedia on the Declaration of Independence.The sniffy bit is very important to the discussion in social justice in Marxism. Jefferson was a slave owner and the african-american was not in his thoughts when he penned the declaration. In his time there was debate whether the negro was human. Of interest, he did free two of his slaves, his own offspring.

The influence of Christianity in the Declaration is transparent.Jefferson was a secularist. If I recall correctly, if he had a religion it was spiritualism.

Christian thought had little to do with the declaration. Mason thought may have had it's influence.

No offense to the American people. Merely a fact of history.

In my reading of Christianity , all people are of equal and of at least inestimable value in the sight of God, and nothing we can do can remove us from this prospect..We agree on this. However, the historical truth is that supposedly christian countries do have a tendency to treat people outside of (and in some cases within) their socities as unequal.

i returned to this site not to talk politics, but "natural" science from a Christian perspective. First reactions seemed to me a bit sniffy. I was wondering whether this is because i allowed myself to be called"left-leaning"-do you think i ought to get it changed, bearing in mind the strange hatred of some American Christians to anything they call "liberal"?I call myself a social capitalist. Using that tag, people tend to be more open to considering my "left leaning" viewpoint. Basically, reward those who contribute to the community according to the value that the community places on their contribution. Those with surplus capital to their essential needs should contribute to the common good (expansion/stability/order) of the community (free schools, free essential medical etc).

Peace

[Jim_Casy]

I can see Marxism being described as an "anti-type" of Christ's teaching, since it's a humanist social theory which doesn't rely on a concept of God, but I cannot see how Christian socialism and/or liberation theology are "anti-types"
Imu, Christian socialism/marxism as depicted on the news and documentaries concerns itself with the voilent overthrow of suppressive regimes - the uprising of the proletariate. Jesus and the apostoles preached the exact opposite
If you reject Christians using force to overcome situations of oppression, do you categorically reject military service as well? If so, I'll be more likely agree with you. On the other hand, if you want to reserve the right of "self-defense" to states and not to communities, that seems like a problematic (and ideologically driven) distinction.

Historically, most Christian socialists eschew violence, including the structural violence of the capitalist system (hence their socialism). Other liberation theologians question this pacificism, viewing forceable defense against situations of violence to be legitimate. I myself tend toward pacificism (principled nonviolence), but I would never deny another the decision to forceable self-defense.

Imu, Christian socialism/marxism as depicted ...
Also consider Marx's view of christian socialism... Precisely. Marxism and Christian socialism are two different things. That's why I said I could see how someone could call Marxism an "anti-type", but failed to see how Christian socialism itself could be considered an "anti-type".

Imo, class structure=social organisation, is the foundation of human socialisation.I see the source of confusion here: Marxists use the word "class" differently. A division of labor doesn't necessarily imply a class system, if the divisions in question are equal in power and freely chosen. Divisions take on a class character when one division is privileged over another or the divisions aren't freely chosen, such as when one person is born into a slave family and another is born a Rockefeller.

Consider the primitive society of the hunter-gatherer, for example the Australian Aborigine. On face value each family/tribal unit is classless. However, internally these units survive by enforcing a class structure, each tier of which having benefits not available to another.Such as..? I'm not very familiar with Australian Aborigine social structure, so I can't say, but I haven't seen any tiered class structure in association with that culture.

Goods are individual property not communal eg: My spear is my spear. Don't touch!Personal possessions aren't the same as private property. No Marxist wants to take your spear or demands that you share your toothbrush. Only social property should be socially controlled, i.e. things which require social/collective power to use.

Imo, learning from other peoples mistakes helps guide us to a different future. Owen's experiments failed because they were secular. There was no incentive for the participants to unify. His scheme (like the Kibutz) assumed that people would work for the common good. However, there was no reward for over achieving and no punishment for bludging. Everyone ended up going fishing ;-)First, Owen's New Lanark didn't fail; it was attempts to duplicate New Lanark elsewhere which fell on differing levels of success. Second, he didn't assume that people would work for the common good; he assumed that the environment, not individual will, shaped the productivity of each member of a collective. This rejects the Christian notion of a person, and this, to me, is a reason for the failure to spread Owenism as he practiced it. Third, loafing did carry social sanction, administered by the collective itself; each person's work in New Lanark was judged by peers. Research over the last century has demonstrated that social incentives are stronger than wage incentives to keep the high productivity in cooperatives.

Imo, a better system rewards according to "value" contribution to the society (1 Tim 5:17). And those with a surplus to need, voluntarily contribute (1 Tim 6:17-19) to the well being of those (who from no fault of their own) cannot directly contribute to the society. The bludgers get kicked out of the society or admonished to change their ways (put into forced labor) (cp. 1 Tim 5:3-16).In another age, I might agree with your value contribution model. Living as I do in an age of material abundance, I don't begrudge the bludger - I pity them. I don't see a person's necessities as being contingent upon what they can offer me, but livelihood is due them based upon their humanity. In the rare case my community couldn't support a bludger, I'd kick them out; I would never force anyone to labor to "change their ways".

Imo, the reasoning is flawed in as much as it does not recognise the ability of the proletariate to rise above the bourgeoisie without antagonistic struggle (eg: by education).What do you think socialists do with their time? We educate and organize, as well as agitate. No one can be a passive socialist, no more than they can passively participate in a democracy. Education and organization are key parts of socialism.

It is also flawed in as much as it by neccessity ignores the symbiosis of capital and labour. Aka: organised labour has the capacity to supply capital and at times, through either withdrawal of services or as a consequence of a shortage of labour, labour can dictate the usage of capital.Why do you think that the manifesto places the working class in a unique position to end class society? Due to their unique virtue or heredity? No. Marx holds that the working class can create revolution precisely because they are the engine of wealth in society. Simply unite, withhold your labor from oppressive structures, and create a world where you produce for your own class interests.

Far be it from a flaw, you are describing Marx's theory of revolution.

Imo, the silliness of Marx and Engels is they presume violent conflict as a necessity.Neither Marx nor Engels said that violent conflict was necessary, only that it was likely, since those with power over the working class are likely to use violence to maintain that power. Engels explicitly stated that social revolution could come to advanced countries (like the US and Great Britain) through the ballot, but he suspected that capitalists would resist the outcome of such an election.

Revolution is in no ways the same as insurrection. Simply whipping up people to rebel against their masters does not a social revolution make. Unlike revolutions of class societies of the past, you can't trick someone into socialism, nor can you hire someone else to fight for it in your stead. Socialism is a different form of social organization, requiring the will and active decision of people.

An opposing view is passive resistence. For example: assume a strike is called, and the boss calls in scabs. If the community is united, these scabs couldn't buy anything (food,housing,transport) within the community. So the boss would have to bear the additional costs etc. Ultimately the boss has to give into the worker.Precisely. The notion of the general strike was frequently used to described the beginnings of social revolution. I agree with this tactic wholeheartedly.

Imo, another silliness of Marx and Engels is their view of capital. All systems ultimately resort to some form of a capital system, whether it be represented as money or goods or services (eg: use of the communal tractor was promised to Yusof, but if you give me a bag of potatoes you can take it).I think you're confusing different things: a bag of potatoes isn't capital unless it's being used to produce more potatoes. Services aren't capital either. Money itself isn't capital unless it's being used as capital. As a means of exchange, money simply represents social worth ascribed to commodities. Capitalism isn't even when commodities are exchanged for money, and money for more commodities. Capitalism is the restructuring of an economy with an aim to capital accumulation as opposed to commodity production or the satisfaction of wants and needs. Money and trade existed centuries prior to capitalism.

In a communist system, the bag of potatoes would already be there, whether or not someone cuts in line to take Yusof's turn with the tractor. No one is going to go without potatoes, and so the potatoes don't serve as a useful tool in encouraging line-jumping. Also, in this world, you'd have to explain why someone has the driving need to jump in front of Yusof in the first place - seems a little silly to me. If I were Yusof, I'd just let the jumper go first and feel sorry for his lack of social skills.

In my reading the manifesto is focused on industrialised societies.It was focused on industrialized societies since these are the ones in a position to evolve into classless communism. Other non-industrialized societies are still described as being class societies, but they haven't built the productive capacity to make communism possible, so they aren't the audience the manifesto is addressing.

The economy of Russia was not subject to urbanisation and labour surpluses, different issues prevailed.True, other issues prevailed, but class struggle was still rampant. The absence of industrialization, social organization and surplus simply means that this class struggle wasn't ripe for revolution in the Marxist sense of the word.

Different issues to industrialised nations. The reality is the "have nots" by acquisitioning land would have been forced into a capital supply chain and ultimately the economy would collapse (eg: Zimbabwe) or national famine would prevail (eg: Russia under Stalin and Zimbabwe under Magabe).I don't see how this isn't related to the concept of class struggle outlined in the manifesto. This sounds like foreign markets "on pain of extinction" being forced into the bourgeois mode of production, becoming bourgeois themselves - pure manifesto.

Also, in terms of economic theory, in times of scarcity social units become more unequal. In times of surplus things tend to equal themselves out. eg: there is no need for conflict between societies when surplus exist - trade is an option.It sounds like common sense, as things should work, but I don't think that the evidence supports this theory. Class divisions are sustained by threat of scarcity, otherwise why would anyone agree to work onerous jobs. If scarcity is the threat enforcing class subjugation, then surplus is corrosive to that threat. This is why the conditions of artificial scarcity need to be created and tolerated in an advanced industrialized country, where abundance is the reality.

On the other hand, if scarcity comes to all, there is less with which to bribe the oppressed whether or not complicity is granted. Resources are spent on survival rather than social glue. In conditions where classes haven't developed at all, the equality is more pronounced.

I don't see any of my examples as examples of class struggle. I see them as "competing national interests".What is a "national interest" and who defines it?

The Mongolian example concerned access to a closed market not a class struggle.Who closed what market to whom and why?

Ostensively most of the USA policies mentioned were for the collective defense of all classes within the USA,That's the story, but what's the reality? Who made what decisions, based upon what criteria, and for whom? By saying that the Eisenhower Doctrine aimed at securing "American oil interests" in the Middle East, you've named the interests in question - not mine. British and American interference with oil interests were an attempt to wrest control of Iranian resources from Iranians to benefit American and British industry - sounds like class struggle to me.

I call myself a social capitalist. Using that tag, people tend to be more open to considering my "left leaning" viewpoint. Basically, reward those who contribute to the community according to the value that the community places on their contribution. Those with surplus capital to their essential needs should contribute to the common good (expansion/stability/order) of the community (free schools, free essential medical etc).Sounds like Social Democracy, like the UK Labour Party and other Second International groups. I agree that such a system is more humane than the meagre welfare state we have in the US, but I don't like the paternalistic role the state plays in such a system. Without restructuring power and production in society, these social gains can easily be taken away, as our New Deal era benefits are eroding now.

BTW, "Social Equality" in the US is the name of a Trotskyite party.

[apostoli]

Hello Jim,

Historically, most Christian socialists eschew violence, including the structural violence of the capitalist system (hence their socialism). Other liberation theologians question this pacificism, viewing forceable defense against situations of violence to be legitimate. I myself tend toward pacificism (principled nonviolence), but I would never deny another the decision to forceable self-defense.I personally don't eschew pacificism (fatalism), nor do I eschew social militarianism (self determination). My philosophy is one of an active social response to severe inequality in a community by non-violent communal activity.

Imo, many liberationists and socialists tend to want to drive their agenda without any consideration to a practical analysis of the issues they want to remedy. They tend to be like the man who walked into a hardware store wanting to acquire a hole, who got very irritated when the attendant gave him a drill.

In many parts of the world there is not class struggle but ethnic and/or ideological struggle (eg: in Iraq the conflict between sunni vs shia vs kharijite vs sufi, even within the same ethnic group). Imo, Marx and Engels because of their particular centricity failed to recognise that in both secular and religious society, unification of the proletariate is always limited to an introspective group. And because of this there will always be conflict between successful and unsuccessful proletariate communities.

Of course such conflict may be caused by one community having access to resources that the other doesn't. Would it be justifiable for the resourceless community to invade the successful community to forcefully secure their perceived needs (economic self-defense)? To me this is the foundation principal in my judgement of liberation theology. Where is the line drawn between the "haves" and "have nots"?

Marxism and Christian socialism are two different things. That's why I said I could see how someone could call Marxism an "anti-type", but failed to see how Christian socialism itself could be considered an "anti-type".Imu, the politics of Christian socialism (particularly in the history of South America) is focused on Marxist philosophy not scripture. Imo, the idea flows that God is taking too long to make things better, we'll do it our selves through voilent means rather than promoting christian morality.

Imo, one can be either a christian or a socialist. Christianity if practiced would automatically deliver the socialist dream.

Imo, "Christian socialism" is a negated term. What does it mean?

Marxists use the word "class" differently. A division of labor doesn't necessarily imply a class system, if the divisions in question are equal in power and freely chosen. Divisions take on a class character when one division is privileged over another or the divisions aren't freely chosen, such as when one person is born into a slave family and another is born a Rockefeller.Imu of Marxism, your example of born in circumstance is valid. However, imu, even Marx knew that some form of a class system must, for sometime, always exist and immediate "equal in power" was not a realistic expectation, as tiers of leaders and tiers of followers must always exist. And the tiers of leaders would always take a successively bigger piece of the cake. Imu, his expectation was that for now an under class must always exist and so class antogonism/conflict must exist until society finds a solution. Thus, constant revolution in society would ultimately lead to the evolution of the utopian state for all.

Lenin was quick to understand Marx and the need to limit free choice within the soviets.

I'm not very familiar with Australian Aborigine social structure, so I can't say, but I haven't seen any tiered class structure in association with that culture.To some extent it gets blured as the communities are absorbed into modern white culture. Traditionally, they have a very strict class structure. You may have heard of "men's business" and "women's business" which drive their internal politics. Also, within the male structures there are tiers regarding the initiated and uninitiated in respect of knowledge position (spear making, tracking, the dreamtime folklore etc).

Personal possessions aren't the same as private property. No Marxist wants to take your spear... Only social property should be socially controlled, i.e. things which require social/collective power to use.In primitive culture having exclusive ownership of the spear is the means of production, leading to social status. The hunters capital in the community. Marx would have us remove the spear from the hunter and provide it for general use. Thus, through giving him no incentive (ie: he now has no symbol of status, nor means of establishing his status) he has no incentive to contribute to his society. The result could lead to a decrease in supply of essential goods and services, loss of skills and a general dumbing down in society (ie: apart from having acquired the skill to hunt with a spear, the hunter has tracking skills to locate prey. The hunter might not be induced to pass on his skills if his status and benefits are lost or for that matter, he might decide to leave the community).

First, Owen's New Lanark didn't fail;To my knowledge evey commentator including Marx considered Owen's and the French experiments dismal failures (as was the nineteenth century experiment in Paraguay, which a remnant at least remains in existence). Hence, Marx/Lenin/Stalin/Mao acknowlegement advocacy of forced labour for the slackers.

Research over the last century has demonstrated that social incentives are stronger than wage incentives to keep the high productivity in cooperatives.which is evidenced from the USA nomination race. There is no money in politics but plenty of status. Offer peanuts as a reward, we get Peanuts! Which explains a lot about world politics ;-)

In the capitalist world, the status thing is part of the theory of workplace management. It works for unskilled labour or where there is high staff turnover eg: employee of the month. Skilled labor, being more cynical, require more tangible rewards.

Chinese and Russian experience demonstrate that "status incentives" lead to corruption. Whereas, "social incentives" which provide status, such as a getting a bigger house, more rations etc have productivity benefits.

In another age, I might agree with your value contribution model. Living as I do in an age of material abundance, I don't begrudge the bludger - I pity them. I don't see a person's necessities as being contingent upon what they can offer me, but livelihood is due them based upon their humanity. In the rare case my community couldn't support a bludger, I'd kick them out; I would never force anyone to labor to "change their ways"Imu, in the USA & Europe there is no opportunity to bludge. They do not have the safety net for workers that us in socialist societies take for granted.

A wider issue, is that the "bludger" can become isolated from society, may become depressed, and so seeks solice in alcohol, drugs and/or anti-social activity. Forced labour is intended to assist in reintegrating the individual into society. Of course the individual can't be made to work (they might throw a sabo into the machine), but he/she is made to engage the community. Forced labour can take many forms, it can be as simple as making people send their kids to school, making sure the kids are fed (as evidenced by the Australian Government's recent intervention in remote aboriginal communities).

What do you think socialists do with their time? We educate and organize, as well as agitate.To my knowledge, the first free public education systems were instigated by various communities of christians (eg: Marcellen, De la Salle etc).

In most western countries there is some form of free education at least to the pre-tertiary level. So, being an avid reader of current socialist literature, with its diversity of views, I suggest "propagandize" might be a better term than "educate".

Though there are exceptions. Here in Sydney we have an institution called "The Workers Education Center" that was setup by the unions long ago to allow workers access to liberal studies (eg: drama, poetry and various practical pursuits).

No one can be a passive socialist, no more than they can passively participate in a democracy.In my country voting is compulsary, so I consider it a passive participation in government. I guess in countries like the USA, you'd consider voting as active participation in your democracy, but in reality it is passive participation in government. So, in my viewpoint, the average person passively participates in a democracy.

However, possibly you mean that to be recognised as an active socialist or democrat, one must directly participate in the party machine. If so, in my opinion, unless one is in a position to influence policy, one is a passive participant.

Imo, whatever one's ideology is, it must be lived. So, if this is what you mean as an opposite of passive, I agree. If one is a christian, democrat, socialist or whatever, it must be lived and be evident, to be active.

Education and organization are key parts of socialism.As they are in capitalism. Capitalism has always been dependent on having access to skilled labour. To have skilled labour education must be provided. And capitalism cannot survive in a disorganised environment, so organisation is paramount.

Owen is an example of a social capitalist. Being an industrialist he quickly realised if his worker's could read and write, he had independence from the technologists of his day, so he built a school for his workers. In terms of his social agenda there was no need for the worker to be able to have an education.

Why do you think that the manifesto places the working class in a unique position to end class society? Due to their unique virtue or heredity? No. Marx holds that the working class can create revolution precisely because they are the engine of wealth in society. Simply unite, withhold your labor from oppressive structures, and create a world where you produce for your own class interests.When Marx and Engels wrote the manifesto they were anticipating a bourgeoisie revolution in Germany, not a worker revolution. In his opinion the later did not then have the capacity to rise, even if organised (lacked educated leadership).

He assumed that following natural history that at some point in future history the bourgeoisie system would itself be replaced via a worker revolution, once the worker acquired the neccessary social skills.

Unfortunately the bourgeoisie revolution didn't happen in the way Marx envisaged.

In a socialist publication I recently encountered, it stated that Marx would have been a historical non-entity if it had not been for Lenin and the Russian revolution. And history shows that the 1917 revolution/s would have failed, as did the 1905 attempt at revolution, without leadership from the intelligensia (bourgeoisie).

Of interest: the Russian revolution did not commence as an organised, intentional worker revolt, but as a random protest against food shortages.

Far be it from a flaw, you are describing Marx's theory of revolution.Depends on whether you are referring to Marx, or one of the Marxist revisions. His theory of social evolution may have some validity. However, imu, his thoughts on revolution have never been validated.

Neither Marx nor Engels said that violent conflict was necessary...To quote Lenin quoting Engels quoting Marx...

"...That force, however, plays yet another role [other than that of a diabolical power] in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society which is pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilized political forms"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm

Revolution is in no ways the same as insurrection...I agree. Though I qualify "Socialism requires the will and active decision of the greater community, not the forced opinion of a non-representative group of free thinkers".

Imo, another silliness of Marx and Engels is their view of capital. All systems ultimately resort to some form of a capital system...I think you're confusing different things: a bag of potatoes isn't capital...Services aren't capital either. Money itself isn't capital...In my world, anything used to acquire means of production or to obtain product requires an input, usually termed capital! without it there is nothing we can obtain.

Capitalism is the restructuring of an economy with an aim to capital accumulation as opposed to commodity production or the satisfaction of wants and needs...By this definition capitalism has always existed - wealth accumulation rather than essential sustenance has always been a motivation of traders. Local economies are always resconstructed on the basis of the level of wealth in the community.

Possibly your objection relates to collective capital=capitalism, where a natural person cannot be held accountable.

In a communist system, the bag of potatoes would already be there, whether or not someone cuts in line to take Yusof's turn with the tractor. No one is going to go without potatoes, and so the potatoes don't serve as a useful tool in encouraging line-jumping. Also, in this world, you'd have to explain why someone has...to jump in front of Yusof in the first placeOne reason could be to meet his quota, or to be the producer of month (or prevent Yusof from achieving either).

The Chinese and Russian self commentaries, all agree, that their systems were not succesful because of internal corruption. If someone has something that someone else finds value in, then an exchange will take place. There is a very good old soviet movie set in Finland (I forget the name) that indirectly explores this phenomenon. Basically, this guy allows a local commissar to have sex with his wife in exchange for extra rations. Ultimately (after years of this) the wife (or maybe it was the husband) kills the commissar and everyone lives happily ever after.

Also, in this world, you'd have to explain why someone has the driving need to jump in front of Yusof in the first place - seems a little silly to me. If I were Yusof, I'd just let the jumper go first and feel sorry for his lack of social skills.Except Yusof not having access to the tractor might not meet his quota. Not many communal societies are big on social skills. One reason the Chinese government has been making the Bejing locals do politeness classes leading up to the olympics.

The reality is the "have nots" by acquisitioning land would have been forced into a capital supply chain and ultimately the economy would collapse (eg: Zimbabwe)...I don't see how this isn't related to the concept of class struggle outlined in the manifesto. This sounds like foreign markets "on pain of extinction" being forced into the bourgeois mode of production, becoming bourgeois themselves - pure manifesto.Imu, the issues are not related to class struggle, but the inability of a class to replace another class. In the case of Zimbabwe those that acquisitioned the land did not have the knowledge to manage it, and those that did have the knowledge fled the region. In this case, one working class ousted another working class as well as the white farmers (capitalists) who financed the upkeep of the farm. So double whammy. Stalin's plan was no better as the ousted farmers simply withdrew their skills.

in terms of economic theory, in times of scarcity social units become more unequal. In times of surplus things tend to equal themselves out. eg: there is no need for conflict between societies when surplus exist - trade is an option.It sounds like common sense, as things should work, but I don't think that the evidence supports this theory.strangely enough, it is the basis of modern capitalist production. It is essential to maintain consumer surpluses, for social stability and growth. The trouble is, some consumer commodities, such as oil, are external to capitalist manipulation.

Class divisions are sustained by threat of scarcity, otherwise why would anyone agree to work onerous jobs. If scarcity is the threat enforcing class subjugation, then surplus is corrosive to that threat. This is why the conditions of artificial scarcity need to be created and tolerated in an advanced industrialized country, where abundance is the reality.Though certain consumer goods are in abundance, the threat is in constraining the ability to acquire those goods (eg: through unemployment).

On the other hand, if scarcity comes to all, there is less with which to bribe the oppressed whether or not complicity is granted. Resources are spent on survival rather than social glue. In conditions where classes haven't developed at all, the equality is more pronounced.(?) Would you expand. Maybe with examples.

What is a "national interest" and who defines it?Usually those ruling the country. And by default, the people of the nation who permit the ruling class to rule.

The Mongolian example concerned access to a closed market not a class struggle.Who closed what market to whom and why?of interest: The event took place in the 12th century. The Mongolian's took control of Bejing. They could have seized power and forced the market open, but it wasn't their aim.

The who: The chinese emporer on advice from his manderins.
The why: Internal stability of China, economic and social. And China's recurring policy of isolationism.

Ostensively most of the USA policies mentioned were for the collective defense of all classes within the USA,That's the story, but what's the reality? Who made what decisions, based upon what criteria, and for whom? By saying that the Eisenhower Doctrine aimed at securing "American oil interests" in the Middle East, you've named the interests in question - not mine.Do you drive a car, use electricity, eat food etc? If so the policy was in your interest, or if you weren't born at the time, your parents interest and by co-incidence your interest.

British and American interference with oil interests were an attempt to wrest control of Iranian resources from Iranians to benefit American and British industry - sounds like class struggle to me.How do you account for the USSR's absorption of Azerbaijan (something, like many other states they didn't need or want).


BTW, "Social Equality" in the US is the name of a Trotskyite party.You might find the following link amusing/insightful.

GEORGE W. BUSH, TROTSKYITE
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j111003.html

Peace

[Nanny]

Just found this thread. Boy, have I got a lot of reading to do.:sigh:

[joel]

find capitalism and democracy to be incompatible

How so?


the legitimacy of modern war (for the most part an outgrowth of capitalist economics)
That's not accurate. If you consider capitalist economics in light of classical liberalism, then there is no place for wars of aggression. The protection of private property and the rejection of wars of aggression are the result of the same principle of classical liberalism. It can only be by a rejection of classical liberalism and the underlying principles of capitalism that anyone advocates wars of aggression.


commodity fetishism and alienation mirror Christian criticisms of idolatry
What is 'commodity fetishism and alienation'?

when more than one person labors on a project, the project contains marks of all workers' labor, making it a piece of common or social property, not the property of one individual. The vast majority of modern "means of production" are cooperative and the product of many people, thus I think that they should be controlled by those whose labor makes the product possible.

I don't think common property is a meaningful concept.
Besides, what you say is not a problem for capitalism. When people embark on a joint venture, they contract ahead of time how property will be allocated. If we jointly create something that is indivisible, then perhaps we will contract that one of us will take ownership entirely and that person will compensate the others, as mutually agreed ahead of time.

capitalism isn't sustainable in a closed system

What do you mean by closed system, and why isn't capitalism sustainable in it?


Personally, my conscience and faith compel me to choose people over markets
I don't see how they are contradictory or in conflict.

Then I fail to see how "incentive" is a problem in socialism. I myself am one of those who'd work daily on various productive projects if money weren't an issue.

I can only assume you mean "if limited resources weren't an issue." But socialism can't make resources unlimited.


Capitalism is the restructuring of an economy with an aim to capital accumulation as opposed to commodity production or the satisfaction of wants and needs.

Those aren't in conflict. Indeed, one cannot produce commodities or satisfy wants without capital. If capital decreases, then poverty increases. Standard of living is directly tied to the supply of capital goods. Also, your description ignores a view of the future. People forgo current satisfaction in order to produce capital so that more goods and want-satisfaction can be produced in the future. That is the only sense in which there is a conflict between capital accumulation and current want-satisfaction--spending resources on increasing future production as opposed to current consumption.

In fact, this is the fatal flaw of socialism, that economist Ludwig von Mises pointed out in depth nearly a century ago--the gist of it being, that "Capital must be maintained intact if the future productivity of labor is not to be impaired." And, "even the mere maintenance of capital depends on the skillful handling of the problems of investment, that it is always the fruit of successful speculation, and...endeavors to maintain capital intact presuppose economic calculation and thereby the operation of the market economy." (Human Action)
Thus socialism necessarily results in poverty.

[StephenR]

*subscribed*

Interesting thread!

[joel]

wage disparity destroys true freedom and opportunity

On the contrary, forced equality (e.g., of wages) destroys true freedom and opportunity. Not to mention motivation to increase want satisfaction (of consumers).


While we need to be socialist, we need a freed market.
...
It's all about balance.
I don't think there's a consistent middle-ground between the two.

[Zionist1973]

I disagree, there is a middle ground, as in the Deng Xiaoping theory, or Lenin's New Economic Policy, just so long as it's not right wing or nationalistic. Remember, nationalism and socialism are enemies in every sense of the word, at least theoretically. The socialist member states of the EU actually follow a form of postmodern Leninism that's closer to what was advocated by Marx than what the Soviet bloc practiced. What we think of today as "socialism" is nothing more than Stalinism, plain and simple.

[joel]

I disagree, there is a middle ground, as in the Deng Xiaoping theory, or Lenin's New Economic Policy, just so long as it's not right wing or nationalistic.

I'm not familiar with those. Can you explain?

The reason I said I think there is no middle ground is because either the individual right to private ownership of the means of production is protected, or it is not.

Also, any movement away from free markets is counterproductive, so that any movement away from free markets based on consistent principles will move you utterly away from free markets.


Remember, nationalism and socialism are enemies in every sense of the word, at least theoretically.
What do you mean by nationalism? Patriotism--warm feelings towards one's homeland?


The socialist member states of the EU actually follow a form of postmodern Leninism that's closer to what was advocated by Marx than what the Soviet bloc practiced. What we think of today as "socialism" is nothing more than Stalinism, plain and simple.All I meant by socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. Is that agreeable?

[Zionist1973]

Sorry, let me clarify. Lenin's New Economic Policy advocates a free market economy in which private enterprises are allowed to operate without government interference so long as major industries (weapons production, utilities, transportation and media) are collectively owned. Deng Xiaoping was the defacto leader of China who initiated the current market changes to China's economy following the Great Leap Forward and took it further by advocating a "socialist market economy" by acknowledging that markets are a natural part of human financial interaction and must be allowed to operate so long as an egalitarian and social consciousness directs it. That middle ground has been found in Sweden, China, Britain, Vietnam and other states, albeit it is flawed, no system is perfect.

By nationalism, I mean right wing obsession with national identity coupled with regional imperialism (like with Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia) and yeah I totally agree, Socialism does advocate public ownership of the major means of production, just not total ownership of all means of production, which is communism.

[joel]

Sorry, let me clarify. Lenin's New Economic Policy advocates a free market economy in which private enterprises are allowed to operate without government interference so long as major industries (weapons production, utilities, transportation and media) are collectively owned.

On what principle is it decided what should be collectively owned?


...acknowledging that markets are a natural part of human financial interaction and must be allowed to operate so long as an egalitarian and social consciousness directs it.
What's 'social consciousness'?
Also, I'm not a big fan of egalitarianism. I care more about people's well-being than their equality. And I think people who have achieved values should not be forced to sacrifice them to those who have not. It asks for destruction in exchange for equality.

What I am in favor of is equality before the law. That kind of equality is what is best for societal interaction, and is what is socially-minded (perhaps this is what you meant by social consciousness).

Can you give an example of a good intervention with or "directing" of the markets in favor of egalitarianism?

[Zionist1973]

On what principle is it decided what should be collectively owned?

What's 'social consciousness'?
Also, I'm not a big fan of egalitarianism. I care more about people's well-being than their equality. And I think people who have achieved values should not be forced to sacrifice them to those who have not. It asks for destruction in exchange for equality.

What I am in favor of is equality before the law. That kind of equality is what is best for societal interaction, and is what is socially-minded (perhaps this is what you meant by social consciousness).

Can you give an example of a good intervention with or "directing" of the markets in favor of egalitarianism?

Social Consciousness=the elected body of representatives that form democratic governments

And sorry my friend, but that sounds like a self contradiction if you say you care more about someone's well being rather than their equality, simply because that equality is paramount to personal well being. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that government should interfere so much that everyone is sleeping under the same kind of overpass, what I mean is that everyone deserves the equal right to the resources that the whole produces so everyone can have the same opportunity to succeed, no matter their background, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.

Also, you say that people have the right to not sacrifice what they produce for the welfare of their fellow man. That doesn't sit will with me because one reason capitalism is so prominent is because it's central claim is because "good" for the country and its economy, when in reality the only real good (e.g. profits) goes to the elite. If capitalism was a virtuous system and really cared about the good of the nation as a whole, it would seek out to redistribute the excessive wealth amongst it's worst off citizens and in return, we could see the growth of many new and very successful, private enterprises. Why? Because people that have an opportunity to succeed usually do, we just need to give everyone the equal opportunity to do this. Given not all people will take advantage of this, as any Free Market Economy is bound to be unpredictable, but there will be some, grateful for the sacrifice of the elite, and they will seek to better their lives by becoming just like them. I know it's a risk, but that's what capitalism is all about anyway, taking risks.

Socialism is a system where the success of one is the success of all and people come before profit. If you want an example of how the government intervened to save a national economy, look at the New Deal in the US during the forties, or more recently, the socialization of Europe in countries like Sweden, Britain and France. It's time we thought on a supranational level and adopted a Fair Market Economy with Free Trade values.

[joel]

And sorry my friend, but that sounds like a self contradiction if you say you care more about someone's well being rather than their equality, simply because that equality is paramount to personal well being. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that government should interfere so much that everyone is sleeping under the same kind of overpass, what I mean is that everyone deserves the equal right to the resources that the whole produces so everyone can have the same opportunity to succeed, no matter their background, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.

So then whenever someone produces more resources then it's immediately divided among everyone. Then the motivation is not to produce more productive resources, but to consume them, leading inexorably to poverty. This kind of egalitarianism ends in death and destruction.


Also, you say that people have the right to not sacrifice what they produce for the welfare of their fellow man. That doesn't sit will with me because one reason capitalism is so prominent is because it's central claim is because "good" for the country and its economy, when in reality the only real good (e.g. profits) goes to the elite.
Who are 'the elite'?
It is good for society because it promotes peaceful, mutually beneficial societal interaction.
It also provides motivation for increasing productive resources, and for better and better satisfying the wants of consumers. This tends toward an increase in everyone's quality of life.


If capitalism was a virtuous system and really cared about the good of the nation as a whole, it would seek out to redistribute the excessive wealth amongst it's worst off citizens
This reasoning ignores the negative impact of forced redistribution on production and production capacity.
A stable, durable economy cannot be built upon expropriation.

For example, current (progressive) tax law in the U.S. hinders the ability of small private enterprises to compete with the large established corporations.


Socialism is a system where the success of one is the success of all and people come before profit.
Capitalism is a 'system' where the success of one comes only by serving the wants and needs of consumers (i.e., all people are consumers), and better satisfying people is the only way to profit.


If you want an example of how the government intervened to save a national economy, look at the New Deal in the US during the forties,
The New Deal prolonged and worsened the great depression. And its remnants still have a negative impact on the economy today.

[Super Cow]

Social Consciousness=the elected body of representatives that form democratic governments

Also, you say that people have the right to not sacrifice what they produce for the welfare of their fellow man. That doesn't sit will with me because one reason capitalism is so prominent is because it's central claim is because "good" for the country and its economy, when in reality the only real good (e.g. profits) goes to the elite.

This is nonsense. The profits go to everybody. Granted, in many cases they are distributed disproportionately in the favor of those with more responsibility, but everyone benefits when the economy is good, and when your employer is profitable.

If capitalism was a virtuous system and really cared about the good of the nation as a whole, it would seek out to redistribute the excessive wealth amongst it's worst off citizens and in return, we could see the growth of many new and very successful, private enterprises. Why? Because people that have an opportunity to succeed usually do, we just need to give everyone the equal opportunity to do this. Given not all people will take advantage of this, as any Free Market Economy is bound to be unpredictable, but there will be some, grateful for the sacrifice of the elite, and they will seek to better their lives by becoming just like them. I know it's a risk, but that's what capitalism is all about anyway, taking risks.

Capitalism is virtuous in the sense that it forces the nation as a whole and individuals to better themselves. To suggest that people who are given an opportunity to succeed usually do is also false. It depends a great deal on what you mean by success, but by an large, most people only push themselves to the next level when they have the incentive to do so. The incentive necessary varies from person to person, but without incentive, most people will fail.

In most cases, when the elite sacrifice, the citizens demand more. The citizens who would be prone to push themselves to the next level, would do so without any sacrifice from the elites, and would not need to the elites to make it to the next level.

Now, one thing I can understand is that random circumstances can push some people to the brink of despair, where the leg up of charity may be necessary, useful and beneficial. This leg up is rarely going to be useful as a single event monetary gift, and will never be useful as an ongoing, no-strings-attached cash outlay. All that you will do is turn the person from despair to dependency. You're much better off forcing the person to work for the money, and make sure he is learning something useful from the experience. That is the only way the person can truly benefit.

Socialism is a system where the success of one is the success of all and people come before profit. If you want an example of how the government intervened to save a national economy, look at the New Deal in the US during the forties, or more recently, the socialization of Europe in countries like Sweden, Britain and France. It's time we thought on a supranational level and adopted a Fair Market Economy with Free Trade values.

The New Deal from FDR was a disaster. First of all, it would not have been necessary if not for the even more disastrous protectionist policies of Hoover before him, but wouldn't have worked long term. It was not the New Deal that got the U.S. out of the depression. It was the uniting of the country behind the industrial machine of the second world war. Even J.F.K. realized the 94% top tax rates were stifling the economy, when he lowered them to 70%. And the big booms of the second half of the 80's and 90's were a result of the futher lowering of taxes by Reagan to 50% and then to 28%.

It's plain to me that everyone has benefited, considering the comparison of the quality of life for the average person now, versus the average person 50, 60 or 70 years ago. Yes, there are still poor people, and there were poor people then. Socialism may help the extremely poor, but the lower-classes break even, and it drags everyone from middle-class and upwards down to a lower level. The only strategic business advantage the U.S. has left will evaporate, and businesses will relocate to more profitable locations.

[Daniel Keeran]

I believe Jesus brought a message to change the individual life style rather than to bring in an economic or political system, as he said, "the kingdom of God is within you" and "my kingdom is not of this world." Jesus, and John the Baptist before him, called on followers to distribute to the poor. The gospel is to the poor, and the kingdom is for the poor. After Jesus told the apostles to teach them whatever I commanded you, we find the first church in Acts 2 selling all and distributing to the poor. This is a hard message for our materialistic society that calls us to the god of greed.

[Super Cow]

Christ never advocated anyone to be forced to give anything to anybody. It was always voluntary. That's a big difference from marxism. The old law covenant only required state support for those without a reasonable way to completely support themselves, never to support someone who refused menial work because it was beneath them. Never to support someone who squandered their means on poor lifestyle choices or substance abuse.

There are three or four basic tenants of balanced economic policy in the Bible.

1.) Help the extremely impoverished with no means to support themselves.
2.) Prevent excessive greed from:
-- a.) the extremely rich through exploiting or abusing others. (Giving a job is not exploitation by the way)
-- b.) anyone by theft or breaches of contract.
3.) Forgive people once in their lifetime for getting in over their head. (Jubilee years)
4.) Give a portion of their earnings to support worship.
5.) Leave everyone else to their own devices to succeed however they thought appropriate to support themselves and their family.

Even in your quote of Acts 2, the choice to sell and give to the poor was voluntary. In many other churches that Paul visited people carried on normal lives and did what they could to support those who were driven to choose the full-time ministry as they did in those passages.

[Daniel Keeran]

Christ never advocated anyone to be forced to give anything to anybody. It was always voluntary. That's a big difference from marxism. The old law covenant only required state support for those without a reasonable way to completely support themselves, never to support someone who refused menial work because it was beneath them. Never to support someone who squandered their means on poor lifestyle choices or substance abuse.

There are three or four basic tenants of balanced economic policy in the Bible.

1.) Help the extremely impoverished with no means to support themselves.
2.) Prevent excessive greed from:
-- a.) the extremely rich through exploiting or abusing others. (Giving a job is not exploitation by the way)
-- b.) anyone by theft or breaches of contract.
3.) Forgive people once in their lifetime for getting in over their head. (Jubilee years)
4.) Give a portion of their earnings to support worship.
5.) Leave everyone else to their own devices to succeed however they thought appropriate to support themselves and their family.

Even in your quote of Acts 2, the choice to sell and give to the poor was voluntary. In many other churches that Paul visited people carried on normal lives and did what they could to support those who were driven to choose the full-time ministry as they did in those passages.


Most of your points are from the Old Testament Law that Christians are no longer under according to Hebrews 8. Certainly all obedience is voluntary. But John the Baptist and Jesus then the apostles brought in a radical teaching of voluntary distribution of wealth.

[joel]

I believe Jesus brought a message to change the individual life style rather than to bring in an economic or political system, as he said, "the kingdom of God is within you" and "my kingdom is not of this world." Jesus, and John the Baptist before him, called on followers to distribute to the poor. The gospel is to the poor, and the kingdom is for the poor. After Jesus told the apostles to teach them whatever I commanded you, we find the first church in Acts 2 selling all and distributing to the poor. This is a hard message for our materialistic society that calls us to the god of greed.
Who is advocating that we follow the god of greed? This sounds like a straw man.
Yes we ought to practice charity. But justice and free enterprise is essential to reducing poverty overall. Does that not matter?

Suppose there is a 'rich' farmer and some poor beggars. Suppose one Autumn that because of force, guilt, or a charitable mood the farmer distributes all his grain to the poor, who consume it during the winter. Then Spring rolls around, and it is time to plant, but all the grain has been consumed. There is no more left to the farmer to use as seed. Because he gave all his capital (savings) to the poor, everyone is doomed to starvation.

We ought not get so carried away with giving handouts to the poor that we actually increase their poverty (or increase the number of people who are poor).

[Daniel Keeran]

Who is advocating that we follow the god of greed? This sounds like a straw man.
Yes we ought to practice charity. But justice and free enterprise is essential to reducing poverty overall. Does that not matter?

Suppose there is a 'rich' farmer and some poor beggars. Suppose one Autumn that because of force, guilt, or a charitable mood the farmer distributes all his grain to the poor, who consume it during the winter. Then Spring rolls around, and it is time to plant, but all the grain has been consumed. There is no more left to the farmer to use as seed. Because he gave all his capital (savings) to the poor, everyone is doomed to starvation.

We ought not get so carried away with giving handouts to the poor that we actually increase their poverty (or increase the number of people who are poor).

Maybe we are talking about two different things. I do not advocate a political economy but believe Jesus taught individuals to live a certain lifestyle of living on less and care for the poor. This also requires wisdom to have enough to invest as you suggest, so that abundance of resources can be created to employ others and to have enough to share with the poor who for many reasons struggle with functioning in daily life.

[karen22]

Maybe we are talking about two different things. I do not advocate a political economy but believe Jesus taught individuals to live a certain lifestyle of living on less and care for the poor. This also requires wisdom to have enough to invest as you suggest, so that abundance of resources can be created to employ others and to have enough to share with the poor who for many reasons struggle with functioning in daily life.

I think the Bible shows the simplicity and the complexity of righteous living. On one hand we are taught to take care of the poor, naked, widows, and needy; on the other hand, we are taught to be good stewards (growing our talents, so to speak.)

The question is always asks, how does one help the needy without becoming an enabler? How do we help, without hindering the individual to be their own good steward. Years of experience with this has taught me one crucial thing--charity never faileth. Now you may think this means that you give a hand out when required. To me, this means no such thing. Instead, charity is the pure love of Christ and Christ is not always "charitable" in our sense of understanding, but He is always charitable in that He gives that which will help the individual become their best self. For instance, He is the good Samaritan while also turning away the guest for not wearing the proper wedding attire.

In other words, what I have found is that often doing the charitable thing appears sometimes to be hard or harsh. I have learned that one must listen to the Spirit in all ways to detect what true charity is; as charity is the pure love of Christ, He is the director of what true charity looks like.

I have found that this type of charity is hard. It is easier to give (or enable) and look good to the public. It is harder to speak frankly to someone privately who needs to understand that their behavior is hurting themselves as well as others, and then possibly endure the criticisms of those in which they then complain to about your honesty. Often, the spirit willl prick you to help someone who it is not obvious stands in need of help and you often do it anonymously as that is what is dictated by the Spirit. The receiver and the giver can then let the glory by God's alone.

The sad thing to me in our economy today (in the US) is we are becoming the giant government of enablers, rather than givers of pure charity. Pure charity dictates that at times, people suffer so that they can humble themselves and turn to God. Pure charity demands that it is understood that God is the provider, and certainly not the government. Pure charity demands accountability. Pure charity allows for mercy and growth at the same time. Ultimately, pure charity promotes the freedom of the individual and the society. Hand-outs do not; it disguises itself as charity, but in reality is bondage.

Personally, it worries me the path we are the U.S. are taking in the name of charity (also known as a huge stimulus package and bail-out.) Instead of well-being and freedom for our society, we our sowing the seeds of bondange.

[Sheepdog]

Paul foresaw the logical conclusion of socialism. Or perhaps he didn't, he was dealing with a real problem, but he happened to address the fatal flaw that causes socialism to fail, wherever it's applied and no matter by who.

6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

11We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. 13And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.

14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.
2 Thessalonians 3:6-15

Even in the Christian culture, there is still sin. I'm sure that's the "no duh" statement of the night, but specifically, there will always be a portion of the society which will exploit the charity and good will of the society as a whole, to the greatest extent they can. Unchecked, such free-loaders will inevitably create such a burden on the society that it will collapse, and brutally so. There are two solutions to free-loading: top-down dictatorships (hence socialism frequently goes hand in hand with fascism), or make the free-loaders hang in the wind. The latter entails a form of capitalism, where instead of taking from each according to his ability and giving to each according to his need (Marx), we maintain an appropriate reward for work, encouraging charity where possible and appropriate.

[Sheepdog]

Most of your points are from the Old Testament Law that Christians are no longer under according to Hebrews 8.

but the moral code behind the Law (the "spirit of the law" if you will) was never revoked by Jesus, and in fact He said he came to fulfill it. (i.e. to make it "full")

Certainly all obedience is voluntary. But John the Baptist and Jesus then the apostles brought in a radical teaching of voluntary distribution of wealth.

how did you come to that conclusion?

[Daniel Keeran]

Again, I am not speaking of a political economy but a life-style in which each disciple must struggle with the message of the prophets fulfilled in the teaching of John the Baptist and Jesus and the early church. We see it first in the response of Mary to the annunciation, then in the preaching of John the Baptist saying, "He who has two coats give to him who has none; he has food should do likewise" (Luke 3:11). This theme runs throughout the NT.

[Daniel Keeran]

but the moral code behind the Law (the "spirit of the law" if you will) was never revoked by Jesus, and in fact He said he came to fulfill it. (i.e. to make it "full")

how did you come to that conclusion?

Yes the moral law is encoded in the teaching of the apostles after Pentecost. The radical distribution of wealth begins with the preacing of John the Baptist in Luke 3:11 and runs through the NT. Nearly all he says impacts the wealth of his hearers, and so it is an economic landscaping that occurs, making mountains low and valleys high, making smooth/straight the highway for our God; a radical repentance in terms of distribution of wealth/justice for the poor.

[Sheepdog]

So, if I had $10 in my wallet, and instead of giving it to a bum in the street I spent it on beer for my own consumption, would I be living in sin?

[Sheepdog]

Yes the moral law is encoded in the teaching of the apostles after Pentecost. The radical distribution of wealth begins with the preacing of John the Baptist in Luke 3:11 and runs through the NT. Nearly all he says impacts the wealth of his hearers, and so it is an economic landscaping that occurs, making mountains low and valleys high, making smooth/straight the highway for our God; a radical repentance in terms of distribution of wealth/justice for the poor.

so, the gospel doesn't have to do with salvation of the soul, but rather the meager redistribution of wealth?

[Daniel Keeran]

So, if I had $10 in my wallet, and instead of giving it to a bum in the street I spent it on beer for my own consumption, would I be living in sin?

It is question of what would be most helpful or compassionate for the homeless. You know it would perhaps not help him to give cash. Rather you could say, "I don't give cash but would you like something to eat?" Then as you go to the grocery or cafe, you could ask about where he slet last night, etc.

[Daniel Keeran]

so, the gospel doesn't have to do with salvation of the soul, but rather the meager redistribution of wealth?

Salvation of my soul has to do with my care for the poor among other things to do with living a holy and righteous life. Many of the homeless are not able to accept the gospel because of their mental struggles.

[joel]

It is question of what would be most helpful or compassionate for the homeless.
But buying and consuming a beer is not at all helpful for the homeless. Likewise my consumption of a sandwich or anything at all. If I spend anything at all on consumption, is that sinful?

[Daniel Keeran]

But buying and consuming a beer is not at all helpful for the homeless. Likewise my consumption of a sandwich or anything at all. If I spend anything at all on consumption, is that sinful?

You think eating a sandwich or anything at all is not helpful to you?

Paul gives this teaching:

1 Timothy 6:7-9
For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that.

[joel]

You think eating a sandwich or anything at all is not helpful to you?

That's not what I said. Person A eating a sandwich is not helpful to homeless person B. In fact, it uses up resources with which person A could have helped the homeless. Person A chose to eat the sandwich instead of (an additional increment of) helping the homeless.

[Sheepdog]

It is question of what would be most helpful or compassionate for the homeless. You know it would perhaps not help him to give cash. Rather you could say, "I don't give cash but would you like something to eat?" Then as you go to the grocery or cafe, you could ask about where he slet last night, etc.

clever. you saw where I was going (it is not good or healthy to give homeless persons cash, since some of them would use it on drugs/alcohol).


Salvation of my soul has to do with my care for the poor among other things to do with living a holy and righteous life. Many of the homeless are not able to accept the gospel because of their mental struggles.

you didn't answer my question. further, you are suggesting a sort of works-salvation. How does Eph. 2:1-10 cohere with your construction of the Gospel?


I do want to go back to a passage you used earlier, though. you refer to John the Baptist where he said "He who has two coats give to him who has none; he has food should do likewise." maybe i'm too rigid in my thinking, but how is this really all that radical? all he is saying is to give benevolently to those in need. it doesn't *necessarily* entail Christians pooling all their disposable income into a fund to support the poor a la Acts 2. a group of Christians can do that if they want, i am just saying that some portion of your income should go to charitable giving, which is not a departure from the Law or radical at all.

let me change my scenario. I give $10 to a local homeless shelter, and then i spend $10 on beer. what i then do regarding the homeless man is to direct him to the shelter. did i sin when i spent the money on beer for my personal consumption?

[Daniel Keeran]

That's not what I said. Person A eating a sandwich is not helpful to homeless person B. In fact, it uses up resources with which person A could have helped the homeless. Person A chose to eat the sandwich instead of (an additional increment of) helping the homeless.

Person A is also a human being in need of nutrition to stay alive. But if he is morbidly obese, maybe he should eat go on a diet.

[Daniel Keeran]

you didn't answer my question. further, you are suggesting a sort of works-salvation. How does Eph. 2:1-10 cohere with your construction of the Gospel?

I do want to go back to a passage you used earlier, though. you refer to John the Baptist where he said "He who has two coats give to him who has none; he has food should do likewise." maybe i'm too rigid in my thinking, but how is this really all that radical? all he is saying is to give benevolently to those in need. it doesn't *necessarily* entail Christians pooling all their disposable income into a fund to support the poor a la Acts 2. a group of Christians can do that if they want, i am just saying that some portion of your income should go to charitable giving, which is not a departure from the Law or radical at all.

let me change my scenario. I give $10 to a local homeless shelter, and then i spend $10 on beer. what i then do regarding the homeless man is to direct him to the shelter. did i sin when i spent the money on beer for my personal consumption?

1. Re works salvation see Luke 17:10 and relate to Matthew 25:41-43. Must we do our duty?
2. John the Baptist in Luke 3:11 begins the preaching of the messianic kingdom with "decisions for the poor" Isaiah 11:4.
3. Acts 2 is a fulfillment of Jesus' radical teaching about selling and giving.
4. Should I spend money on a beer, etc.? We must each take up the cross daily and struggle with every decision based on Jesus' teahcing to renounce all in Luke 14:33.